Issue No. 600
International
Previous issue
Site map
|
|
22 - 28 August 2002 Issue No. 600 International |
Current issue Previous issue Site map | |
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 | Recommend this page | ||
Did somebody say 'putsch'?
The acquittal of officers who tried to overthrow Venezuela's Hugo Chavez by the country's Supreme Court is a blow to the president. But it need not prove fatal, writes Hisham El-Naggar
If there remained any doubt that Venezuela was deeply divided between the supporters of President Hugo Chavez and his sworn enemies, the Supreme Court's verdict regarding the failed coup last April must have dissipated them.
In a controversial ruling, and with a rather slim majority -- 11 out of 20, with two abstentions -- the Supreme Court decided that the 11 April coup was no coup after all. It is true that Chavez was held prisoner, that he was compelled to resign until the coup lost support and he was reinstated in power, and that the "interim" government which overthrew him proceeded to suspend the constitution and dissolve Congress. Of such stuff coups are usually made, one would think. But no, the Supreme Court ruled, there was no coup after all. If Chavez resigned, it was because he chose to.
The absurdity of the ruling was obvious even to those who have very little sympathy for the choleric ex-officer who rules Venezuela. Trivialising the disposal of constitutional order, even if the deposedpresident does have a very authoritarian view of constitutional democracy, is problematic to say the least. That such an attitude should receive support from the very body whose duty it is to uphold the constitution is grim indeed.
The reaction to the Supreme Court's verdict mirrored the divisions in Venezuelan society. Chavez swore that he would seek the punishment of the guilty officers using all legal means at his disposal. His supporters demonstrated angrily in the vicinity of the Supreme Court. His opponents openly celebrated the ruling.
It is hard for an objective observer to argue the "morality" of the issue. Yes, the rebels were unquestionably guilty of trying -- and failing -- to overthrow Chavez. But Chavez himself is hardly in a position to lecture them on the sanctity of democracy: did he himself not seek unsuccessfully to overthrow the previous government, before managing to replace it by winning subsequent elections?
All the same, a couple of observations are in order.
First, whatever Chavez's past may have been, and despite his demagogic approach to democratic rule, the verdict itself is an illustration of the fact that his regime does preserve the trappings of democracy. His adversaries had made clear that they would not have done the same, had they held on to power. The rebels were not dragged before kangaroo courts, and the government patiently awaited the ruling of the highest legal body in the land. Chavez's protest did not imply disregard of the verdict, rather that he would continue to work through legal channels to get the rebels convicted.
Second, underlying the legal battle is a disturbing reality: the division in Venezuelan society both stems from and is reflected in the division of the country's armed forces. A substantial number of officers support Chavez, and a substantial number oppose him. Since April's coup, he has not succeeded in ousting his opponents from the military, nor have they mustered enough force to neutralise his supporters. In other words, today's standoff is, above all, a reflection of the realisation by both parties that dramatic change cannot come about without risking civil war.
Nobody can deny that Chavez once had considerable support, especially among the poorer classes, who, in the natural order of things, are an overwhelming majority in Venezuela. Nobody can deny either that his support has dwindled considerably of late, in view of the deteriorating economy. Chavez had skillfully used his popularity, while it lasted, to consolidate his rule. He won the electorate's approval for a constitution which magnifies his power. He also gained support at the polls for a presidential term extending through to a remarkable 2015. However, although popularly sanctioned electoral results should be considered democratically valid, there is no denying that Chavez's diminished popularity stands in sharp contrast to the enormous power he has concentrated in his hands.
Meanwhile, the country still has an independent Supreme Court and a surprisingly free press, which Chavez's opponents use to castigate him. His supporters cite this to emphasise that he is no Mussolini. His opponents wonder disdainfully whether he would be so tolerant of dissent, if such a sizable segment of the armed forces were not openly hostile to him.
Arguably the most interesting thing about the April coup was not the reaction of Venezuelans to it, but the reaction of non-Venezuelans. The putschist government, which lasted a couple of days, astonishingly enjoyed the open backing of such traditional champions of democracy as the United States and the International Monetary Fund, who, annoyed at Chavez's pro-Cuban ways, recognised it at once and promised it immediate assistance. Virtually all Latin American governments, including those who cannot abide Chavez, stood firm in support of the principle that no elected government should be overthrown with impunity.
Does that principle stand a chance in today's Venezuela? Certainly Chavez has been weakened by the blow the Supreme Court has dealt to his authority. If one considers that many of the Court Justices owe their appointments to him, one might be tempted to conclude that his allies are deserting him, as they see the tide turning against him.
Then again, the divisions in the army are not to be belittled. It is not just a matter of personal loyalty; Venezuela's armed forces have become a microcosm of the ideological divide that is tearing their country apart. Neither side is completely wedded to democracy, but Chavez is still the only legitimate President of Venezuela. That fact, unpleasant to his enemies within the country and without, may yet count for something if the country is to avoid falling to pieces.
|
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
| ARCHIVES Letter from the Editor Editorial Board Subscription Advertise! |
WEEKLY ONLINE: www.ahram.org.eg/weekly Updated every Saturday at 11.00 GMT, 2pm local time weeklyweb@ahram.org.eg |
 Al-Ahram Organisation |
