If we think Guyana is a polarized society, it is nowhere in the same realm as our neighbour, Venezuela, where the political exchanges are couched in a form of extreme language which even our fractious politicians would not contemplate employing. No one could accuse President Hugo Chavez of setting an example; on his weekly television programme he warms the airwaves by abusing his opponents, certain foreign governments and US officials, in a fashion which would do the inebriated denizens of a local rum shop credit. Such displays of intemperance are not only inappropriate for a head of state, but they are inimical to rational debate in a situation where it is important to keep open lines of communication with those who oppose the government. On the other side of the divide, however, are the opposition media, whose allegations against the President are similarly lacking in propriety.

Of course, following the collapse of the strike in the oil industry earlier this year, President Chavez thinks he has won the war against the opposition. He has certainly won the battle, but if he has won the war it is a short-term victory, and may possibly be a Pyrrhic one. At the moment, the opposition are concentrating their hopes on collecting enough signatures - a minimum of 2.4.million - to trigger a presidential recall vote. Mr Chavez’s incumbency does not end until 2007, but a clause in the constitution makes provision for a recall election half-way through his term, if enough signatures requesting it are submitted. The gathering of signatures is slated for November 28-December 1, and the opposition believes that some 5 million of Venezuela’s twelve million voters will be signatories to the petition.

While the OAS, and various foreign governments and agencies have given their support to the recall referendum as a constitutional solution to the political crisis, the President’s approach has appeared to be one of attempting to frustrate it, if at all possible. His latest salvo has been against the country’s judicial system, which has felt the pressure of his moves to control it. As Reuters reported in our edition yesterday, the judicial authorities have fired the magistrates of the country’s second highest court for “making an alleged ‘inexcusable judicial error’ in an obscure property case.” Mr Chavez also has his eyes on the Supreme Court, with legislation currently before the National Assembly which would make possible the addition of twelve judges to the 20-member tribunal. The Supreme Court, of course, would be the final arbiter in any electoral dispute.

As a fall-back position, however, the President is clearly taking precautions in case the referendum goes ahead. According to the Associated Press yesterday, the head of state has been on the campaign trail for months, “spending freely on projects for Venezuela’s majority poor and condemning all foes as corrupt ‘oligarchs’ from a bygone era.” The same agency reported that the opposition, in contrast, had been able to drum up little enthusiam among Venezuela’s voters. They quoted the head of one polling firm as saying that this was because they lacked a charismatic leader and any policies which constituted a realistic alternative to what Mr Chavez’s party was offering.

It might be added that those leaders who conceivably might have given the opposition some focal point, are in exile, and the President has wasted no time in accusing them of plotting to bring down his government by violent means. His latest victim is Carlos Ortega, the President of the Venezuelan Workers Federation who had been given political sanctuary in Costa Rica. The government has claimed that fragments of a recorded telephone conversation in which he was a party indicate that he was plotting a coup. According to the Caracas daily, El Universal, Mr Ortega has vigorously denied this, calling the recordings “a vulgar montage,” and stating that the only coup he was referring to was the “final coup” Mr Chavez would receive from the Venezuelan electorate in the recall vote. Prior to that, Venezuelan relations with the Dominican Republic became strained after accusations from Miraflores that that country was facilitating coup plotters.

However, the allegations do not stop there. Lawmakers from the governing party, reports El Universal, are saying that telephone conversations by opposition leaders reveal a terrorist plan to kill their own followers on the day of collecting signatures, because they are not capable of gathering the minimum required. They would then claim victimization, so their argument goes, and pave the way for a violent sequence of events similar to that of April 11, 2002. They were also reported by the same newspaper as saying that recorded telephone conversations between the former President of the Venezuelan business chamber, and a union boss showed links to the CIA.

Well all of this is not healthy. Which doesn’t mean to say that the opposition is any less paranoid than the government itself, and hasn’t made outrageous accusations of its own. With no platform and no solutions to the nation’s problems, it has also refused to acknowledge those achievements which the President does have to his credit in trying to address the issue of poverty. What one does wonder in a situation where the gulf between the political players is so wide, and where the bitterness runs so deep, is whether a recall referendum, even if it goes ahead, will provide the solution to Venezuela’s woes. Will either side really accept the results, and even if, for the sake of argument, they do and an election is held subsequently, will either side allow a government which they did not support to function?

In the end, no administration can operate effectively while it is in conflict with a substantial section of its people. President Chavez’s sentiments are not in question; he is the first President to really show concern for Venezuela’s majority poor. However, his authoritarian inclinations and his combative style have undermined any good that he has done, or seeks to do. In order to function effectively, democracies require strong, independent, accountable institutions, and a spirit of compromise and consensus. The extremist rhetoric currently being traded between the government and opposition will make the path to a truly democratic climate and long-term stability a rocky one.