The Bush administration believes that free markets are the only path toward democracy and freedom. In my book, a healthy democracy is one where the people are free to vote, organize, question and petition their government, and where the press is truly free and independent. A healthy democracy ensures the civil and political rights of the individual are protected such that a free exchange of ideas – even unpopular ones – can openly take place.
In Venezuela, this alternative vision of democracy appears not only viable but alive. It is not surprising the American left has, for the most part, enthusiastically endorsed President Hugo Chavez and his policies. But recent moves by President Chavez suggest that supporters of the Bolivarian Revolution ought to be vigilant and willing to question and challenge policies inconsistent with participatory democracy and respect for civil liberties.
Through a series of legal, social and economic reforms, the Chavez administration has been able to reduce poverty levels, significantly increase literacy rates, and encourage popular participation in the political process. Nearly 75 percent of registered adults voted in the December 3 presidential elections, giving Chavez nearly 63 percent of the vote. Official observers from the European Union, the U.S. (including the Carter Center) endorsed the election as clean, transparent and efficient.
During my visit to Caracas last December I met with community leaders and cooperative organizers who lauded the government’s “Misiones” – community-led projects financially supported with oil revenues – and other initiatives that have led to significant improvements in the quality of life for most Venezuelans. The excitement about the upcoming elections and about having a voice was palpable throughout my conversations with people there.
I also heard plenty of criticism of the Chavez government coming from all sides. Chavez supporters generally were critical of the level of corruption still existent within the government, the seemingly endless bureaucracy, inhumane prison conditions, high levels of crime and lack of appropriate compensation for police. Opposition views critical of Chavez and his policies were freely aired in Globovision, RCTV, and other private television stations before and after the elections.
But after his resounding electoral win, Chavez has announced a series of measures that have sent the international media into a feeding frenzy of criticism, red-flagging and biased speculation that Chavez may be in his way to becoming an authoritarian leader. Most criticism came after Chavez indicated he would nationalize the telephone company CANTV and segments of the electricity industry (these were national industries that were privatized in the early 1990s, an unpopular decision by then-president Carlos Andrés Pérez.) Reports indicate that government officials have said investors in companies facing nationalization will be compensated.
Chavez has also vowed not to renew RCTV’s license for access to the public airwaves. (The private TV station supported the 2002 coup and the illegal boycott of the oil industry.) While other television stations may see this as an attempt to intimidate and force some degree of self-censorship, it is difficult to argue that a radio or television station advocating violence and the overthrow of the government should not be punished in some way. No U.S. government would allow such statements to be broadcast over the airwaves. Unlike what the US media has reported however, there will be no “shut down” of the TV station, as it is expected that RCTV will continue to air its broadcast on cable and satellite television.
Clean and free elections, citizen’s participation in the electoral process, open criticism of government policies, and respect for private property are all well and alive in Venezuela, even in the face of a limited nationalization plan. But it is essential that Venezuelans and solidarity movements throughout the world don’t fall complacent to the plans and initiatives President Chavez is putting forth. A healthy democracy requires such questioning of our leaders. There are two elements of the Chavez plan that should raise some concern. First, Chavez is seeking a constitutional amendment that would allow him to run and serve unlimited consecutive terms in office. Historically, this has been antithetical to democracy. Does Chavez and his close supporters believe he is the only leader able to implement and accomplish the goals of this revolution? One could interpret this move as an attempt to consolidate and expand the power of an already powerful executive, which begs the question: Would Chavez be willing to step down should popular support wane?
Second, President Chavez has asked the National Assembly power to pass new laws by decree in order to facilitate the transition to the 21st Century Socialism and continue on the path to revolution. Some argue that this is a necessary step to clean up the rampant corruption and to re-write several pre-Chavez laws that were written to favor private industries. Unfortunately, the language of the law is not yet readily accessible on the internet, but initial reports also suggest that the law would limit the power of the president to declare laws by decree in only certain areas. According to Gregory Wilpert of Venezuelanalysis.com, the enabling law “would allow the president to pass laws as decrees on certain specified issues for a period of one year.”
While a re-write of special interest laws and other reforms may be necessary steps, Chavez supporters must remain vigilant. Political activists on the left are well aware that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. We’ve seen it happen with leaders across the world and across the political spectrum. The Bolivarian Revolution is a noble and worthy effort, an essential and much-needed challenge to a myopic vision of the world offered by the neo-liberals and the Washington Consensus.
Chavez may also be a much-needed world leader who is not only creating a new vision for Venezuela but is also inspiring millions around the globe that an alternative is possible. But we must not lose sight that even a healthy democracy with powerful and worthy goals could slide down the slippery slope of power and corruption. It is my hope we will continue to be inspired by this vision without being blinded by the appeal of its leader.
