It’s another day, and another Latin American coup.

Or, is it really? If there is anything odd about the latest military coup in Honduras, it is the very legality of it.

We know, but often forget, that totalitarian rulers — Mao and Hitler among them — gain power through the support of the common people, whether by hook or crook.

Deposed Honduran President Manuel Zelaya attempted to use a tried-and-true tactic of populist strongmen, calling a referendum to rewrite the constitution to allow him to stay in office. Tellingly, he had the ballots shipped from Venezuela, the home of Hugo Chávez, a renowned expert in rewriting constitutions.

The Supreme Court of Honduras declared the vote unconstitutional — the president cannot initiate a constitutional rewrite — and ordered the military, which administers elections, not to conduct it.

If this doesn’t sound fishy yet, this is what happened next: Zelaya fired the head of the Honduran military and, with a crowd of his supporters, broke into the base where the ballots were kept and started handing them out.

With that context in mind, it is not quite so alarming that Zelaya woke up the morning of the referendum to find soldiers in his room ordering him out of the country at gunpoint. The Honduran court has since said it ordered the arrest in light of Zelaya’s disregard for its authority and the nation’s laws.

Zelaya has since been consorting with all manner of unsavory Latin American leaders: Hugo Chávez, the Castro brothers, Daniel Ortega and Cristina Kirchner. They represent what he would have become had it not been for the dedication of the Honduran judiciary and military following the country’s constitution.

Self-styled students of international relations might whine that the proper legal avenue for dealing with Zelaya’s abuse of office should have been impeachment. But mob rule has a momentum of its own, and the rule of law is brittle. In some countries, perhaps it is necessary for the army to stand between a leader and his supporters to prevent them from overturning the law of the land: their constitution. Turkey is a notable example where the military has served, more or less honorably, as the last line of defense for the republic.

Constitutions and supreme courts exist to perform this function: to restrain leaders and majorities. They are extraordinarily difficult to amend for that very reason. Simply having a majority of the populace vote in favor of changing a constitution is not enough. So whether the referendum would have passed is utterly irrelevant, although it is clear many Hondurans don’t miss Zelaya.

If most militaries in Latin America abuse their role in the political system, it appears that, in this case, the army of Honduras has acted to defend the integrity of the republic against a charismatic leader who would use the will of the mob to seize power. We may find the means distasteful, but for the leaders of democracies to join the likes of Chávez and Castro in denouncing the coup is an absurd, shallow spectacle.

The court and the Honduran military have the law unambiguously on their side — there is no disputing that the president of Honduras does not have the power to call constitutional referendums.

In this case, we should remember President Coolidge’s admonition: “One with the law is a majority.” Those lining up against Zelaya are not one, but thousands, and the world’s governments should not hasten to condemn them.

Reach columnist Russ Wung at opinion@dailyuw.com.