Is the demonisation of "bolivarian" Venezuela justified, or are the naysayers merely projecting their very rigid conception of liberal democracy onto a country defining its own democratic system?
Read this:
The deepening of Venezuela's Bolivarian revolution: why most people don't get it
(for comment on the most recent election by the same author, see here)
Agree? Disagree?
In any case, opendemocracy.net is a good source of interesting material.
By the way, if you don't understand all Chavez's references to Simon Bolivar check this article out at historytoday
Alas, it seems I just 'don't get it.' Liberal democracy is democracy but with guarantees of civil and political liberties, checks and balances on abuses of power, political pluralism and constitutional liberalism. How does Venezuela's so called 'participatory democracy' compare?
ReplyDeleteVenezuela under President Hugo Chávez Frias is not 'democracy misunderstood'; simply put, it is not democracy.
Julia Buxton writes that 'Hugo Chávez was re-elected to the presidency in December 2006 with 1.7 million more votes than when he was first elected in December 1998.'
Unfortunately, seemingly democratic ends (an elected President in this case) are not democratic when the means are decidedly undemocratic.
The reality is that the Venezuelan government has an immense advantage over the opposition in elections, an advantage that has been consolidated by the expansion of executive power. President Chávez is in control of the National Electoral Council, and thus can commit subtle electoral fraud with impunity. He controls PDVSA, the state-owned oil company, making him the benefactor of immense wealth to be thrown around in an election. Media laws passed in December 2004 by a compliant legislature grants power to the government to fine and imprison those in the media who criticise government officials. An online list of those who have previously voted against Chavez and his allies allows the government to identify and punish those who don't support his regime. Hence voters will either fall in line, or abstain.
It is no surprise that Chávez received 1.7 million more votes eight years later - given how he has gone about consolidating power I would have been surprised if he had actually lost votes.
If democracy is about elections that are 'open, free and fair,' then Venezuela is not a democracy.
But nor is it a complete dictatorship. I suggest that those who are interested read the articles about 'competitive authoritarianism' that have been posted on Blackboard.