Blog of the International Journal of Constitutional Law

Venezuelan Democracy in a broader context

I would like to follow up Daniel Lansberg-Rodriguez’s excellent post on the troubling state of democracy in Venezuela with a few observations placing the events in that nation in a broader context. One could argue that Venezuela is simply reverting to what has long been in the mean in Latin America which is that strong presidents sweep aside institutions to favor cronies and, in some cases, articulate a broader vision for the nation. Chávez is somewhat unusual in that he is a populist dictator on the left but there have been others (the Peruvian military dictatorship of late 60s and early 70s provides an example).

That said, the situation in Latin America is clearly very different in the twenty-first century than it had been in the twentieth century. If Chávez had sought to impose his populist solutions in the twentieth century, conservative forces with American formal or informal support would, in all likelihood, have overthrown him by now. The right would then have imposed a statist, crony capitalism, which, in turn, would have fueled a left-wing reaction. The politics of the region throughout much of the twentieth century (with some notable exceptions) was both bloody and ineffectual in solving collective action problems. Politics became, to borrow a phrase from the political scientist Guillermo O’Donnell, the impossible game.

In a region where income inequality is stark, the left is the natural ruling party. Historically, there have been at least two major problems with left-wing solutions to the region’s endemic problems, neither of which are fully present today. The first is that the left was long enamored of overly statist economic policies. Statist policies, both on the left and the right, facilitated the centralization of power, which, in turn, undermined formal constitutional provisions regarding checks and balances. This is no longer the case. The majority of the region’s leftist presidents and political parties understand that a different balance needs to be struck between government regulation and private markets.

The second (and this relates directly to what is occurring today in Venezuela) is that conservatives throughout Latin America with American support long undermined the possibility of political learning. Left wing programs have long been anathema to the right (the current criticisms of the tea party movement in the U.S. of President Obama’s policies pale in comparison), which successfully undermined democracy to prevent the left from taking power. This, in turn, turned the left to ever more radical solutions. Whatever else one might say about Fidel Castro, he took what he thought were the correct lessons from the C.I.A.’s involvement in the violent overthrow of a democratically elected leftist president in Guatemala in 1954. The point is that with the end of the cold war, American adventurism in the region is less likely and this opens the door to political learning. Chávez’s policies are a mistake but that is a lesson that the people of Venezuela may learn over time. It is not only the left that has to learn the lessons of the democratic game. The right, if it wishes to retake power, will need to articulate policies that resonate with voters instead of opting for a military putsch. While I am not sanguine about Venezuela in the short-term, I am cautiously optimistic about the long-term prospects for democracy and a commitment to constitutionalism both in that nation and in the region as a whole.


One response to “Venezuelan Democracy in a broader context”

  1. Anonymous Avatar

    ‘Democracy’ has become a catch-word everywhere. It is the anchor word in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. But somewhere,the power control principle in ‘Democracy’ seems to have been lost.
    It originally meant the opinion of the majority of the moment of the political power holders, reached in a free consultation on interest factors calling attention, by everyone voting in independent judgment and without instructions. The development of political parties with set political agendas as the fourth branch of the State and the universalisation of franchise compelled indirect democracies where elected representatives decided
    on behalf of the people as a whole. Here the majority principle was forgotten in the
    first-past-the-post principle of election which was adopted for practical convenience and the majority principle did not travel into the legislatures which, for reasons not fully known, seem to have gone for the majority of members present and voting,with the quorum set at 1/3 of the membership of the body. The majority became the majority of a minority and the power-control principle inherent in the compulsion to get a majority of the House to agree on a point got lost. Whipped voting further derailed the power process by erecting the Party Chiefs as the real power holders and the voting in the house became an empty formality. The ditatorship of an oligarchy is now passed off as democracy with disastrous consequences. Aristotle has warned that Democracy is a corrupt form of government for it was only the dictatorship of the majority of the moment and sympathies and antipathies had free play.
    Today,’Democracy’ to merit that name will have to provide for decisions requiring the majority of the legislative body agreeing by free independent voting, without instructions or compulsions, as representatives of the electors as a whole.Some constitutions guaranteeing equality specifically require voting without instructions. This principle will have to be got working soon if errors of the past are not to
    revisit the peoples and ‘democracy’is not to be a devise to keep people powerless between elections.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *