Thoughts on Chavez’s attempts to extend his time in power, and the alleged suppression of opposition party organizing.
by Marco McWilliams

Venezuela is not the wild, wild west, and the democratically elected president, Hugo Chavez, is, by no definition, a tyrant. A peaceful and democratic revolution has been in full swing for well over a decade, and it is showing no signs of stopping. Any attempts to critique Venezuela and Chavez’s political maneuvering without the use of a revolutionary rubric is a recipe which ensures that it will be misunderstood. Although left Western media, which is to say nothing of right wing Western media, can hardly be trusted to accurately report facts or convey the revolutionary sentiment. Efforts to understand the peaceful democratic revolution taking place in Venezuela must be contextualized within the larger history of Western imperialism throughout the region, and the Venezuelan revolutionary response to it. While I will not discuss that historical record in this piece, I will speak to two hot-button issues which continue to surface: Chavez’s attempts to extend his time in power, and the alleged suppression of opposition party organizing.

Ultimately, it is up to the people of any sovereign nation to self-determine the ways in which they will humanely govern themselves. Constitutional amendments to secure additional years in office is not a new or novel concept. Even in the U.S. term limit amendments have been questioned as recently as post-Clinton. Theoretically, either of the two main parties, which many political critics argue is merely opposite ends of the 1% party, could remain in power indefinitely.

U.S. citizens are compelled to bear with a corrupt and bought-out myopic two-party system — where 94 percent of the time the candidate who wins is the one with the most money — for us, as Americans to be rendering judgments on another country’s political system, especially one that is experiencing arguably the most impressive democratic transformation in over a generation, is arrogant in the most delusional of ways.

But here we go.

Most Venezuelans regard voting as not merely a political right, but also an vital civic responsibility. Since 1998, each election cycle candidate Chavez has run in has resulted in his election and re-elected by enormous margins, and considerably more than any recent U.S. president, whether Democrat or Republican. International observing bodies (U.S., EU, various South American nation, etc.) regularly monitor Venezuelan elections, and in the past decade found them to be both “exemplary” and fully “transparent”. Furthermore, while in office, Chavez has consistently enjoyed approval ratings of 60 percent or higher, primarily the result of an immense and active poor and working-class socialist oriented constituency.

It is crucial to remember that, unlike electoral politics in the U.S., where large corporations control the American government, and can use campaign donations and other lobbying perks essentially to purchase a politician’s favorable policy determinations, the Venezuelan citizenry are much more engaged and heavily influence their electoral political processes. Chavez can do nothing, except what he is allowed to do by the democratic processes of the people, the Venezuelan National Assembly (Congress), their court system, and their re-calibrated constitution. It is not uncommon to find pedestrian Venezuelans carrying a little blue book on their person — it is the Venezuelan Constitution. Moreover, marginalized groups in Venezuela have experienced greater inclusion in the political activity of the nation (along with significant increases in governmental social funding) during Chavez’s tenure in office than at any other time in the country’s long political history.

Attempts to extend presidential terms in office must be done through legal and constitutional means, ratified by the Venezuelan National Assembly, and voted on by a majority of the electorate. This has happened. A sitting president needs to call for a national referendum prior to taking steps to abolish any constitutional clauses which prohibit the extension of term limits. Over 70 percent of registered voters turned out for the vote on the referendum. The elimination of a two-term limit in office was peacefully and democratically passed by at least a 55 percent majority.

International observers regarded this process as a model for the region and the world. Nicanor Moscoso Pezo, Chairman of the Latin American Council of Electoral Experts, reported that…

The referendum complied with international standards and national legislation, especially with regard to communication and the transparency of the electoral administration.

Additionally, a February 2009 report from the U.S. Delegation of International Electoral Accompaniers detailed their findings in an executive summary:

The U.S. delegation found that the voting in Venezuela’s 2009 referendum was, overall, fair, transparent, and clean. While there were a few instances of technical problems, we were impressed by the efficiency and simplicity with which Venezuelan voters were able to express their preferences. We often found ourselves wishing that elections in the United States were conducted with such uniform professionalism and care, and that the election results could be tallied as quickly. Our observations of Venezuelan popular democracy in action stand in marked contrast with media depictions of Venezuela’s government as autocratic.

All this notwithstanding, Chavez could not be guaranteed a third term in office. He is politically compelled to register as a pre-candidate, and thus, be submitted to the collaborative assessment and nomination of his own party, the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV). They decide, not him.

Finally, there exists scarce, if any, evidence that Chavez has sought to stifle opposition movements. Contrary to popular belief, there are fairly spirited opposition forces in Venezuela. Since much of Venezuela’s print and television media is privately owned — and decidedly anti-Chavez — opposition suppression would prove to be a difficult task, even if one wanted.

There are eight opposition candidates vying for the nomination for a coalition party comprised of various opposition groups, and calling themselves the Democratic Unity Table (MUD). MUD obligates each candidate to render $122,000 for admittance into the race. Plagued with hostilities and rampant corruption amongst the various groups, MUD has often found it difficult to achieve consensuses.

At least fourteen of the potential opposition candidates have traveled to Washington, D.C. hoping to acquire the political and financial windfall that a U.S. endorsement would bring. In fact, President Obama has requested five million in his 2012 budget to specifically support anti-Chavez opposition movements. What’s more, as I have alluded to toward the top of this thread, it has long been common knowledge that the U.S. government supported the opposition — an illegitimate government — in the failed coup of 2002.

The notion that Chavez is somehow blocking opposition parties from forming and running for election in 2012 is untrue as proved by the evidence that they, not only can, but are.

Will they succeed in 2012? We shall see!

Marco McWilliams is an educator, writer and Pan Africanist. He writes from Providence and will pursue a Ph.D. in 2012.