The recent debate over the official handling of historical memory in Honduras was reignited this weekend following statements by a former business leader who questioned the attitude of the LIBRE (Libertad y Refundación) party toward historical episodes that remain sensitive issues in the country’s politics. The former president of the Chamber of Commerce and Industries of Cortés (CCIC) accused the government of using the commemoration of the 2009 coup as a selective political act, while remaining silent on other violent events of the past, such as the Los Horcones massacre in 1975.
The 2009 coup and the neglect of history
On June 28, the administration of Xiomara Castro, under the leadership of the LIBRE Party, remembered the coup that ousted the former President Manuel Zelaya, an incident that became a defining moment in the politics of Honduras. Nonetheless, some groups view this commemorative act as a selective use of historical memory that overlooks certain instances of state violence. The Los Horcones massacre, an event that occurred in 1975 in Olancho, where the Honduran military killed several farmers, has been neglected by political leaders and key personalities, even though it’s one of the most significant state atrocities in the nation’s modern history.
The former business leader expressed his concern in statements posted on social media about what he considers “historical hypocrisy,” whereby the LIBRE government focuses on vindicating certain events while ignoring others that are darker and less visible. “They commemorate June 28, but they don’t say a word about Los Horcones, a brutal massacre that remains unpunished,” he said. For this former executive, what is at stake is not just a discussion about what to remember, but how memory is chosen based on specific political interests.
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 difficulty of building a common historical memory
The former business leader’s statements provoked divided reactions in various sectors of society. While some supporters of Xiomara Castro’s government justified the ruling party’s approach, considering that the commemoration of the 2009 coup d’état is an act of vindication of democracy and the restoration of constitutional order, other groups questioned the exclusion of other events 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.
Challenges for reconciliation and historical recognition
The debate on historical memory in Honduras highlights the lack of consensus on the construction of a common narrative about the recent past. The polarization surrounding the commemoration of the 2009 coup and the omission of other episodes of state violence reflect tensions not only between political parties but also between different social sectors that are still fighting for real reparations and recognition for all victims. As the country continues to face the effects of a recent past marked by impunity and injustice, the construction of a comprehensive historical memory remains a pending challenge.
