Daniel Drezner offers up the optimistic take on the Venezuelan referendum:
[J]ust as important [as the referendum's defeat] was Chavez's concession. The opposition "won this victory for themselves," he admitted in a voice whose subdued calm was in contrast to his frequently aggressive political speeches. "My sincere recommendation is that they learn how to handle it." Despite his authoritarian bent, Chavez (whose current and apparently last term ends in 2012) had always insisted he was a democrat — that he was, in fact, forging "a more genuine democracy" in a nation that had in many ways been a sham democracy typical of a number of Latin American countries. His presidential election victories — in 1998, 2000 and 2006, as well as his victory over an attempt to recall him in a 2004 referendum — were all recognized by credible international observers; and that conferred on him a democratic legitimacy that helped blunt accusations by his enemies, especially the U.S., that he was a would-be dictator in the mold of Fidel Castro.In the end it was a cachet that, fortunately, he knew he couldn't forfeit. As a result, the referendum result will resonate far beyond Venezuela.
That is indeed reason for optimism, but it strikes me as a little too soon to declare victory. After all, Robert Mugabe conceded graceful defeat after a similar referendum in 2000:
Zimbabwe's President Robert Mugabe has accepted defeat in a referendum on a new constitution."The government accepts the result and accepts the will of the people," the president said in a televised address to the nation.
He added that the result was "unfortunately a 'no' vote".
The next move was, of course, his attempt to consolidate power through the disastrous land reform and associated economic policies that have driven Zimbabwe's economy into the ground.
The situations aren't entirely parallel, of course; situations rarely are. But Chavez's crony populism and hamfisted mismanagement of the country's main economic resource, combined with his obvious belief that the world would be a vastly better place if he had a great deal more power, does not exactly make me sing with joy for his nation's prospects.
Hugo has really matured over the years. Fifteen years ago, his coup attempt was militaristic. Now it's democratic. See, he's moving in the right direction.
It's of course possible to divorce the merits of his generally popular economic program from his dicatorial "governance" reforms, and to discuss them seperately without trying to discredit the former by (obviously corectly) referencing the tragedy of the latter.
2012 is a long way off. Right now it would be foolish to make too large a bet on Chavez's leaving office at the end of his term. He might leave, but I'd keep the champagne down in the cellar for a few more years before bothering to chill it down with ice.
Justin,
In theory, you are correct that there is a difference between his economic "populism" and his proclivity for Constitution rewriting. In practice, however, they are closely tied because only by creating a powerful state without substantial opposition makes his "reforms" possible. In his mind, and in the mind of tyrants everywhere, the ends always justify the means. Where you know, just know, that you have the right way to do things, you get impatient with everything - like elected legislatures, Constitutions, civil societies, opposition parties, ... - that get in the way.
I strongly suspect that Mr. Chavez has not lost his itch for constitution writing.
2012 is indeed a long way off, and Chavez hasn't exactly shown a talent for either genuinely democratic behavior or productive economic policies. The fact that Soviet-like breadlines now form outside of supermarkets whenever fresh commodities like milk are briefly in stock is toubling at the least.
Also, is it my imagination, or do the more recent photographs of Chavez show a man who is really letting himself go?
Sadly, "generally popular economic program(s)" are typically horrible economic programs.
When the harmful effects of these programs manifest down the line, a strong dictatorial grip will be needed for him to remain in power.
Mugabe fought as a guerilla for 15 years before an agreement was brokered. He had a zealous, loyal army. The elections that brought him to power were not the least bit fair. He frequently used the military power of the state to crush his domestic enemies. There was nothing but the slightest, mocking, courtesy paid to the idea of democracy in Zimbabwe.
Chavez can't dream of acting the way Mugabe has. He doesn't have anything close to the militant powerbase Mugabe had. The forces he'd have to overcome are more powerful. He doesn't have the boogeyman that Mugabe had. (Vague warnings about the Norteamericanos are pretty lame compared to real, wealthy, well-armed white supremecists who actually ruled the country).
If he tries anything, he'll be attacked by his own party, by other leftist leaders who want power.
Chavez willl just come back with the referendum again and again until he wins or 2012 rolls around, as the Parti Quebecois wanted to do with independence. He might well have won this time, had he presented a stripped-down version that only included indefinite re-election, instead of the weird Libyan-style reforms that made the thing too weird for many bourgeois leftists.
Iran isn't developing a nuke and Chavez lost his referendum to become dictator for life. A pretty good week, I'd say.
Sure, tomorrow things may be different, but, by the same token, in the long run we'll all be dead...
Enjoy good news when you can get it, I'd say. Hopefully Chavez will indeed step down at the end of his term. For today, I'm happy to see his referendum failed.
Thing is, having a big public referendum drive and letting people come out and oppose it can be a great way to figure out who the opposition is, so they can be taken care of. There are probably many, many people in the Chavez machine who would be rewarded by their superiors for finding ways to punish anyone who helped organize the opposition to the referendum. Of course, that's been true for all of the opposition to Chavez, which has been going on for years, and there don't seem to have been any dastardly efforts to shut them up so far; so maybe the Chavistas aren't budding Stalinists after all.
The situations aren't entirely parallel, of course; situations rarely are. But Bush's crony populism and hamfisted mismanagement of the country's military resources, combined with his obvious belief that the world would be a vastly better place if he had a great deal more power, does not exactly make me sing with joy for his nation's prospects.
Interesting contributions. Chavez and Mugabe are simply Goerge W. Bushes without the industrial might.