If there have been problems with how democracy functions in this country, the land to our west can boast some democratic deviations of its own. In December 2007, President Chávez went to the electorate with complicated proposals for constitutional reform (the constitution had already undergone major reform in 1999), the most important provision of which was the ending of term limits for the head of state. To the President’s surprise, and perhaps even to that of the opposition as well, the people voted ‘no’ by a small margin.
According to the Venezuelan constitution, reforms rejected by the electorate in a referendum cannot be presented again during the same government’s term, and so it was assumed that whether he liked it or not Mr Chávez would be required to vacate Miraflores in 2013. The President was not prepared to accept this, however, and somehow or other the supreme court managed to argue its way around the seeming constitutional impediment so he could go back to the electorate again with a proposal it had already rejected. So now another referendum dealing specifically with abolishing term limits for all elected officials (not just the head of state this time) will be held next Sunday.
The opposition’s campaign has lacked the energy of the previous occasion, possibly because it comes too soon after the local and regional elections of November last year, and possibly also because some people don’t feel it will make any difference if they vote or not. The feeling might have been reinforced by another ruling handed down recently by the supreme court. The justices were asked to give an opinion on a paper which argued that any proposal for a constitutional amendment could be put an indefinite number of times to the Venezuelan people, and they decided, with one judge dissenting, that this was permissible. One can only surmise that perhaps the issue hinged on the wording of the question – the one being put to the people next Sunday, for example, although cumbersome, does not actually mention the abolition of presidential term limits, leaving room no doubt for different formulations of the same question in the future.
The casuistic talents of the judges aside, the net result from the electors’ point of view is that if they vote ‘no’ next week, they will have to entertain the possibility that their President will keep coming back to them with the same question until they change their minds. There is another option too, which Mr Chávez himself raised in a television interview last week and which was reported by El Universal. He was quoted as saying, “In our constitution there are different ways to make changes. There is a Constituent Assembly. Somebody should call it.” He then went on to make specific reference to the amendment avenue: “And maybe an amendment,” he mused; “In the constitution there is no limit as to the number of attempts at any amendment in a constitutional period.” Whichever of the two routes he chooses, however, it is surely a perversion of the spirit of democracy, even where direct democracy is concerned.
If the voters are beginning to get the impression that in spite of the constitution, the will of the people might not have much substance after all, they have the small consolation that even if they vote ‘yes,’ it does not follow that Mr Chávez will automatically be the next President from 2013. As things stand he would still have to convince a majority of the electorate to vote for him in the general election of 2012, and nobody can predict at this stage what the outcome of that might be. There is, perhaps, one small caveat. If the head of state makes no immediate headway on the matter of indefinite re-election, he may even contemplate changing tack a little by trying to extend the term of office of a president.
Despite the setbacks he received in the local government elections of 2008, Mr Chávez clearly recognized he had to hold his referendum quickly, because the Venezuelan economy would be under pressure this year. In the current global recession there is no indication as to how soon or even if, the oil price would recover in the short to medium term, and Venezuela is more heavily dependent on oil now than it was when the President came to power some ten years ago. According to the Economist oil accounted for 90% of Venezuela’s exports last year, as opposed to 64% when he first acceded to office. It is the oil price windfall which has funded Mr Chávez’s various social programmes, and a cut-back on those would have repercussions, including in the political sphere. There may already be stress in the system, since last month the government transferred US$12B from the central bank’s reserves of US$42B to the Fonden which finance the President’s various social projects.
While Mr Chávez’s personal popularity rating remains high, it could decline in an adverse economic climate, which will be accelerated if he follows through with the various socialist schemes which he has promised. Price controls, which have been extended recently, have pushed certain basic commodities off the shelves and given the black market a boost. As things stand, Venezuela already has the highest inflation rate in Latin America (around 30%), and according to the Economist independent analysts predict the economy will contract by 2-2.5% this year, and prices will rise more than 40%. They also think the government will have to devalue the bolivar.
These are not the kind of conditions which would inspire Mr Chávez with the confidence that if he is faced with another ‘no’ vote next Sunday, the people would vote ‘yes’ in a subsequent poll. In fact, if there were two ‘no’ votes, it is possible the electorate would not change its mind in a third referendum no matter what the economic situation was, because it would be apparent that his hunger for power had become all-consuming. In any case, should there be an economic crisis at some point, followed by social instability, there would be no certainty that President Chávez would retain his commitment to the larger democratic framework in which he currently operates. Rather, he might be tempted to adopt the more autocratic path to which he is temperamentally inclined, and referenda would be forgotten.
