|
 |
 |
|
Gradually, in the last couple of decades, all South Americans have come to live under basically democratic presidents they chose through mostly free and fairly clean electoral processes. Recently, Peru survived through constitutional means the attempt of a democratically elected president to perpetuate himself through fraud at the polls, but Venezuelans—who have a history of democratically elected governments that goes back four decades—appear to be willingly providing more and more dictatorial powers to the president they elected in a landslide in December 1998 and reelected last July in generally fair and honest elections.
Popular disappointment with the country’s inept ruling by the two major traditional parties that since 1959 alternated in power, and mounting anger over pervasive government corruption led to the election of president Hugo Chavez, a former paratroop colonel who led a failed coup against the government in 1992. At the head of an ad hoc leftist-nationalistic coalition and in the name of his “democratic revolution”, Chavez dissolved an opposition-controlled Congress and pushed through with wide popular support a new constitution that gives the state a dominating role in managing the economy, weakens local government autonomy, increases the power of the president, extends the presidential term to six from five years and allows incumbent presidents to run for a second consecutive term. Reelected last July for a first six-year term, when the new charter went into effect, Chavez has since then been successful in getting the Venezuelan people to tolerate or even formally approve new encroachments of liberties that are considered to be part and parcel of a democratic system. But his latest effort to extend his control over labor unions might backfire.
Chavez has come under fire for a referendum carried out Dec. 3 in which Venezuelans voted to oust hundreds of opposition union leaders of the country’s most powerful unions whom he accused of being corrupt.
Citing projections based on preliminary results from cities throughout the country, National Elections Council president Roberto Ruiz said 66 percent of voters approved the initiative, 26 percent opposed it and 8 percent of votes were invalid. But turnout was low, with only 22 percent of Venezuela's 11 million voters casting ballots. Labor unions boycotted the vote, and many Venezuelans—tired of seven elections and referendums since Chavez’s 1998 election—stayed home.
Human rights groups, opposition parties and international union organizations said the vote was unconstitutional and violated international agreements guaranteeing union autonomy from government. More importantly domestically, labor groups braced themselves for a confrontation with the government, and the 1.7 million-member Venezuelan Workers Confederation vowed civil disobedience if Chavez’s government tries to remove leaders from their offices.
The vote calls for the 180-day suspension of trade union confederation heads and the election of new leaders, but Chavez hasn’t said how he will implement the suspensions. Congress president William Lara suggested the government begin by cutting off power to union buildings.
The Geneva-based International Labor Organization said the poll violated international labor protocols by allowing non-union members to make decisions on union matters. The Brussels-based International Confederation of Free Trade Unions, with 123 million members, said it won't recognize new unions emerging from the referendum, and both groups warned Venezuela could face trade sanctions.
The union groups have warned they will promote an international campaign against Chavez’s government, which could discourage some foreign investors from entering the country. Opposition parties— which concede the need for union reforms—slammed Chavez for strong arm tactics in pushing the vote through Congress and promoting his own government-led union movement at a time when workers’ complaints over their economic situation are mounting.
Even though Venezuela has the largest oil reserves outside the Middle East and is the world’s third largest oil exporter, it is mired in a deep recession. Despite its enormous oil wealth, approximately two-thirds of the people live in poverty, while a decrepit state is unable to provide many basic public services, such as health, justice and education.
Neighboring Colombia and even distant Ecuador and Bolivia are increasingly worried by what they see as Chavez’s efforts to stir up and help armed rebels in those countries. Last week Chavez denounced this as an “international campaign” of “lies” aimed at damaging Venezuela’s relations with them and, for good measure, called U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs Peter Romero “an international agitator” for having said that there were indications of ties between Venezuela and insurgents in those three countries.
But Chavez himself has admitted—indeed, he has advertised—his intervention in stalled peace talks with Marxist rebels in Colombia and inviting members of its Marxist FARC guerrilla movement to address a Latin American parliamentary conference in Caracas.
Irked by articles in Colombian newsmagazines Semana and Cambio, which alleged links between his government and Colombian rebels, Chavez charged these were attempts by Bogota’s “savage oligarchy” to “unleash a storm against us” and added these ominous warning: “Beware that in Colombia there are parties interested in letting loose the dogs of war. We are not willing to give in to provocations, but nor are we going to sit here with our arms crossed.”
Countries in the region are beginning to wonder if they now have a Fidel Castro political look-alike right on their own continent.
Claudio Campuzano (claudio-campuzano@hotmail.com) is U.S, correspondent for the Latin American newsweekly Tiempos del Mundo and editorial page editor of the New York daily Noticias del Mundo. He writes weekly for World Tribune.com