Venezuela's Tyrant Hugo Chavez Must Go

As the general strike against the leftist regime of Hugo Chavez grinds Venezuela's economy to a standstill, American policymakers worry about disruption of oil shipments from the fourth-largest U.S. supplier and further instability. For the Bush administration - and the rest of the Western hemisphere's governments - the current crisis is the result of a missed opportunity to help restore Venezuela's once-vibrant democracy. Now, as Chavez's rule teeters, we must learn from this mistake and not repeat it.

That opportunity came - and went - just over eight months ago, on a date that today resonates to every Venezuelan, April 11, 2002. On that day, Chavez's thugs fired on a 150,000-strong opposition rally, killing 19 people and injuring over 100. Popular anger over the killings prompted military leaders to demand Chavez to step down to avoid further bloodshed. Chavez resigned, but loyalists reinstated him two days later - after the governments of the United States and every Latin American nation refused to recognize a transitional government led by Pedro Carmona, the former president of Fedecamaras, the country's largest business association.

The hemisphere's governments (several Latin American leaders were gathered at a summit in Costa Rica at the time) argued that the overthrow of Chavez constituted an extralegal transfer of power that violated Venezuela's constitution. And this week, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher urged a "peaceful, democratic, constitutional and electoral solution." But the problem is that Venezuela has no rule of law to undermine!

Chavez's "constitution" is a farce instituted by Chavez himself in December 1999, a year after he was elected, to extend his hold on power. Chavez supporters, who controlled 121 of 131 National Assembly seats, rammed the document through the legislature. It was later approved in a national referendum in which over half of the electorate stayed away from the polls.

The new "constitution" dissolved the senate, extended the president's term from five to six years, gave greater power to the military, tightened state control over the oil industry, and limited the central bank's autonomy.

The document includes a "truthful information" press provision. It also allows the president to run for a second term, so Chavez can stay in power "legally" for up to 13 years. What happens at the end of the 13 years? No one knows, but it's important to remember that Chavez has tried to take power by force before, staging two failed coups in 1992.

Chavez's contempt for the rule of law is astounding. In the ongoing general strike, he has sent out troops to seize private gasoline-delivery trucks and ordered military commanders to ignore court orders to return the trucks to their owners. He has also seized control of the Caracas police department and defied a court order to return the department to the city's mayor's control. "A country where the judicial system is not autonomous and must submit to the executive is not democratic," said strike leader Carlos Ortega, president of the country's largest labor federation. "Listen well, Venezuela and the world: There is no democracy here."

There is little doubt how most Venezuelans feel about Chavez: They hate him, and for good reason. Many of his former supporters now consider him a dictator. His approval ratings have fallen to around 30 percent from a high of 80 early in his regime. His statist policies have brought the country to the brink of ruin. During Chavez's tenure, the Venezuelan economy has taken and nosedive -- GDP shrank by 7.1 percent just in the first half of this year -- and continues its descent. Meanwhile, his government has been selling 53,000 barrels of oil to Cuba a day at bargain-basement prices.

The most-remarkable thing about the strike is how broad it is - just about every major business and labor organization in Venezuela is participating. Most Venezuelans want to see Chavez go.

But the caudillo enjoys a cult-like following among a minority that is not only fanatical but violent - as the shootings that precipitated Chavez's brief April ouster and that occurred again recently in Caracas demonstrate. The April 11 revolt was a golden opportunity to restore democracy in Venezuela without violence because it happened so quickly that it gave Chavez's thugs little time to react. But recognition for Carmona never came.

Some would have decried recognizing Carmona's transitional government as a case of American hegemonic bullying of a Latin American country, but that is hardly the case. As a sovereign nation, the United States has the choice of which governments to recognize. Exercising this choice will bring a new moral weight to American diplomacy by emphasizing the importance of the rule of law. Extending or refusing recognition will not necessarily replace hostile governments with friendly ones, but it can let the opposition - and the tyrants - in those countries know whose side we're on.

Fedecamaras and the Venezuelan Workers' Confederation, the country's largest labor-union federation, who jointly called the April 9 general strike that led to the April 11 rally and Chavez's brief departure, also called the current one. Chavez has indicated he will cling on to power no matter what. And his "Bolivarian circles," armed gangs modeled after his hero Fidel Castro's infamous Revolutionary Defense Committees, have begun reprisals. This time, we must show the Venezuelan people we are on their side.

Venezuelans know their country has no rule of law. It's time the rest of the world realized it and got behind them. Breaking relations with Chavez's tyrannical regime would be a good start.

Good catch!

BTW, it's a myth that Chavez ever did enjoy the overwhelming support attributed to him, with some claiming as high as 90% in earlier elections, etc.

Read here the following article:

Myth Unmasked: Chavez Never Won By "Landslide"

Of the 24 million Venezuelans, less than 4 million ever voted for Chavez. In the five elections where Chavez participated, he never got more than thirty-five percent of the eligible votes.

By Johan Freitas, in Caracas

To hear Chavez tell it, he has the support of the vast majority of the Venezuelan people. He was elected in 1998 by a landslide, then re-elected over and over again. - Or was he...?

The Chavez myth is easily broken. Numbers don't lie. Chavez between 1998 and 2000 only won by default -- not because the Venezuelans supported him, but simply because they didn't bother to vote. In the last five elections, the absentee vote was the big winner.
What elected Hugo Chavez was not an overwhelming majority, as his supporters like to claim, but overwhelming apathy and disillusionment with the political system.

Venezuela has approximately 24 million inhabitants. The number of potential voters vary from election to election, but roughly 11 million are registered to vote. Of those, Chavez voters numbered between 2.8 million and 3.7 million, equivalent to between 26% and 35% of the registered voters.

Hugo Chavez won his strongest triumph in the 1998 presidential elections. 38% of the electorate abstained from voting, 27% voted for the opposition, and the remaining 35% voted for Chavez.
After that vote, Chavez consistently got less. At the best of times, 3.7 million out of the 24 million Venezuelans voted for Chavez. That's 3 out every 20.
The people of Venezuela never gave Chavez an overwhelming support. In terms of voters, Chavez always just got a third. The remaining two-thirds of voters either stayed at home or voted for the opposition.

Today, after more than four years of mismanagement and record-breaking corruption, Chavez is worse off than ever. Having never had a landslide or any substantial support to speak off, Chavez has no solid base to build on. And what little support he had before is nearly gone. All reliable opinion polls indicate that less than one-fifth of the country's voters are still with Chavez. Of intensions to vote, Chavez polls not even 2 million or 15% of the electorate.

For all his talk of popular support and landslides, Chavez is painfully aware of these numbers. This, more than anything, explains why he is not willing to allow free and democratic elections in Venezuela today.
If the Venezuelans were allowed to vote democratically, Chavez would no longer be their president.

1 - Dec 1998: Presidential Election¹
	Opposition	2.863.619	(27%)
	Chavez	3.673.685	(35%)
	Abstained	3.972.226	(38%)

2 - Apr 1999: Constitutional Referendum
	Opposition	289.718	(3%)
	Chavez	3.500.746	(34%)
	Abstained	6.543.062	(63%)

3 - Jul 1999: Constitutional Assembly
	Opposition	2.227.287	(21%)
	Chavez	2.839.573	(26%)
	Abstained	5.766.274	(53%)

4 - Dec 1999: Vote on new constitution
	Opposition	1.298.105	(12%)
	Chavez	3.301.475	(31%)
	Abstained	6.121.540	(57%)

5 - Jul 2000: Presidential Election²
	Opposition	2.530.278	(22%)
	Chavez	3.757.773	(33%)
	Abstained	5.081.449	(45%)

NOTES:
1: Not counted: Invalid votes, 1998: 450.987
2: Not counted: Invalid votes, 2000: 311.618

SOURCE:
C.N.E., Consejo Nacional Electoral (Caracas)

January 17, 2003

See the revealing expose's from his top military officers that have left him in the last few months here...

-Shane

POLITICS: U.N. Chief Stresses Rule of Law in Venezuela Dispute *** Chavez rejected the characterization of the ongoing political crisis in his country as a ''civil war''. ''We don't have a civil war in Venezuela - thanks to God and thanks to the conscience of our people,'' Chavez said. ''Go there and see for yourself,'' he told journalists. Workers in the oil fields and in the iron and steel industries are not on strike, he added.

''What the workers are confronting is a subversive political movement which has used the tools of terrorism against the national constitution.'' Although he did not produce evidence, Chavez said that ''some people'' living in the United States are financing the campaign to oust his popularly elected government. Denying that he was a ''dictator'', Chavez said that the opposition, composed mostly of the upper and middle classes, are unwilling to open a dialogue. ''I am willing to sit down and negotiate.''

Last year, the Venezuelan government called for international action against civilian or military regimes that take power by ousting democratically elected political leaders. The country's U.N. Ambassador, Milos Alcalay, told reporters that last year's short-lived coup was such an attempt. ''The guilty must be identified and punished within the country's justice system,'' he added.***

As a sovereign nation, the United States has the choice of which governments to recognize. Exercising this choice will bring a new moral weight to American diplomacy by emphasizing the importance of the rule of law.

This is an excellent point. Had we recognized the Carmona government, we could have had leverage over it that would have made it back off on any truly extreme moves. Frankly, I doubt that Carmona was an incipient right-wing dictator, but simply bungled his handling of the situation. The laws he was revoking were those put in place by Chavez, after all, and a new election was definitely necessary. However, he shouldn't have done it right then and there.

Was it a betrayal by the US? Not really, because I honestly don't think we were behind this one or had encouraged it. The whole thing came about very suddenly and Chavez left very abruptly. Our first impulse was the right one.

But I'm betting the lefties in the State Department got up there and immediately reversed course, thereby virtually putting Chavez in place again. And I'm betting they're still working against having the US take a more principled stand in this case.

After all, the press is reporting that Otto Reich was not formally proposed after his temporary appointment because he had supported "regime change" in Venezuela. Maybe this isn't true, but it kinda makes one wonder...

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.