The accord in Venezuela
Editorial
Stabroek News
June 1, 2003
If the pact signed last Thursday in Caracas between the Venezuelan Government and the Opposition for the holding of a referendum after August 19 on the presidency of Mr Hugo Chavez, opens a window of hope for the lessening of tensions in the neighbouring state, it is certainly no guarantee of a final end to the crisis. The problems that underlay the original rift are still there, and the society remains as polarized as ever.
There are some members of the opposition who are not even convinced that President Chavez will allow the referendum to go ahead; there are various legal manoeuvres open to him, they say, which he could utilize to frustrate the intent of the accord. According to a Reuters report, the agreement sets no poll date; it does little more than recommend the constitutional provision that a recall referendum on the presidency be held after August 19. Constitutionally speaking, this would first require that signatures on a petition for the holding of the poll be collected from at least twenty per cent of the electorate - a stipulation that is nonetheless unlikely to present the opposition with any particular difficulty.
More problematical, however, is the fact that according to Reuters the National Assembly, which is dominated by Chavistas, must first appoint a new National Electoral Council to set a poll date and verify the signatures on the petition. It is here that ample scope lies for political bickering. In addition, Reuters reported that President Chavez also wants a check done on the electoral register. In other words, if everything is dragged out for too long, it could aggravate tensions again.
President Chavez is, however, to all appearances, taking some measures to give him an advantage in case he is forced to hold a referendum. Last week, the Associated Press (AP) reported that a proposed law covering radio and television broadcasts currently before Congress would ban the live airing of political violence, limit daytime newscasts of terror attacks, and outlaw radio stations devoted exclusively to rock and other “foreign” music. In addition, AP said, 60% of all programming would have to be produced within Venezuela, and of that, more than half must have come from independent producers approved by the state media watchdog.
It might be observed in passing, that AP reported that there were also provisions in the proposed new law dealing with matters such as the oulawing of “rude” and “vulgar” language; a prohibition on images of drinking, drug-taking, gambling and sex; and a restriction on showing “psychological” and physical violence between the hours of 7:00am and 7:00pm. One critic was reported as commenting that the definitions were so vague in the law, that some daytime soap operas could be banned. Those implementing the new regulations, not surprsingly, would be censors chosen by the President himself.
While it is true that the opposition media have been virulently anti-Chavez, often irresponsibly so, it is also the case that the state has its own media outlets, and that the President’s own programme broadcast on Sunday nights, during which he sometimes rambles on for hours, has to be carried on all stations simultaneously. It is not without some justification, therefore, that the media curbs are being seen as a move to circumscribe free speech, and place a partial gag on opposition voices, although in defending the move, the Government has cited the need to protect children, and have the media operate more responsibly.
Be that as it may, the law when passed will almost certainly be challenged, creating another area of friction.
In the meantime, the economy is in a severe recession, Reuters reporting that it contracted by 29% for the first quarter of this year. The IMF has apparently forecast a 17% contraction in the economy for 2003 as a whole (it was 9% last year), while unemployment is said to have risen to 19.8% for the month of March, up from 15.1 per cent. Reuters said that these figures represented the steepest quarterly contraction ever seen in Latin America, and the worst ever performance by Venezuela. The reason for this was not just the strike, but also the foreign currency controls introduced after the strike collapsed. Starved of the wherewithal to import goods in an economy which depends on imports, many companies have gone to the wall.
Yet for all of that, President Chavez shows no sign of adjusting his policies; he is still a firm believer in a bigger state role in the economy, and for him, economics is subsumed under politics. At an international level too, political associations take precedence. During the recent summit of Presidents of countries which are part of the Rio Group in Cuzco, Peru, Chavez put forward what he called the ‘Bolivarian Alternative’ to replace free-market groupings in Latin America. “We don’t even need anything like Mercosur [which groups Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay],” he was quoted by Reuters as saying, “because we can’t put the economy first in terms of integration. Political unity needs to come first.”
Venezuela’s contracting economy notwithstanding, President Chavez for the moment is still managing to hang on to core support among the poor. Various reports have said that this is because the impoverished see their only hope as the President - he alone among the politicians puts their interests first. As such, therefore, like him they blame the opposition for the current economic crisis. Whether their loyalty can be depended on if the economy contracts further, remains to be seen.
Some analysts feel that President Chavez would lose a referendum if it were held now. Even supposing he loses if and when one is eventually held, that is not necessarily the end of the crisis. An election would have to be held thereafter, and it is a distinct possibility at the moment that in that poll the President could win a plurality of the votes. He would surely take that as popular endorsement of his policies, and given his track record, there is no reason to suppose that he would change direction to try and heal the deep divisions in the society.
As for the opposition, it is united on only one thing - antipathy towards President Chavez. Those of its leaders who remain in the country are jockeying for position, and unlike President ‘Lula’ who made the poor his platform in Brazil, no one as yet appears to have come up with an overarching vision for Venezuela encompassing the poor, which by some estimates constitute 80% of the population. In addition, the opposition is hampered by the plutocratic and corrupt image of some of its elements from the pre-Chavez years. Even if it dislodged Mr Chavez in a referendum, therefore, it would still have to unite behind a single leader with sufficient charismatic appeal to challenge him, and with the kind of message of change which would resonate with the mass of the electors in order to win a national election.
To put it simplistically, President Chavez is right about putting the poor at the centre of Government policies; he has, however, little grasp of economics, and with his absolutist style, has only succeeded in alienating large segments of the citizenry whose co-operation he desperately needs in order to transform conditions in the country. The opposition, in contrast, has an altogether more sophisticated grasp of how economies work, but so far has fallen short on the political front. It still remains to be seen, therefore, whether the accord signed last week will put Venezuela finally on the road to stability, and in the longer term, prosperity.
