Venezuela: Elections or Bust?
Forward Article to a Friend
Print Article
The leaders of the West regularly lobby on behalf of democracy, and the political process of selecting leaders through peaceful, orderly, free and fair elections. And yet, street revolution seems all the rage and a great deal have turned out quite well: mimicking the post-Cold War revolutions of Eastern European Communist dictatorships, citizens of former Soviet satellites have had remarkable success in combating fraudulent elections, such as the “Orange Revolution” in Ukraine and the “Rose Revolution” in Georgia. Others have met with less success, such as the “Denim Revolution” in Europe’s last dictatorship, Belarus. When such circumstances prove to be successful, the world can rejoice along with the citizens in revelry, knowing that this uncommon occurrence may be a necessary purge of the tyrannical practices of these countries’ pasts.
But such massive protests more frequently occur in the Third World, where overarching colonial powers have been long gone. Ecuador’s city square is often filled with the paint and water sprayed by government tanks attempting to break-up protests. One, orchestrated via text message, recently led to the President’s flight from the country. Thailand just had a coup that overthrew its democratically elected leader, following months of successive protests. And most recently, Venezuela witnessed a huge gathering of supporters of the opposition in a show of force against the leftist populist Hugo Chavez, now infamous to Americans for his speech before the United Nations identifying President Bush as “the devil.” Presidential candidate Manuel Rosales organized this most recent protest in a bid to display that the opposition has not been stifled.
At first glance, the U.S. may heartily endorse this expression of the popular will against an executive who has a stated goal of aligning with nations opposed to United States interests including Iran, Syria, Bolivia, and North Korea. However, given the already high turbulence in the region, such protests pose a risk as well. Columbian President Uribe, a prominent U.S. ally, survived an assassination attempt the day of his inauguration. Bolivia’s President Morales is a crony of Chavez’, bent on legalizing the growing of cocoa and seizing “national resources,” such as the country’s vast natural gas supplies. To make matters worse, Morales’ Vice President is a former Marxist guerilla spearheading the Constitutional “reform” to allow the President more powers. But to cheer on a takeover of government through non-democratic means would be to reaffirm in the minds of Latin Americans that these uprisings are an acceptable form of governmental change. This is only rarely an appropriate means of transformation: revolution without democratic elections breeds instability, violence, and the increased potential for further totalitarianism. U.S. interests would be served best if Hugo Chavez was removed through the democratic process rather than through a coup.
After all, Chavez has not only participated in a Venezuelan coup attempt, he has also already survived one. In April of 2002, massive protests similar to the one this fall led the military to take over, arrest Chavez, announce on state television that he had resigned, and appoint a new government. Within days, massive counter-protests from Chavez supporters prompted the military to reinstate Chavez, as if it was all a big joke. Chavez went on to blame the United States for his temporary disposal and to consolidate his power, nationalizing Venezuela’s oil industry amidst domestic and international objections. Using his political capital in this manner allowed him to silence critics at home while promoting leftism around the globe through so-called “petro-politics.”
The U.S. must give the Venezuelan elections this November a chance at the peaceful revolution that is the electoral process. If Chavez gets re-elected, he has already announced that he will put forth a measure that would allow him to rule the country until 2030, without the “disturbance” of having to continuously campaign. Perhaps Venezuela will do Chavez a favor and spare him the “disturbance” of future elections by electing the opposition’s Manuel Rosales.
