I was one of those who supported the overthrow of Zelaya, because in my opinion he was leading us to a dictatorship, and he had to be stopped before it was too late.

However, I do not share the radicalism expressed by some of the more radical members of the group of “Whiteys” (blanquitos).

“Whitey” (blanquito) is a somewhat derogatory term used to identify those who supported the Micheletti regime after the overthrow of Zelaya. The name “Whiteys” came from the rallies in which Micheletti supporters dressed in white.

The organization called the Civic Democratic Union (UCD) arose spontaneously in response to the the “fourth ballot box” project that aimed to change the Political Constitution.

This organization has been weakened after the inauguration of President Lobo, since he has not followed the hard line of those that oppose Zelaya.

This shows that the UCD is more of a “reactionary” than a civic organization. The UCD has not submitted any proposal for the development of the country, and is only interested in going against the Zelaya group.

The most radical anti-Zelayistas opposed to the transfer of frequency of channel 8, saying it was an act of illegal expropriation by the government, which was shown to be false. This frequency was being used illegally by a private corporation, and is now in control of the Honduran State. El Heraldo newspaper made a strong campaign insisting on this lie, despite its slogan boasts of being “the truth in your hands.” By this time I stopped reading this newspaper regularly

El Heraldo newspaper has a strong anti-Zelaya bias. I’m not a supporter of Zelaya, but I don’t agree with the distortion of the news only to favor the anti-Zelaya group.

El Heraldo does not waste the opportunity to call “ex military coupster” to Hugo Chavez, when most of the time this is not relevant to the news article.

Some of the most radical Whiteys have talked about the convenience of a coup against President Lobo, for the alleged expropriation of channel 8, and other Lobo’s actions.

Whiteys are opposed to dialogue with the Zelayista group. They maintain a vindictive attitude that does not benefit the country. It was through dialogue that the representatives of Zelaya signed on the Tegucigalpa-San Jose agreement, which allowed the U.S. recognition of the current Honduran authorities. If the radicals Whiteys had gotten their way this recognition would have been more difficult.

The attitude of Whiteys to prefer confrontation instead of dialogue would produce more mindless violence.

I support the initiative of President Lobo to talk with Hugo Chavez. Whiteys are shocked by this, because they believe he is some kind of devil’s incarnation. For my part I think we should negotiate with the devil if it’s necessary, and if Hugo Chavez now wants to cooperate with Honduras we should let him.

Whiteys are more Catholic than the Pope opposing Petrocaribe, when it was approved by Micheletti himself when he was president of the Congress.

It is true that Petrocaribe does not provide cheaper fuel, but it gives us the opportunity to delay payments with low interest rates, resulting in an excellent business for the country.

Whiteys criticize the alleged crimes of Zelaya, but turn a blind eye to corruption allegations in the Micheletti administration.

Whiteys harshly criticize teachers’ struggles, but are not interested in examining what is the origin of their claims. Whiteys speak as if the State had no responsibility for teachers’ protests.

Whiteys are opposed to innovative development projects, such as Charter Cities, this makes them look as reactionaries that oppose any change.

Whiteys embrace failed free-market theories, instilling the fear of Communism. Whiteys’ anti-Communism borders on the absurd. For my part I consider that a well understood Socialism is a beautiful hope for humanity.

The resistance is clearly divided. This is what the last weekend’s assembly (02/26-27/11) has shown.

The National Front for Popular Resistance (FNRP) against the coup d’Etat has been abandoned by the so-called Liberal Resistance or Liberals in Resistace, the Democratic Unification Party and the resistant faction of the Innovation Party (PINU), and the only group remaining is a conglomerate of union organizations previously known as Bloque Popular (Popular Block).

This Popular Block group in its intolerance has discriminated against other groups that denounced the alleged coup, including indigenous, feminist and homosexual associations.

Former president Manuel Zelaya was confirmed in the position of coordinator. He instructed the FNRP to not form a political party. However, the FNRP aims to control power, and for this it needs to draw on other resources outside the electoral contest, such as to destabilize the government in order to give an effective coup d’Etat.

It was to be expected that a group that clings to the past as a reason to exist will lose its relevance. Insisting on the coup issue will not bring any improvement to the country. Having successfully carried out the 2009 elections the “resistance” against the coup seems no longer relevant.

With his decision to evade the electoral struggle and his discrimination against the liberal resistance, Zelaya confirms his de facto separation of the Liberal Party that installed him in office. You can not ask a political party to not participate in elections because it loses its raison d’etre.

In addition, his denunciation of the coup is compromised, given his support of Hugo Chavez regime, who is pleased to support the Libya’s genocide perpetrated by dictator Muammar Gaddafi.

The alleged human rights violations in Honduras during the alleged coup are nothing compared to the “socialist” carnage of the African dictator in Libya, who has hired mercenaries to massacre his own people.

If the FNRP was really popular, the strategy to conquer power could not be more simple: to form a political party, winning the elections, and once in office to change the system from within, turning it into a populist dictatorship, making the Constituent Assembly in which they so much insist.

But it seems they don’t really believe that popular support will translate into votes for them, so they rely more on insurgency and violence.

And as an excuse for not participating in elections they put conditions: the return of ex-President Zelaya with total impunity, the installment of the Constituent Assembly and the dismantling of the Supreme Court and the Military Forces. When the logical course of action would be to do all these things after seizing power and not before.

Any political force that wants to develop its own agenda needs to first come to power. This is a basic principle of political activity.

But before they assume control of the country they need to explain to the people what is their real agenda, what are the changes they want to do, what exactly they want to change in the Constitution. They must explain these things so that people know what to expect when voting for them.

But they are unable to do so, or do not want to, because in the end the Constituent Assembly is just an empty slogan made to disguise a clumsy populist dictatorship.

If I had to describe our current president, Manuel Zelaya, I would say he is an outgoing person, with a rural style. He is a man from the country, or wants to appear as such. He loves to wear Texan hat and boots, even with suit and tie. He loves to hear and sing the rural Mexican folk songs known as rancheras. His mustache is part of that ranchero outlook. That’s why Hugo Chavez calls him “Cowboy Commander”. His style of government is populist and authoritarian.

I compare Manuel Zelaya to George W. Bush in his relaxed demeanor. They can do or say the dumbest things, and you’ll always find people who love them. But unlike Bush, Zelaya is a self-styled leftist figure. His recent meeting with Fidel Castro consecrated him as part of the Latin American Left, with personalities like Hugo Chavez, Evo Morales, Rafael Correa and Daniel Ortega.

But Zelaya’s political party, the Liberal Party, is not so “liberal” after all. In the times of Cold War it played as a key ally of the U.S., back when there was another rural looking president: Roberto Suazo Cordova. That was in the eighties. In that time, there was an incipient democracy, and the militaries held much of the political de facto power. The U.S. ambassador from that time, John Negroponte, was known as the “proconsul from the Empire”. The human rights situation was delicate.

The objectives of political and economical development of the Honduran State were subordinated to the objectives of “national security” of the U.S.. Manuel Zelaya’s father, who had the same name as his son, collaborated with the militaries in a massacre of unsubordinated civilians at the place known as “Los Horcones”.

But things change, and with the new populists airs in Latin America, Zelaya joins the group. His rhetoric is even anti-American at times, but as he uses covered references and diplomatic language, he can always deny he is anti-American.

He rose to power with the promise of dropping the local oil prices, and he spent the first two years of government in a failed public tender project. The irony is that oil international prices began to drop due to the current economic recession in the U.S., and not to his presidential efforts. I consider this as big failure of his government, but people here rarely notice that.

Zelaya has everybody entertained with his controversial measures and sayings in a weekly basis. When he decided to incorporate Honduras to ALBA, the alternative of Hugo Chavez to the free trade scheme proposed by the U.S., he lifted a lot of opposition.

The same happened when he recently raised the minimum wage in a disproportionate way. He didn’t take heed of the warnings of coming unemployment.

Zelaya is not much given to dialogue. He prefers to polarize public opinion, and to impose his policies with weak populist arguments.

I think this government is a disaster, and wait anxiously the end of this administration. But it is rumored he wants to stay in power, and in order to do that he plans to reform the present Constitution through a referendum. If that’s true, I don’t think he’ll get away with it. It’s just another one of his silly ideas destined to failure.