THE POLITICS OF 'RECALL'
Editorial
Guyana Chronicle
September 7, 2003
THERE IS a new and worrying dimension to party politics in Venezuela that even the most ardent opponents of President Hugo Chavez would be advised to reflect upon in the interest of the very "democracy" being advocated.
Not satisfied with demands for a national referendum on his presidency, the political opposition quickly went on the offensive to exploit a distorted interpretation of a Supreme Court ruling that should he lose the forthcoming "recall" referendum, President Chavez would not be eligible to seek re-election.
As it turned out last week, the Supreme Court found it necessary to retract its original ruling that conveyed the wrong impression that under Venezuela's constitution, Chavez would not be qualified to contest a new presidential election soon after losing a referendum on his current presidency.
There is something undesirable about the "recall" of a duly elected and seemingly still popular President before the expiration of his constitutional term of office - a development linked to a failed coup and widespread and very costly destabilisation politics.
But the idea of a serving President being denied the right to contest a new election that flows from such a constitutional interruption must be troubling for those familiar with the existing Venezuela constitution, ratified by a referendum, and which, as the Supreme Court has now ruled, does not preclude Chavez from facing the electorate again if he loses the coming "recall" referendum.
'Recall' in California
In the United States of America, there is, currently the phenomenon in California of a Governor, Gray Davis, having his legitimate term being disturbed by a "recall" referendum. He has long been regarded as a "conservative" Democrat.
The Governor has castigated his opponents, who failed to dislodge him at last November's election, as being involved in a "right-wing power grab". It would mark, he said, a new politics to "steal elections that the Republicans cannot win".
There is no mistaking the implications for stability in the governance of California with the introduction of a "recall" principle that is based on opposition claims of mismanagement of the economy and alleged maladministration. No question of corruption, of any kind, is involved in Davis's recall, or any breach of the state's constitution.
His opponents have sensed an opportunity to exploit an apparent political weakness to demand the referendum for recall at this time.
For Davis, much more than the governorship of a state of the union is at stake in the "recall" campaign which he may well lose in an expected low voter response. He sees it as a right-wing plot to subvert the constitution of the U.S.A.
A very serious claim. Davis, however, cannot be tarnished as a "communist" or "a second Fidel Castro", as President Chavez is being denounced by political opponents in Venezuela and the U.S.A.
We await the outcome of the "recall" politics in both Venezuela and California which sharply contrast with efforts in some Caribbean Community states to constitutionally provide for the recall of parliamentarians who defect to the opposition, or who are found guilty of a serious criminal offence.