[R-G] Venezuela: still a democracy

[Anthony Fenton]

Venezuela: still a democracy

Mark Weisbrot

Published 21 November 2007

http://www.newstatesman.com/200711210001

Planned Venezuelan constitutional reforms are portrayed as 'another  
Chavez power grab', a notion challenged by Mark Weisbrot of US  
thinktank CEPR

On 2 December Venezuelans will vote on a number of amendments to  
their constitution. Generally speaking the proposals have been  
portrayed in the media as the next step on the road to dictatorship.

That's because the mainstream media generally abandons quaint notions  
of balance and objectivity when reporting on Venezuela. Curiously,  
this often extends to left-of-centre newspapers not known to  
slavishly follow the Bush administration's lead when reporting on  
other oil states where regime change is either sought, Iran, or in  
process, Iraq.

The biggest fuss this time seems to be the amendment that would  
abolish term limits for the presidency.

Perhaps it is because I am from Chicago, and had only one mayor from  
the time I was born until I graduated college, that I am unable to  
see this as the making of a dictatorship.

Not to mention that if Hillary Clinton is elected next year, we will  
have Bushes and Clintons as heads of state for a full consecutive 24  
years, and possibly 28.

President Lula da Silva of Brazil defended Venezuela last week,  
asking why "people did not complain when Margaret Thatcher spent so  
many years in power". He added: "You can invent anything you want to  
criticise Chavez, but not for lack of democracy." Lula has repeatedly  
defended Venezuela's government as democratic, but these comments are  
never reported in the English language media.

Chavez is also castigated for proposing to get rid of the  
independence of the Central Bank, which is inscribed in the 1999  
constitution. This is portrayed as just another "power grab."  
However, there are sound economic reasons for this amendment.

Central Banks that are not accountable to their elected governments  
are not altogether "independent" but tend to represent the interests  
of the financial sector. In the trade-off between growth and  
employment versus inflation, the financial sector will always opt for  
lower inflation, even if it means stagnation and unemployment.

The increasing independence of central banks, and the resultant  
overly-tight monetary policy is very likely one of the main reasons  
for the unprecedented long-term growth failure in Latin America over  
the last quarter-century.

There is also an amendment that would provide Social Security  
pensions to workers in the informal sector, which would be a major  
anti-poverty measure, given that this includes about 41 percent of  
the labour force.

Another would reduce the working week to 36 hours. This is being  
reported in the media as a 6-hour day, but more likely it will be  
interpreted as four eight-hour days plus four hours on Friday.

There are also amendments that would ban discrimination based on  
sexual orientation or physical health; provide for gender parity for  
political parties; guarantee free university education; make it more  
difficult for homeowners to lose their homes during bankruptcy. It is  
hard to argue that these are punishing or repressive measures.

Another amendment would reverse the 1999 constitutional provision  
protecting intellectual property. This would not abolish patents or  
copyrights but would allow more flexibility for the government in  
addressing the enormous economic inefficiencies caused by state- 
protected monopolies, e.g. in areas such as patented pharmaceutical  
drugs. This is difficult to argue against on economic grounds.

There are other amendments that are more controversial, most of them  
added not by Chavez but by the National Assembly (Chavez cannot veto  
amendments added by the Assembly; these have to go to the voters).

For example, one amendment would allow the government to suspend the  
"right to information" (but not due process, as reported in the  
international media) during a state of national emergency. Another  
would allow the President and the National Assembly to create new  
federal districts and provinces.

Some of these provisions have drawn opposition even among Chavez's  
supporters. If they are approved, it will likely be because the  
majority of voters trust Chavez and the government not to abuse their  
powers.

And there is some basis for this trust: the National Assembly earlier  
this year gave Chavez the power, for 18 months, to enact certain  
legislation by executive order. The pundits screamed about Chavez  
"ruling by decree," but in fact this power has not been used much at  
all, except in dealings with foreign corporations.

In any case, the voters will decide, with a far stronger opposition  
media than exists in the United States proselytising against the  
government. Venezuelans have not lost civil liberties the way people  
in the U.S. (or even the UK) have in recent years, and ordinary  
citizens continue to have more say in their government, and share  
more in its oil wealth, than ever before. It is doubtful that the  
referendum will reverse these changes, regardless of the outcome.