October 31st., 2007

“Constitutional” Fraud

With the traditional “Uh, ah, Chavez is not leaving!”, the National Assembly (AN) passed the article which allows the indefinite reelection of the President, with 7 year periods. A pro-Chavez group who vindicates the democratic nature of socialism (Podemos) did not join in. The rest of the members of parliament, gave a standing ovation, applauding in what seemed to be an effort so that the television cameras could capture them in witness of their faithfulness to the lieutenant colonel. When given their chance to speak in order to justify Chávez being perpetuated in power, members of the national assembly agreed in the convenience of maintaining the same leader until their XXI Century Socialism project becomes a reality. They argued that only he knows the road which must be taken and has the abilities and strength as leader to successfully lead the Bolivarian revolution. A pro-government spokesperson, Mario Isea, expressed: “we give the leader the possibility to continue directing and we give ourselves the possibility to continue enjoying this leadership.” The National Assembly approved Chavez’ proposals, except for three, which were supposedly objected by military leaders, and added new articles, all oriented towards configuring a socialist state and strengthening the powers of the President. The missions, (electoral projects of social impact which Chavez has handled to his outstanding advantage) will have constitutional ranking, “as an alternative way of public administration.” The Comptroller General of the Republic timidly pointed out that the coexistence of two forms of administration makes the follow-up and evaluation of the programs more difficult, but the National Assembly pleased the presidential demand of not limiting these through laws. They will be governed by Presidential regulations, and will be financed by budget assignments and “oil surplus”. This reforms eliminates the autonomy of the Banco Central and grants the President the power to manage the international reserves, install monetary policies, the currency exchange policy, interest rates and everything which may be related with planning and control of the economy. With regards to this subject, the reform establishes 27 new presidential attributions. The president is authorized to create or suppress provinces, municipalities, communal cities, functional districts, maritime regions and other forms of territorial re-organization, whose authorities he will designate or remove. The National Assembly accepted the proposals regarding mixed properties, social production companies, popular power, educational area, international policies and has reserved a final revision, after the referendum, in order to adapt those articles which were not modified to the new spirit of the Constitution.

Jurists agree that this reform is constitutional fraud. Students took over the streets, under terrible rainstorms, in order to take a document to the National Assembly proposing the postponing of the referendum. Their most noteworthy leader, Jon Goicochea, had to be transported within a military vehicle to enter the parliament. Upon his exit of a meeting to which he had been invited in the Universidad Pedagógica, he was physically assaulted by groups of red shirts, the masses made it impossible for him to speak and after the beating he required medical treatment. When exiting the medical assistance center where he was treated, he announced that the students will be on the streets on Thursday, the 1^st, as proof of a manifestation which demonstrates the rejection of popular majorities to the reform. “We will not be intimidated. Resistance against the reform is only beginning and we will continue to be on the streets”.

THE CHURCH CONDEMNS THE REFORM

“Morally unacceptable” was the headline of the independent news upon informing the official position of the Catholic Church with regards to the Constitutional Reform. The document approved by the Episcopal Conference (CEV) was read and commented by Archbishop Diego Padrón. The opinion of the catholic leadership is that the reform accentuates the concentration of the power in the President, favors authoritarianism, limits civic liberties, excessively increases state control, allows the government to control spaces of citizen life which correspond with inalienable human rights and attempts against fundamental principles of the democratic system.

“The central issue”, they affirm, is that they are attempting to put an end to diversity and pluralism, claiming that the State is “socialist”, under the leadership of a President with absolute power and with the ability to be continuously reelected. A model of socialist, Leninist, Marxist State, one with state control, is contrary to the nature of the human being and the Christian vision of the person. Experiences of other countries show that within such a system the State becomes society’s oppressor, limiting personal freedom and causing a deep deterioration of the economy, producing generalized poverty. What is most worrisome to the Bishops, is that the reform, in excluding the sectors which do not share it, will deepen the nation’s polarization and the pacific coexistence of Venezuelans will become ever more difficult.

The official announcement was preceded by declarations of important figures within the Church. According to the President of the Plenary Council, Monsignor Pérez Morales, regarded at a historical-cultural level, “people” results within the reform as a restrictive category, excluding, like apartheid, in that it only embraces people qualified due to their adhesion and participation in “socialism”.  Venezuelans will be acknowledged as citizens, patriots, insofar as they are “socialists”. They speak of a power which will emerge from the basis, but the complex text makes it dependent on the national government. Socialism is proposed not as an alternative project within a democratic pluralism. It is presented dogmatically as “the truth” and “the future”, before which only blind acceptance is possible, well watched by the illuminated-armed vanguards. The reform defines not only the State as “socialist”, but also the dimensions of society (economic, political, ethical-cultural).

In spite of health problems which forced Aló, Presidente to be suspended, Chávez in a “telephone official speech” affirmed that the bishops were “morally unacceptable” and were “at the service of the oligarchy”. He referred to recently deceased Cardinal Castillo Lara with offensive terms, to whose rites of burial no government representative showed up. Cardinal Jorge Urosa responded with a call to tolerance and requested the withdrawal of the reform project. The government requested that he put aside his cardinal robes to issue opinions. Urosa replied that he didn’t have to since bishops are impartial in political controversies, but they cannot remain indifferent before the problems of the people. Archbishop Balthazar Porras announced an imminent meeting with Pope Benedict XVI, due to an audience foreseen for the new directors of the Latin American Episcopal Council (CELAM), of which Porras is President. He assumes as a given that the subject of Venezuela will be discussed when breaching the conclusions of the CELAM in the conference of Aparecida (Brazil).  There the Pope showed his preoccupation with the rise in the region of authoritarian forms of government or forms of government which are based on ideologies which were believed to be overcome by now. This was clearly a reference to Venezuela. Surely he knows by now, that Chávez began his electoral campaign referring to Bishops as the new Judases.

THE UGALDE PROPOSAL

Approving the proposed change “carries within itself the germ of illegitimacy” and “outside of a consensus there is no real social pact but rather a unilateral decision and the imposition of one sector over those who are not seen as citizens, but as enemies.” This was expressed in a joint communication by the Official Academies which congregate the most eminent personalities of all sectors of knowledge. The rectors of autonomous Universities executed a communication condemning the reform as an instrument to destruct liberty of teaching and imposing a unique form of thinking. They agree with academics in the concept of “illegitimacy” and announce that they will put into effect their capacity of assembly so that the rejection will be evident. Groups of intellectuals, artists, journalists, scientists, workers, businessmen and organizations which most represent the civil society are protesting in negative categorical terms against what they consider to be a severe institutional rupture.

Luis Ugalde, Rector of the Universidad Católica, asks himself what can be done before this pretension of imposing a new Constitution which the majority of Venezuelans reject. “The possibilities are good, as long as democrats work on what is fundamental, liberate themselves from frivolities and are capable of putting together the diverse expressions of rejection.” He proposes an information campaign regarding the concrete threats within the reform and the acceptance that the rejection will be expressed in two ways, both with strong reasons behind them: abstention, in those who distrust the system and electoral arbitration, and those who will vote NO, who consider that voting is an instrument of civic fighting. Both expressions will make evident that with a minority the government wishes to impose as a constitutional obligation, an authoritarian regime and an unacceptable way of life. According to Ugalde, the “day after” must be foreseen and prepared, for which, from the night of the referendum, the majority of the country has to feel as such. “This requires a voice and direction which, before and after, will explain and interpret the facts before the country and the world...The “day after” is key in saving Venezuelan democracy and it will only remain victorious if we work knowing that Chávez will not acknowledge defeat when seeing himself in a minority and before a NO and abstention.”

Chávez will dedicate the entire month of November to acts of the masses in favor of the YES. He will repeat his presidential campaign scheme used last year. This time around he has several factors against him, among others internal fractures of “Bolivarians”. Several governors and mayors have expressed their opposition to this reform, and surely the majority does not regard well the fact that in the future their role will be merely in name, considering that they are being stripped of functions and powers. There are daily pro-Chávez protests all throughout the country,  demanding the fulfillment of promises regarding employment, salaries, housing, and protests regarding safety problems and crisis of public services. In the surveys, high support towards informal workers social security and the reduction to 6 hours of the work day is reflected, but the majority remains uninformed with regards to the content of the reform, they do not believe that the same will solve the country’s problems, they are worried that private property is being threatened and instead of a reform they wish the current constitution were being upheld. The President enjoys a good level of popularity, but his real strength lies in the iron strong control of key institutions, among others, the National Electoral Council, all the personnel which manages the electronic voting system and the Supreme Court of Justice.