Freaky Friday: Venezuela edition

Posted by Joshua Holland at 7:46 AM on January 13, 2006.

All week, I've been discussing Hugo Chavez' Venezuela with a couple of readers, notably Brunowe. In my last post, I argued that we wouldn't be discussing whether Chavez was a small 'd' democrat if not for the fact that he was trying to radically restructure Venezuela's economic and social arrangements - a move that will cost the country's traditional elite power and control over the economy - and calling him "anti-democratic" was more a standard-issue strategy to discredit him than it is a charge reflective of the reality on the ground. I also suggested out that Brunowe was relying too heavily on information from Freedomworks, an organization that Mark Ames conveniently exposed on today's front page.

Brunowe turns out to be Bill Bruno, a reader from Astoria New York, and he's responded to that last post. I figured that turnabout being fair play and all, I'd give him the blog post this time, and I'd take him to task in the comments. If you're just joining in, you'll get more out of Bill's post if you read the previous one, as he responds to specifics.

So, without further ado, reader Bill Bruno on Hugo Chavez:

First, I should say that I don't consider Chavez a tyrant or a dictator. I think he is a genuine populist who, however, has an authoritarian streak, although I think my prior statement: "that he has no vision that goes beyond he himself being the leader" was excessive. I suppose I would say he is a democrat, with reservations.

Chavez's court packing is a little more wide-ranging than what FDR did. Chavez's plan allows him to remove and assign justices with a simple majority, en masse and immediately, in additional to adding 12 new justices. FDR's plan, although not the wisest thing he did, would have allowed him to add a Justice for every sitting one over the age of 70 who didn't retire. Chavez's changes are a heavier blow to the independence of the judiciary.

Regarding the referendum, I think you give Chavez too much credit. The signings were witnessed by government and opposition witnesses. Chavez proceeded to denounce them as a mega-fraud at which point the electoral commission, majority-staffed by his appointees, demanded that 1 million+ signatories reconfirm the signatures in person. Given the numbers, I don't think they expected the opposition to pull that off. I suspect Chavez had no choice at that point. Of course, a true tyrant would simply have disallowed the referendum but I think that Chavez did try to do an end run.

On the media law, I agree that it's fair to note the context but I don't think that justifies as broad a law as was passed. Those media figures who were directly involved in the coup (and I assume you mean actually plotting it as opposed to cheering it on with one-sided coverage) should be prosecuted. I could even understand libel actions in the case of the clinical insanity allegations. The statute, however, uses very broad terms. The Committee to Protect Journalists highlighted two articles. One article permits radio and television broadcasters who transmit messages that "promote, defend, or incite breaches of public order" or "are contrary to the security of the Nation" to be suspended for 72 hours while another restricts broadcasts of "graphic descriptions or images of real violence" between 5 AM and 11 PM to those that are "indispensable" or the result of unforeseen events. CPJ mentioned a couple of cases where "[l]ocal TV channels refrained from airing footage of violent riots that occurred in Caracas in early December [of 2004] for fear of violating the law." Although I'd like to see the year-end reports of organizations like CPJ and Human Rights Watch to see what the impact was in 2005, this particular case was somewhat more than the media being limited to "calling him [Chavez] a communist, a traitor and a proxy for Castro".

Both HRW and CPJ also mentioned additions to the Penal Code that restrict press freedom. There is the expansion of "disrespect" provisions that criminalize statements that are offensive to public officials. Admittedly, there is an historical tradition of these laws throughout Latin America but Venezuela's expansion of them is ominous. Further, the criminal penalties for defamation have been increased. I don't believe Chavez invented the laws, but giving them greater force is, again, ominous.

Although I haven't heard of opposition leaders being hunted wholesale, Human Rights Watch did make note of a couple of questionable prosecutions: here and here.

In the latter case, the organization, Sumate has had its efforts to encourage participation in the 2004 referendum (I would assume against Chavez) charged as "conspiracy to destroy the nation's republican form of government." Now I certainly understand that taking money from the National Endowment for Democracy merits government scrutiny, given the situation in Venezuela, but encouraging people to vote against Chavez oughtn't to be criminally actionable.

Regarding the AI report, although Chavez didn't create human rights problems in Venezuela, the report mentions that investigations "to establish the facts around these alleged abuses and prosecute those responsible [for the abuses by the security forces] have been slow and inadequate. In comparison, these same authorities have acted with energy against opposition activists who allegedly participated in or incited violence. Over recent years, these institutions have failed to fulfill their constitutional role to act with equal impartiality against government supporters and opponents accused of committing crimes related to the ongoing political crisis. "The structural problems aren't of Chavez's making but the partiality is his responsibility. Here is the full report (we've both had to do short quotes for space limitations).

My last point is on the checks-and-balances issue. This came up in the course of my discussion with drone (see here for the full discussion) where he took issue with my stating that they were essential to democracy to which he responded that they were "anti-democratic" and argued that "If a democracy has a legislative apparatus--and I know of none that do not--that's your check on presidential power. " as part of asking what I meant by a strong presidential system. I probably should've just referred to the Presidential-Parliamentary dichotomy.

Permit me to rephrase my argument by stating that free societies require not only democratic mechanisms but mechanisms that prevent an excessive centralization of power. The mere existence of a legislature in a can provide a check on the executive in a parliamentary system because the executive holds power only upon the sufferance of a parliament and an executive who dissolve parliament does so at the cost of ending his own government. Thus, the specific powers given to each aren't as important.

In a presidential system (incidentally, most states in the Americas have systems similar to ours in that respect), the legislature and executive have separate electoral mandates, so the powers given to each are more important (a president who has wide powers of ruling by decree can escape much accountability to the legislature) as is their ability to preserve their independence. The new constitution gives Chavez the power to dissolve the National Assembly. I would also note that one of Chavez's earlier acts (in 2000) was to get legislation (Enabling Act) allowing him to rule by decree for one year. Although the National Assembly chose to do this, I have concerns about a Constitution that allows it to hand over legislative power. Also, the law regarding the Supreme Court that I discussed above raises the same issue.

I think it's important not to overstate the human rights issues. I don't recall actually stating the democracy is under siege in Venezuela but it's certainly been undermined in some respects and these developments bear further watching.

Joshua Holland is a staff writer at Alternet and a regular contributor to The Gadflyer.