A year and a half ago, Venezuelans rejected the idea of unlimited reelections for the head of state. At the time, president Hugo Chavez defiantly described that decision using harsh profanity. So, this Sunday, another referendum will be held to see whether the head of state gets the result he is looking for.
A year and a half ago, Venezuelans rejected the idea of unlimited reelections for the head of state. At the time, president Hugo Chavez defiantly described that decision using harsh profanity. So, this Sunday, another referendum will be held to see whether the head of state gets the result he is looking for.
At this point, the referendum is not another example of democracy, but rather of Chávez’s obstinate pursuit of unlimited time in power. That ambition of the former military leader led him to head a bloody coup in 1992 and win elections in 1998, 2000, and 2006.
For the moment, Chávez’s term ends in 2012. We believe that 14 years in power is a sufficiently long period to make fundamental changes and lay the groundwork for continuity. However, it would seem that Chavez is incapable of relinquishing the political limelight and is confusing his desire for political control with the well-being of Venezuela. It is not that Chavez is bad for his country, but it is clear that what is good for Chávez is not necessarily good for Venezuelans.
Beyond the specific case of Chávez, unlimited reelections is a bad idea no matter how you look at it. A president in office has all his government’s resources at his fingertips to favor his election, leaving the opposition at a disadvantage. This problem is further intensified in caudillo-type regimes like that of Chávez.
The Venezuelan president has clearly responded to the demands of society’s underrepresented sector, earning true support for his leadership. But that does not warrant making him president for life.
Sunday’s referendum is, ironically, a democratic act that actually threatens democracy.
Link: http://www.impre.com/laopinion/opini...
