Skip to content

Honduras the weak dictatorship imposes itself but faces opposition from the mass

Marxist Theory · 2017-12-22

Here is a structured analytical summary of the article, written for a well-read Marxist.

Core Argument

The article argues that the Honduran regime of Juan Orlando Hernández (JOH) is a "weak dictatorship" — a bourgeois state form that is politically discredited and socially isolated, yet able to impose itself through a combination of direct repression and imperialist backing. The central thesis is that the mass movement that erupted after the fraudulent November 2017 elections had an objectively insurrectionary character and could have overthrown the regime, but was politically defeated by the vacillation and reformist illusions of its bourgeois-democratic leadership, particularly Salvador Nasralla. The article claims that the movement’s failure was not due to a lack of mass militancy or the strength of the state, but to the absence of a revolutionary party capable of channelling the "steam" of working-class anger into a decisive offensive — a general strike, the seizure of state buildings, and the formation of popular assemblies.

Theoretical Grounding

The analysis is grounded in the classical Marxist theory of the state and revolution, drawing directly on the Leninist conception of the state as a body of armed men, not a neutral arbiter. The concept of a "weak dictatorship" is a concrete application of the Marxist understanding that not all bourgeois states are equally stable; some are brittle, resting on a narrow social base and requiring constant imperialist life-support. The article also deploys a key tactical concept from the revolutionary tradition: the relationship between the objective situation (a pre-revolutionary crisis) and the subjective factor (the party and leadership). The metaphor of the piston and steam is a clear reference to the necessity of a vanguard party to concentrate and direct mass energy, without which spontaneous combustion dissipates. The piece sits firmly within the Trotskyist tradition, particularly its emphasis on the permanent revolution and the rejection of "popular front" alliances with bourgeois opposition figures, which it implicitly critiques as a trap that demobilises the masses.

Conjunctural Relevance

The article is a direct intervention into the Honduran conjuncture of late 2017 and early 2018. It identifies several key conjunctural features:

  • Electoral Fraud as Trigger: The immediate cause of the crisis was the blatant theft of the November 2017 election, which the Supreme Electoral Tribunal (TSE) awarded to JOH despite evidence to the contrary. This exposed the regime’s lack of democratic legitimacy.
  • Imperialist Intervention: The article pinpoints the Trump administration’s recognition of JOH on 22 December 2017 as a decisive turning point. This was not passive support; the US provided material and technical aid to the repressive apparatus. The article dismisses US calls for non-violence as "mere hypocrisy."
  • State Repression: The regime responded to protests with lethal force, killing dozens of protesters. The article notes the specific repression of opposition figures, including former President Mel Zelaya.
  • Leadership Vacillation: The key political dynamic was the behaviour of Salvador Nasralla, who oscillated between seeking imperialist recognition in Washington and threatening to withdraw from politics, before being dragged back by pressure from below. This hesitation, the article argues, actively demobilised the movement.
  • Parliamentary Maneuvering: The article details how the National Party (PN) secured control of Congress through a backroom deal with the Liberal Party, demonstrating that the "Alliance against the dictatorship" was a parliamentary bloc, not a revolutionary front.

Where the Argument Continues

This article is a snapshot of a specific moment in a longer struggle. The argument continues in several directions:

  • The fate of the mass movement: The article ends with JOH sworn in but the regime "weak." The logical next question is whether the movement could re-ignite. Later IDOM articles on Honduras would track the subsequent waves of protest, the evolution of the "Libre" party, and the response to the 2021 elections.
  • The role of the OAS and MACCIH: The article dismisses the OAS and its anti-corruption mission (MACCIH) as tools of imperialism that denounce corruption when convenient but do nothing to prevent the dictatorship's imposition. This critique of "democratic" international bodies is a recurring theme in IDOM’s analysis of Latin America.
  • The question of the party: The article’s central political conclusion — the need for a revolutionary party — is not developed here. This is the theoretical and practical project of the Revolutionary Communist International (RCI). Readers would look to other IDOM articles on party-building, the united front, and the critique of reformism for the full argument.

Connections

  • Central American Revolutionary History: The article explicitly connects the Honduran struggle to the 1944 general strikes in El Salvador and Guatemala, and the 1979 Nicaraguan Revolution. These are not just historical analogies but models of how insurrectionary general strikes can overthrow dictatorships.
  • Trotsky’s "The Transitional Program": The call for a general strike, the seizure of government buildings, and the formation of popular assemblies is a direct application of the transitional method — demands that bridge the gap between the current consciousness of the masses and the need for a revolutionary seizure of power.
  • Lenin’s "State and Revolution": The article’s understanding of the state as a repressive apparatus that must be smashed, not reformed, is a direct echo of this text.
  • Other IDOM articles on Honduras: This article should be read alongside IDOM’s coverage of the 2009 coup, the subsequent resistance, and later analyses of the 2021 elections and the rise of Xiomara Castro, to understand the full arc of the Honduran class struggle.

Key Quotes

  1. "The struggle of the masses, opened after the elections in Honduras, is only comparable to the strike of 1954 and the movement against the coup d'état in 2009. It is one of the greatest instances of class struggle in the history of the country."

  2. "The mass movement attained an insurrectionary character at a national level and shattered the repressive state forces. The last word lay in the streets. It was completely possible to overthrow the regime but to do so it was necessary to go on the offensive."

  3. "An authentically revolutionary party is like a piston that can concentrate steam power at one point, but without the piston the steam will tend to dissipate."

  4. "The only way imperialism could recognize Nasralla's triumph would be under the fear of losing everything. The working people do not need the recognition of the capitalists."

  5. "The appeals that the US government makes to review human rights or any irregularities in the elections are mere hypocrisy. The US government has supported, materially and technically, the repressive armed forces."

  6. "Capitalists can wait for the masses to get tired and then they regain control. That is why we pointed out the need to move forward with actions such as a real general strike, the taking over of government buildings accompanied by the establishment of popular assemblies..."