The standoff in Honduras continues. It is now just over two months since President Manuel Zelaya was removed from office and ejected from the country still wearing his pyjamas. Despite widespread international condemnation of the coup and the suspension of Honduras from the Organization of American States (OAS), the de facto government of Roberto Micheletti is holding firm in its defiance of attempts to broker a political compromise.

Last week, an OAS mission comprising the Chilean Secretary General, José Miguel Insulza, and seven foreign ministers (from Argentina, Canada, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Jamaica, Mexico and Panama) returned in failure from Tegucigalpa, stating that Mr Micheletti had rejected the terms of the San José Agreement, drawn up by President Oscar Arias of Costa Rica.

The OAS delegation met with representatives of Mr Zelaya’s deposed government and of the de facto government, candidates in the presidential election due on November 29, the military, religious groups and civil society organizations. The majority were apparently in favour of the Arias plan for a return to constitutional normalcy, including accepting key elements such as the reinstatement of Mr Zelaya, albeit with reduced powers, a government of national unity and reconciliation and an amnesty for political crimes that would apply to both sides.

Mr Zelaya is reportedly ready to sign on to the agreement. The deal breaker for Mr Micheletti, however, is the insistence on the return to power of Mr Zelaya, to serve out his term of office, until the new president takes over in January. Nevertheless, Mr Insulza says that the dialogue remains open. Time is however running out, with the countdown to November 29 having begun with the official start of the Honduran election campaign this week.

Mr Micheletti, for his part, says that he is also committed to dialogue, within the framework of the San José Agreement, to find a solution to the impasse. He has even offered to resign and accept Mr Zelaya back into the country, but only on condition that the latter surrender his claim to the presidency. Mr Micheletti seems increasingly intent on playing for time until the elections, perhaps in the hope that with a new president, normal service can be resumed and Honduras can be welcomed back into the OAS and the international fold.

Even though Mr Insulza maintains that there is still room for negotiation, he has declared that Mr Zelaya’s return is non-negotiable. Mr Zelaya himself has said that his return as president is a “condition sine qua non for a transparent and democratic electoral process” and that the interim government is seeking to use the upcoming election to “legitimize the coup.” And on Tuesday, the ousted president succeeded in garnering further support at the OAS, when that body agreed unanimously not to recognize the results of the November elections and called for tougher measures to bring the illegitimate government to heel, if Mr Zelaya is not reinstated.

Of course, the elections were always going to be a major sticking point, as the question had already arisen as to whether elections held within the present undemocratic framework can be considered constitutionally valid. That potential Catch-22, which was exercising the minds of international lawyers and negotiators, has however been circumvented by the latest position taken by the OAS.

Certainly there are precedents in the hemisphere for ensuring a transition to democratic rule and there are ways of guaranteeing, if the coup government so requests and the international community is willing to assist, that the elections are free and fair. But as long as there is no political accommodation on the restoration of constitutional order, the question of legitimacy will remain. Mr Micheletti’s bluff, if that is what it is, has therefore been called and pressure is mounting, including from the United States.

For the USA, the coup is proving to be a test case for the Obama administration’s commitment to a new, principled engagement with Latin America, based on democratic values and mutual respect.

For the OAS as a whole, the coup is a test case for the Inter-American Democratic Charter and indeed, for its very relevance in the hemisphere. The OAS has achieved much in the past two decades with regard to the consolidation of democracy in the Americas and the protection of human rights. Now, more than ever, given its chequered history of cozying up to dictators in Latin America, the OAS cannot give even a hint of tolerating any violation of the constitutional order in the region, least of all at gunpoint. It is therefore crucial that Mr Zelaya be restored to power, to signal the re-establishment of constitutional order in Honduras. At the same time, there must be respect for the authority of all branches of government.

For the Americas, the Honduras imbroglio has also provided a political battleground between the Left and the Right, on what constitutes democratic governance. It is a debate that will run for some time yet, but there is always the fear that the two extremes of populist authoritarianism and reactionary conservatism will dominate the skirmishes. Unless there is moderation and a genuine respect for the institutions and practices of democracy, constitutional order will, more often than not, be the unwitting victim.

No matter the case being made against Mr Zelaya, the rule of law must prevail. A coup is a coup. When all’s said and done, regime change in the 21st century should only be effected by the ballot. To allow otherwise, would be to roll back the years and invite anarchy and bloody mayhem.