The ongoing discussion about the government’s approach to historical memory in Honduras gained momentum this past weekend. This was after a former leader from the business community expressed doubts about the stance of the LIBRE (Libertad y Refundación) party on historical events that are still contentious in the political landscape of the nation. The ex-president of the Chamber of Commerce and Industries of Cortés (CCIC) criticized the authorities for employing the remembrance of the 2009 coup as a partisan political gesture, yet remaining quiet on other violent incidents from history, like the Los Horcones massacre of 1975.
The 2009 coup and historical omission
On June 28, the government of Xiomara Castro, led by the LIBRE Party, commemorated the coup that overthrew then-President Manuel Zelaya, an event that marked a turning point in Honduran politics. However, for some sectors, this act of commemoration highlights a management of historical memory that omits certain events of state violence. The Los Horcones massacre, an episode that took place in 1975 in Olancho, when the Honduran army murdered several peasants, has been forgotten by political authorities and relevant figures, despite being one of the most emblematic state crimes in the country’s recent history.
The ex-CEO shared his worries on social networks regarding what he describes as “historical inconsistency,” where the LIBRE administration highlights certain incidents while neglecting others that are more grim and obscure. “They honor June 28, yet they remain silent about Los Horcones, a horrific massacre that still has no justice,” he stated. In the view of this previous leader, the issue is not merely about selecting what to commemorate, but involves how historical events are selected based on particular political agendas.
Tension between selective memory and historical justice
The Los Horcones massacre is seen by many analysts as a symbol of the military repression that the country experienced during the 1970s and 1980s, a period marked by systematic human rights violations. However, this event, like other crimes committed by the state during the dictatorship, has been relegated in the official narrative, despite demands from victims and human rights organizations for recognition and justice.
Critiques directed at LIBRE’s stance regarding the 2009 coup and its lack of comment on Los Horcones underscore a more profound division within Honduran society. Supporters close to the governing party argue that the commemorative perspective serves as an affirmation of democracy and legal governance, whereas detractors feel that historical memory shouldn’t be exploited selectively, influenced by political or electoral motives. These critics assert that genuine historical justice requires recognizing every victim of repression, without convenient distinctions.
The challenge of constructing a shared historical remembrance
The comments made by the former business leader resulted in mixed responses across different parts of society. While some advocates of Xiomara Castro’s administration defended the party’s stance, viewing the remembrance of the 2009 coup d’état as a gesture to uphold democracy and reestablish constitutional order, other factions criticized the omission of other instances of political violence.
Academics and human rights organizations have called for deeper reflection on the selective handling of historical memory. For many, it is essential that the country recognize and acknowledge the most painful events of its past, regardless of the political leanings of those in power. The lack of a cross-party agreement on how to address these issues remains one of the main obstacles to national reconciliation.
Obstacles to peacebuilding and acknowledging history
The discussion about historical memory in Honduras underscores the absence of agreement on forming a shared narrative regarding the recent past. The division surrounding the remembrance of the 2009 coup and the neglect of other instances of state violence reveal conflicts not only between political factions but also among various social groups still striving for genuine reparations and acknowledgment for all victims. As the nation persists in confronting the repercussions of a recent past defined by impunity and injustice, creating a thorough historical memory remains an unresolved challenge.
