Some would say that President Hugo Chávez took off the gloves in Venezuela a while ago but now his many detractors are suggesting that his democratic mask has been definitively removed. Even as members of the new National Assembly were being sworn in on Wednesday, accusations were mounting that Mr Chávez had engineered a “coup d’etat” – or an “autogolpe” or “self coup” as it is known in Latin America – after the outgoing chavista-dominated parliament approved a raft of controversial laws, including an Enabling Law on December 17, granting the President powers to rule by decree for the next 18 months.
With the combined opposition returning to the parliament for the first time since their ill-advised boycott of the 2005 legislative elections, having won 67 of the 165 seats contested in September to deny the government the two-thirds ‘super majority’ needed to approve some types of laws and appoint Supreme Court justices, and claiming that they had won a majority 52% of the popular vote, the package of laws passed in the final weeks of the last legislature was not altogether unexpected. Mr Chávez, after all, has previous form, for he has held such powers three times before.
This time around, he claims that the Enabling Law is necessary to assist the victims of recent heavy rains and flooding. Fair enough, but even the most impartial of observers would have to agree that 18 months is a rather long time for a state of emergency, which is usually the justification for such a law. Most would therefore conclude that it is a not-so-transparent move by Mr Chávez to bypass the politics of consultation, necessitated by the composition of the new parliament and the growing strength of the opposition, to press ahead with his ‘Bolivarian revolution’ and the establishment of a socialist economy in the lead-up to the 2012 presidential election. Giving credence to this view is the fact that laws have also been passed to regulate the media, including the internet, to prohibit NGOs from receiving foreign funding, to prevent parliamentarians from voting against or defecting from their own party, and to pave the way for government intervention in banks.
Popular outcry has however forced Mr Chávez to back down on plans for an increase in the value-added tax, which stands at 12%, and a law that would have increased government control of universities. Referring to criticism of the aborted Universities Law, Mr Chávez attempted to reclaim the high ground: “I have been reviewing, listening. We’re very far from being what the opposition says, that I’m a dictator, a tyrant.”
Indeed, supporters of Mr Chávez argue that the Enabling Law is not dictatorial in so far as it must conform to constitutional provisions and restraints and, in some cases, the Supreme Court can rule on the constitutionality of presidential decrees. The latter part of this claim may be somewhat disingenuous though, as the outgoing legislature also appointed nine new Supreme Court justices, reinforcing the dominance of pro-Chávez judges.
Meanwhile, as the opposition continues to attack the “anti-democratic” nature of the new laws, which are being referred to by critics in Venezuela as “the Cuban package,” there are fears that Mr Chávez will seek to impose the Cuban model of revolutionary governance and economic control on the country, in spite of – or perhaps because of – the slow-motion transition taking place in Cuba.
Whatever the arguments of the pro-Chávez and anti-Chávez camps, whatever one’s political and economic ideology may be, there remain some basic concerns for any democratic country.
The Enabling Law, which will allow for presidential fiat and the bypassing of the National Assembly for as long as 18 months, taken with the manipulation of the Supreme Court, the persecution of opposition politicians and restrictions on freedom of expression, does not augur well for the separation of powers, the genuine exercise of democracy and respect for human rights, especially in a country in which the rule of law and traditional democratic institutions are already perceived to have been systematically weakened.
Venezuelan society and politics continue to suffer from deep polarization and inequities. If Mr Chávez carries on the path of revolutionary authoritarianism, whether Cuban inspired or not, it is more than likely that the existing divisions will become deeper with diminishing hope for national reconciliation, real and far-reaching socio-economic improvement, and sustainable progress.
