What About Zelaya?

Can someone please put into proper perspective the situation going on in Honduras with exiled president Manuel Zelaya? I'm hearing confusing stories from different sources, and it's hard to put them together into a coherent picture. But let me try to put out what I think I understand, and then if you have something to add (or refute), by all means do so. I'm all ears.

The Central American nation of Honduras has, within its constitution, the provision that its presidents are limited to only one elected term. Zelaya, who was a successful businessman before his election, was nearing his one term's end. But he wanted to continue as president, so he proposed and planned a non-binding national referendum that would determine whether or not the Honduran people wanted to change that country's constitution. This action has been used by the president's critics to accuse him of trying to become eligible to run for another term. The only problem was that both the Honduran Congress and Supreme Court ruled this referendum to be illegal and ordered the Honduran president to stop it. Zelaya refused, and the military promptly stepped in, arrested him, threw him out of the country, and replaced him with another president. These were also actions which seem to have violated that country's constitution. After this transference of power, which I almost universally hear being described as a military coup, Zelaya has tried to get back into Honduras, apparently confident that its people would force the issue with the military and insist on his restoration to power there.

From what I understand, Honduras is a very poor country with its economy and society largely in disarray because of its role as a transit location for the illegal drug trade that supplies customers within the United States. Zelaya, initially not considered to be leftist, became disillusioned with the United States over their inability or even disinterest in helping him with this problem. He consequently turned to Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and neighboring Nicaragua's Daniel Ortega for support. So Zelaya transformed his political image to resemble other leftist popularly elected leaders in Latin America. Only one problem: he had become very unpopular in his own country, with an approval rating in the twenties. Had the referendum gone through, Zelaya probably would have lost it anyway. And it still wouldn't have given him the authority to run again for president even had he won it.

Since Zelaya is nearing the end of his term, albeit in exile, shouldn't there be an upcoming election going on in Honduras, with candidates entering it and campaigning? Once the exiled president's term ends, it should be a moot point as to how he ended it: someone else will be succeeding him anyway.

I think the idea of the military stepping in to overthrow a democratically elected political leader is something that all of us want to avoid seeing. But before I judge them too severely, I would like to know what those in Honduras trying to protect that nation's constitution and the rule of law through its courts system could have done otherwise. To truly discern the Honduran military's agenda in all of this, their behavior regarding the prompt restoration of democratic political rule is essential. Whoever does eventually rise to lead that country will still be confronted with the same problems as his-or-her predecessor. The United States is in the best position to be a good friend to Honduras. But if we ignore our neighbor's plight and refuse to accept some responsibility for it, we shouldn't be at all surprised to see its future leaders turn to other countries with whom we have less than optimal relations.