The Devil's Excrement

MVR Deputy Iris Varela said today that she had the Constitutional Amendment ready to be considered by the National Assembly. The amendment would allow the naming and removal of Supreme Court Justices with a simple majority. The opposition said the idea was “ridiculous” and “stupid” among other interesting epithets. The threat of this amendment does not bother anyone as it would never get to a referendum before the recall vote would. In any case, even if it did where would the Chavistas get the votes to approve the amendment? (Caricature borrowed from Tal Cual)

The Intelligence police (DISIP) went tonight to the office of former Presidential Candidate and current Deputy and leader of the Causa R (Radical Cause) party Andres Velasquez, looking for a “machine to make fake bills”. No machine was found and the witnesess signed to that effect. Velasquez said that this was simply a measure to intimidate him as a member of the opposition. Maybe the the “I” in DISIP stands for idiotic, not intelligence.

It is interesting to see that reactions to a recall referenda are much the same whether you are here or in California. People react strongly to the idea of recalling a mandate, independent of geography or ideology. To me the question needs to be separated into two parts: i) Should referenda be available to the electorate? and ii) When and how often should they be made available to the electorate?

On the first question I remember thinking that the new Venezuelan Constitution, as proposed by Chavez himself, was a little bit naïve about when and how often you could have a referendum. I remember Chavez himself arguing vehemently that power resided ultimately on the people and he did not believe in a representative democracy, but a participatory one. By this he meant that every important issue should be brought to the electorate and have the people decide using referenda. While this sounds perfectly democratic in theory, this participatory democracy is in reality quite impractical. Basically, if one sets the limit of signatures too low for a referendum, then the opposition parties will spend all their time taking advantage of the weaknesses of the Government, whether local or national, to call for referenda on any subject or candidate. Interestingly enough, while Chavez had originally proposed that 10% of the electorate should be able to initiate a recall referendum against a President’s mandate, it was later changed to 20% and limited to once during a mandate, in order to limit the possible destabilizing aspects of it.

            In California, it is clear that the people can recall a Governor. Despite this, the reactions are quite similar, Gov. Davis is trying to block it from a legal point of view while mayor Feinstein calls it a carnival and destabilizing, much like Chavistas do here both in public and in private. The advantage in the US is that there is a single date every year for all referenda, something which does not exist in the Venezuelan Constitution. In fact, this participatory democracy, as Chavez envisioned it, would allow an opposition party to request a referendum basically every week, holding a Government in check, as the rules for processing them and holding them are clearly delineated in the Constitution.

I don’t want foreign readers to get the impression that I exaggerate about Chavez’ belief in the concept of a participatory democracy. In fact, Chavez refused to sign the final statement at the Quebec summit on the grounds that he did not believe in a representative democracy as the proclamation spoke of, but he believed in this participatory democracy in which referenda would rule the day. Somehow since the topic has been in the limelight, Chavez and his cohorts have forgotten about the concept and have revived the same arguments about instabilities and legalities that are present in the California debate. Curiously, it is Chavez that has become the establishment in his reaction to the recall, forgetting all of his pseudo-revolutionary principles.

            My feeling is that referenda are a very democratic expression, but in the case of Venezuela’s Constitution, the absence of timeframes allow for the opposition to make referenda a year-around political confrontation. The threshold for a petition for a referendum should in general be high so as to stop artificial questions or challenges, with little chance of support or success. However, referenda should be held on a single date once a year, so as to allow Government to function the rest of the year and not make referenda a ground for politicians to resolve their internal fights. Otherwise, referenda become like blackmail against current Government. In the case of both Venezuela and California, it seems to me that the voters do have a gripe; they have the petition and the signatures and most likely, the votes. Thus, it should be left for the voters to decide whether the mandates are recalled or not. Blocking them, avoiding them or calling them names are simply the only option of those that used democracy to climb up, but refuse to be pushed down by the same people that gave them the power. Whether it is Mickey Mouse, Bozo the Clown or Schwarzenegger running against you is not the relevant question, it is simply whether you are a bigger fool than you or the electorate may think or not. It’s that simple, voters simply don’t forget when they are given a raw deal, least of all when they are fed up with you anyway.

The opposition has yet to define its strategy going forward. While on Feb. 2^nd. A petition was collected ahead of time to request the recall referendum; there are a number of groups that believe that they should be collected again. From the point of view of national opinion, there is a perception that the signatures may be illegal mainly due to the public controversy about them. In fact, in polls, 45% of Venezuelans believe that they should be gathered again while 6% are confused about the issue. Thus, a new process to collect the signatures may, from the point of view of public opinion, give the new signatures a solid footing that may be absent today.

            From a technical point of view there may be two objections to the signatures gathered in February. One is that they were collected before Aug. 19^th. when a Presidential recall referendum is allowed by the Constitution. While the Constitutional Hall of the Supreme Court has already ruled that this should not be a problem, the full Court may be receptive to another challenge which would simply be erased by a new petition drive after Aug. 19^th. The second problem is that some lawyers have expressed their beliefs that the question posed in the petition drive that collected the previous signatures may be incorrect from a technical point of view. In particular, some interpret that the question is not a request but a proclamation and that it should be addressed to the National Electoral Council and request from it that the recall referendum be held in accordance to the Constitution.

            Some opposition groups believe that it would be better to introduce the current petition so as to have the Electoral Board (CNE) explain why it may not be valid, before going through all the trouble of starting a new process. This is answered by others by saying that it would be better to rewrite the question in such a way that there are no objections from any groups.

            The opposition appears to be leaning at this time towards having a new petition drive after Aug. 19^th. This would eliminate all controversies about the date, will focus the opposition, will generate some positive feelings among the opposition , would be a show of strength and will give the correct image both nationally and internationally that the opposition ahs done what it ahs to do to hold the recall referendum. It would definitely would give the process complete legitimacy if all of the clouds surrounding it were removed.

            At this time the opposition is considering three alternatives: i) handing it the signatures on Aug. 20^th. and if reject hold another drive. ii) Handing them in on Aug. 20^th. and hold another drive on the 24^th. or simply hold a drive on the 24^th. and hand them in soon after that. Each of these options has advantages and disadvantages. From the point of view of public relations, handing them in and holding a new drive four days later seems to be the worst option as it send a confusing signal to international opinion and the electoral itself. While there appears to be some advantages to submitting the current petition and waiting for an opinion from the CNE, at the same time this would represent a loss of precious time as well and would open the way to numerous challenges at this time.

            While there are some dangers to a new petition drive for the recall referendum, such as a lack of interest or the recognition that there was something wrong with the first one, the only weak link might be that the Government might try to exploit it as a demonstration of the weaknesses of the opposition. But this will be insignificant as long as the new drive is viewed as successful and the number of signatures is larger than the first time, which should not be a problem.

            We believe that the biggest advantage to a new petition drive is the pressure it would impose on both the CNE and the Supreme Court to allow the recall referendum to take place without any obstacles. By showing its commitment to the democratic process as outlined by the Constitution, these institutions would be hard pressed to allow a technicality or an interpretation to bock the process while forcing the international community to press for the referendum to take place. Whatever the option chosen, the opposition will likely reach a decision on the favored option in the next few days.

I was surprised that the Attorney General actually said today that the Venezuelan Supreme Court had the legal power to resolve the omission by the National Assembly and it did not represent an invasion in the competence of one power over the other. Surprised, not only because Mr. Rodriguez has been extremely partisan in his statements (he was Chavez’ first Vice-President), but more beacuse he usually stays on the sidelines and says llittle about such cases. He also said that the video of the shooting from Puente El Llaguno was not a “montage” like the Vice-President had accused (it was broadcast live on TV, so it would have been difficult to set up the montage) but that it ahd been manipulated afterwards adding sounds to it. That video, showing members of Cahvez MVR party shooting at the opposition march April 12 2002, won the King of Spain prize this year. Some Chavistas, including the Vice-President, have asked King Juan Carlos to withdraw the prize saying it was  a montage.

The Venezuelan Supreme Court is meeting with various groups from all sectors in order to receive input and discuss on the possible candidates for the National Electoral Commission members. Basically, each day the members of the Constitutional Hall invite someone to meet with them. Today, one of those invited was Francisco Ameliach, who is both the Head of the Tactical Command of Chavez’ MVR party as well as the President of the National Assembly. Mr. Ameliach sent the Court a letter excusing himself from being able to attend the meeting “by virtue of the fact that today I will be presiding the ordinary session of the National assembly”. The session began at 10 AM and ended at 3 PM and Mr. Ameliach never showed up. These are the irresponsible leaders of this country!