In a post yesterday, I referred to Hugo Chavez as a "dictator" and got some pushback from some commenters who said it was an unfair characterization. I don't claim to be an expert on South America, so I went back and looked at the record to see what the story was, and basically would be willing to modify my assertion to "failed-but-potential-dictator." How's that?
I don't necessarily object to Chavez' socialist lean; what I object to is his consistent undermining of democracy. For instance, he has twice during his rule asked for and received the consent to rule by decree, centralizing wide-ranging powers in the presidency. Keep in mind, during the most recent request, his supporters controlled 100 percent of the legislature. Why would he even need these powers? Even though giving them to him was a "democratic" process, nonetheless, it is a dictatorship even if he gives up the powers when the term expires. He's also asked his country to alter the constitution and give him deeper powers, including a plan to abolish presidential term limits, an offer that Venezuelans, thankfully, rejected. He has promised to step down in 2013 -- when he was campaigning for the referendum, he said he would be in power until 2050 -- but I will wait until 2013 to see which promise is fulfilled.
Part of the problem is assuming that free and fair elections are sufficient for democracy, rather than necessary. They're only part of the equation. You need to inculcate a culture of democracy with liberal institutions -- institutions, like the media, that Chavez has undermined. His demagoguery against foreign countries, especially the United States, is a problem because it is demagogic, not because it is anti-American. No one can defend the U.S.' record in South America in the latter half of the 20th century, but there has been no independent evidence presented that the Bush administration has supported coup attempts against Chavez, even as he allegedly funnels suitcases of cash to political allies in other countries.
Imagine for a moment that President Bush had asked for the right to rule by decree, then asked to modify the Constitution to ensure he would remain in power? Liberals, and really anyone who cares about their civil liberties, are already up in arms over the theory of the unitary presidency. In this little thought experiment, what would the term be for Bush?
--Tim Fernholz
