Venezuela’s constitutional referendum

Posted on February 18th, 2009 Jack 1 comment  Print This Post

Last weekend, Venezuela’s new constitution won 54% approval at referendum. On one hand, it overturns term limits for all elected officials in Venezuela, especially Hugo Chavez. Many analysts therefore called the referendum a plebiscitary sanction for Chavez’s indefinite rule. On the other hand, the new constitution grants numerous social and economic rights. Moreover, progressive academics from Europe and South America helped draft it. This has led others to denounce the critics as reactionaries.

For instance, alleging a “US media campaign against Venezuela,” the country’s foreign minister lashed out against DC-based editorial pages:

Both editorials belittle Venezuelan citizens by portraying them as sheep unable to act unless motivated by bribery or punishment, incapable of judging whether or not it is in their interest to approve an amendment that would allow public officials to run for reelection for consecutive terms.

What, then, are we dealing with in Venezuela? Did professors’ magnanimous technical assistance undo prohibitions on pro-poor policy? Or is the new constitution our latest case of authoritarian upgrading?

In answering the question, a few points are worth keeping in mind:

1) 54% means an eight point margin of victory. That is not very large. One might explain eight points in terms of a “sheep” effect, to which the Foreign Minister alludes, in terms of performance legitimacy, or in terms of both.

2) As one former Venezuelan politician and social scientist notes, how could the people say no to “expanding the political rights of the citizens as a whole?” This time, the term limit repeal was a rider. When Chavez lost a referendum the last time, socioeconomic rights weren’t part of the package.

3) Most of the numerous, new rights are not enforcible anyway. I would be surprised if Chavez can guarantee free water and education for all – let alone build the infrastructure – as falling oil prices erode “petrosocialism.”

4) As “petrosocialism” becomes less buoyant, Chavez may face a crisis of legitimacy. If his performance legitimacy wanes, desire for a change of government will increase, and term limits would be instrumental in getting one. That instrument is gone.

3) Chavez’s democratic credentials are thin. He attempted a coup in 1992.

4) And procedual democracy has steadily eroded under his tenure.

Those who conclude the new, “Bolivarian” constitution attacks injustice are naive. This is an authoritarian upgrade. Chavez has made impossible promises in return for consent to his continuation in power. If political rights continue to fray in Venezuela, we should not be surprised when he dubiously wins a legal third term in 2013.