A bit more than four months ahead of the general elections set for November 30, Honduras is experiencing an institutional turmoil characterized by power concentration, conflicts among state entities, and an increasing public mistrust environment. At the heart of this circumstance is Manuel “Mel” Zelaya Rosales, who is a past president and presently serves as the general coordinator for the Libertad y Refundación (LIBRE) party. He is regarded by multiple groups as the primary political strategist for the ruling party and a significant player in determining the pre-election context.
Governance and institutional framework
Since his return to political life after the 2009 coup, Zelaya has built a power structure that goes beyond the party leadership. His influence extends to the executive branch led by his wife, President Xiomara Castro, to the National Congress, and to autonomous bodies such as the National Electoral Council (CNE), through the appointment of allies and family members to strategic positions.
Analysts and local media agree that this centralization of decision-making is a deliberate strategy by Zelaya aimed at consolidating LIBRE’s control over state institutions. Among the most recurrent criticisms is the selective use of public resources and mechanisms to favor party interests, which has raised questions about the democratic health of the country.
Challenges within the election commission and lack of public confidence
One of the main sources of institutional tension is the CNE, whose independence has been called into question due to internal blockages, external pressure, and disputes among its members. Opposition sectors and civil society organizations have warned of the risk of an electoral process controlled by the ruling party, which increases the possibility of challenges, conflict, and the erosion of democratic legitimacy.
Groups affiliated with LIBRE, which have led demonstrations and blockades in support of the ruling party, have also been accused of coercing electoral authorities. The growing perception of institutional manipulation has led to a loss of confidence in the process, fueling a climate of polarization and discontent that could result in abstention, protests, or incidents of electoral violence.
Controversies, strategies, and internal conflicts
In this context, Zelaya’s circle has been shaken by incidents that have harmed the party in power’s reputation. The latest, associated with the notorious “narco-video,” has resulted in the departure of individuals allied with the ex-president and increased strains in the administration. Despite Zelaya’s attempts to dissociate himself from these occurrences, his influence as a political strategist has been crucial in brokering internal compromises to avert additional splits within LIBRE.
Despite the turbulence, Zelaya has managed to maintain party cohesion by forging alliances and defusing divisions that threatened the stability of the ruling party’s political project. This room for maneuver reinforces his role as an indispensable figure for the ruling party’s governability, but it also makes him the main target of criticism of the current democratic situation.
An essential player in shaping authority
Zelaya’s journey from being removed from office in 2009 to holding his current role demonstrates his capacity to impact the national discourse and mold the nation’s political landscape. As the originator of LIBRE and the mastermind behind its ascendancy in 2021, he has been pivotal in the party’s strategic choices, even amid crises and clashes with traditional factions.
To opponents, Zelaya is seen as the primary hindrance to democratic bodies; to backers, he is viewed as a political figure who has challenged the established elites and advocated for a national rebuilding plan. This division reveals a significant split within Honduran society, where political personalities evoke both strong approval and disapproval.
A vague outlook before the voting period
Mel Zelaya’s role in the Honduran political landscape raises questions about the country’s institutional direction and the transparency of the upcoming electoral process. The combination of power concentration, internal tensions within the electoral bodies, and scandals that erode public confidence creates an environment of high uncertainty.
As the election timeline progresses and political rifts widen, Honduras encounters the task of guaranteeing an authentic and trustworthy procedure. The results of this phase will significantly hinge on the capacity of institutional players to withstand influence, rebuild public trust, and provide equitable conditions for the democratic competition.