This referendum was not about right and left. Hugo Chavez’s defeat is a win for democracy in a region that has been facing dictatorships and populist leaders since the beginning of its Republican History. It was about giving Chavez unacceptable power that could have destroyed what remained of Venezuela’s democratic institutions. The real choice was between an archaic and a new way of doing politics in Latin America. Fortunately, Chavez has lost.
I interviewed Chavez in 2003, during Venezuela’s general strike. At the time, I could see some signals that reminded me of my days spent living under a military regime in my own country, Brazil. When I arrived at the presidential palace, I followed all the security routines: I opened my bags and my crew’s TV equipment baggage, displayed all the documents demanded, answered all the stupid bureaucratic questions and passed through the metal detector. Despite following the rules, I was ushered into the Miraflores’ Palace as though I were an enemy soldier: a guard leveled his assault rifle at me and walked backwards in front of me, all the way from the main gate to the building’s front door.
I was led into a room and told to wait there. After three hours, Chavez came into the room, protected by a ridiculous number of guards and generals. For God’s sake, it was only a simple interview!
While I asked my questions, he had an unusual way to show his disapproval, shouting back, “Crazy! Are you crazy?!” It was a ridiculous scene. I kept replying “No, I am not,” and repeating my questions.
Chavez’s defeat is an important outcome to Latin America, because his success would have created a very negative and dangerous precedent. His defeat will have a sobering effect on some rulers in other countries, such as Bolivia and Ecuador, who are attempting to follow his methods and ideas. Even in Brazil, an incipient movement had already started among President Lula’s old friends to give him a third presidential term. An opinion poll published last weekend, conducted by one of the country’s most reliable polling agencies, showed that 65% of Brazilians reject this idea.
These days, Brazilian society is debating Chavez, too. The Brazilian Senate will soon vote on whether to admit Venezuela to the Mercosul, South America’s free trade zone. There is a clause in Mercosul’s main treaty that says only democratic countries can join. The question that divides the Brazilian Senate as well as the Brazilian society is: Is Venezuela still a democracy?
I have written in my newspaper column that the answer is no. To be democratic, a country needs more than regular elections: that’s apparent in Russia today. To be democratic, a country needs to have a working checks and balances system, a free press, constitutional guarantees and, in a presidential democracy, a fixed term of office for the president as well as a limit to reelection. Chavez has lost the referendum, but there’s no doubt he will try again later.
Latin American elites have committed too many mistakes throughout our political history. Inequalities, extreme poverty, and corruption are old sins that have been undermining democratic beliefs in some of the region’s nations. That helps explain the Hugo Chavez phenomenon.
Today, there is no such thing as a Latin American left. Chile, Brazil, Argentina, Bolivia, Equator and Venezuela are all following different paths. The most authoritarian thus far has fortunately been defeated in his attempt at a coup by referendum. That’s the best news in town.
Please e-mail PostGlobal if you'd like to receive an email notification when PostGlobal sends out a new question.
