---

BY JUAN VíCTOR FAJARDO

In print | Published February 19, 2009

As of this past Sunday, Feb. 15, 2009, the Venezuelan constitution no longer stipulates a term limit for popularly-elected government posts. This means that current and future mayors, governors and presidents, for example, can run and hold office no matter how many times they have been elected in the past. This change was made to the constitution on Sunday and was passed by way of a referendum voted on by the Venezuelan electorate. 54.36 percent of the voting population approved; 45.63 percent didn’t. This amounts to a 9 percent difference.

Dedicated readers of The Phoenix or avid followers of Venezuelan politics should remember that a similar change was presented by the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) on Dec. 2, 2007. Back then, the PSUV had put together a constitutional reform package that was intended to change more than 60 articles of the constitution. The most radical and scandalous of these changes was the one proposed for article 230, which lifted the restrictions on the number of terms a president could serve. Venezuelans voted against the reform in December, and the PSUV lost the referendum by a one percent difference.

According to the Venezuelan constitution, a proposal that has already been voted against in a referendum cannot be legally presented anew. Chavez, however, made good use of a legal loophole (that some of us still don’t fully understand), and asked Venezuelan voters the same question again. This time, the reform package was reduced to a constitutional amendment and article 230 became the single center of focus. The results of this Sunday’s referendum are, to say the least, dumbfounding. What happened between December 2007 and February 2009? How is it that the most radical component of a failed reform attempt was passed by a significantly larger margin when presented alone?

I wish there were concrete answers to these questions. Some argue that it was the PSUV’s massive mobilization efforts that tipped the balance. Others say that, given the lack of suitable, or even viable, alternatives to Chavez, the thought of him leaving office in 2013 made the fear of a post-Chavez Venezuela the determining factor. Some would say that the results reflect the abysmal difference in terms of campaign funds between Chavez and the opposition. Chances are, the answer lies somewhere in between and consists of a combination of the many theories that are out there. I do not intend to elucidate this matter at this time. Instead, I want to provide an immediate reaction to what happened in Venezuela last Sunday and underline the repercussions of Chavez’s victory for Venezuelan politics today and probably for years to come.

Perhaps the best way to start thinking about what this means for Venezuela is to cite Fidel Castro’s congratulatory message to Chavez: “Dear Hugo, I congratulate you and your people for a victory that, because of its magnitude, is impossible to measure.” Who knows what Fidel had in mind when he wrote to Chavez on Sunday night. One thing, however, is clear: the reason why Chavez’s victory is “impossible to measure” is because there is no consensus as to what it actually means.

In theory, removing the term limits of the presidency and other government posts doe­­s not mean that current politicians will be in power forever. It only grants current and future elected officials the right to present their candidacy no matter how many times they have held the same office in the past. They can and will hold power only when and if they win their respective elections. In a democratic country, this does not seem all that radical or authoritarian. It can even be framed as broadening the rights of Venezuelan voters in that they can freely choose their leaders no matter how long said leaders have been in office. The question is, what does this mean in practice?

In Venezuela, and probably elsewhere, whether or not one thinks that Venezuela is democratic largely depends on one’s political views. If you support Chavez, the fact that there have been 15 elections in the past 10 years speaks for itself, as if holding elections were all it takes to make a country democratic. If you don’t support Chavez, then the fact that all four branches of the Venezuelan government are aligned with his political agenda is enough to call the legitimacy of the nation’s democratic system into question. Among the many scenarios that political scientists imagined could have played out last Sunday, a carefully crafted electoral fraud ranked high. The current lack of transparency of the electoral system lends itself to thought experiments of that sort.

Nonetheless, shortly after the results were issued, the leaders of the opposition accepted Chavez’s victory, undermining predictions of conflict, protests and bloodshed.

Since the opposition was quick to accept the results of the referendum, one can safely assume that the elections were fair, or at least fair enough. There were about 80 reports of what seem to be isolated instances of electoral fraud — double voting, malfunctioning machines and several cases of the so-called “cemetery” votes. And again, Chavez’s campaign counted on the government’s checkbook as its single source of funding. However, there is no way around it. Last Sunday’s referendum was a huge victory for Chavez because of its apparent legitimacy. And what’s more, because the amendment was framed as a plebiscite for the president, the results show that Chavez still counts on the support of the majority, even though crime in Caracas makes it the most dangerous city on the planet, and regardless of food shortages and human rights violations.

What then are the hopes for a democratic transition into a post-Chavez Venezuela? “With this victory, we have opened wide the doors of the future,” said Chavez in his victory speech before he announced his pre-candidacy for the 2013 presidential elections. What is to say that there will be no fraud in upcoming elections?
The most important conclusion one can draw from the events that made history this past Sunday is that the struggle that has consumed political life in Venezuela for over a decade has perhaps only begun.

Next year, there are congressional elections. That is the new horizon. And if the opposition can win a significant number of seats, the Chavez administration will have to deal with an incompliant legislative branch.

On top of this, the price of Venezuelan oil has seen a 60 percent decrease in the past few months. This means that the government spending that has kept The Revolution afloat will decrease accordingly. Also, a devaluation of Venezuela’s currency is imminent.

The stage has been set for what has already been a pivotal year for the Chavez administration. The work that the student movement and other segments of the opposition have been carrying out so far needs to focus on generating a convincing and attractive alternative to Chavez’s revolutionary project. With the “doors of the future wide open,” whoever thinks they can defeat Chavez democratically must also be aware of the magnitude of their undertaking.

The answer is not to produce stronger arguments against the government. The level of ideological commitment and polarization inherent in the Venezuelan population leaves little room for a debate of ideas. Current mayors, governors and popular leaders of the opposition need to confront the Venezuelan population with actions.

They need to put forth an effective plan against crime, corruption and poverty. If the speeches pronounced last Sunday serve as an indicator for the current political situation in Venezuela, Chavez has already won the rhetorical battle. Actions, however, speak louder than words.

Juan Victor Fajardo is a senior. You can reach him at jfarad1@swatmail.edu

---

« RETURN TO OPINIONS

« PREV ARTICLE | NEXT ARTICLE »