A Polarized Venezuela Takes a Step Back from Democracy

  
"The people have come to this palace, and they will never leave it," asserted Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez on April 14. In the previous three days, Venezuela lived through an outbreak of violence after protests and a national strike led to a civilian-military coup that temporarily removed Chávez from office. After only 48 hours-in which more than a dozen people died and 110 were wounded-Chávez had resumed his place at Miraflores Palace, but Venezuela's political future remained uncertain.

Public discontent with Chávez has been evident since last December, when the nation's largest business organization-Fedecámaras-called a general work stoppage. This set off a series of protests, including demonstrations during the president's televised speeches, marches around Caracas, public acts of defiance by dissident elements in the military and a strike by workers at the state oil company, PDVSA.

Venezuelan political analyst Manuel Sierra sees these signs of opposition as the beginning of a serious crisis of governability for the Chávez administration. The government's critics were led by "businesspeople and workers, the middle class, young people and sectors dissatisfied not only with the results of the government's social and economic policies, but also its trend toward authoritarianism and the undermining of its own democratic foundations," he said.

US Secretary of State Colin Powell was quick to point out that the crisis had developed over many months. "Venezuelan democracy has suffered damage over time from polarizing rhetoric and actions," Powell stated. "For months, we and others have expressed profound concern about this."

Political scientist Antonio Caballero agrees that Chávez brought the attempted coup upon himself, "for the things he did and didn't do, the promises he didn't keep, and the ones he threatened but didn't dare carry out; for the hope he awakened and the fear he provoked; for being boastful and erratic, populist and militaristic."

The April strike started off as a show of support for the oil workers. It didn't aim to overthrow the government, but a series of unexpected circumstances culminated in an improvised coup. Fedecámaras leader Pedro Carmona was named the country's new leader, and promptly proceeded to declare a series of unconstitutional measures. The spontaneous nature of the events at least partially explains Chávez's return, a development that stunned many observers.

In the aftermath, the most important question is: How will all this affect the country's political future? Most analysts foresee an increasing polarization of Venezuelan society.

Sierra argues that "Chávez's return does not solve anything, just as his departure did not." Another critic has stated that any government in Venezuela-including one headed by Chávez-must base its future policies on inclusionary policies that take into account the poor and marginalized sectors of society, as well as workers, professionals and the middle class.

Chávez has called on the country's governors, mayors, political parties, business organizations and NGOs to join a process of dialogue and reconciliation. But many believe that these efforts come too late and that Chávez will not really change his positions on controversial issues. The recommendation drawing the most support is for a popular referendum to decide whether to hold new presidential elections before 2006, as currently scheduled. According to prominent Latin Americanist Victor Bulmer-Thomas of the University of London, "there should be a return to the constitutional order with new elections held as soon as possible."

Other analysts foresee a period of convalescence that could include some clashes as Venezuela's political unrest deepens into a social crisis. Some predict that the opposition will continue to push until it succeeds in ousting Chávez.

Indeed, in an interview with Semana magazine, Venezuelan political scientist Aníbal Romero claimed that "the president will remain in limbo and will not take any corrective measures. Venezuelans no longer believe him and we will go on pressuring him until he leaves." As to the means of Chávez's ouster, El Nacional columnist Luis García Mora cites "legal channels, such as an initiative brought before the National Assembly. The balance of power there has shifted and it is possible. Removing him is necessary, because with his presence the country is becoming ever more ungovernable."

Clearly, one of the underlying problems is Chávez's failure to develop a political message that reflects Venezuela's current reality and guarantees the democratic system. A recent report by OAS General Secretary César Gaviria criticized the political situation in Venezuela, emphasizing the growing social polarization and the involvement of the armed forces in politics.

Only time will tell if Venezuelans can overcome their conflicts and decide on a future course for their country. For now, Chávez and the different social sectors must decide whether to restore their democratic credentials or cling to their own incompetence in a political system that shows every sign of being incompatible with the basic principles of democracy.

www.el-nacional.com - www.semana.com - www.bbc.co.uk/spanish