blogs.salon.com   I have said little here about the recent decision by the Venezuelan Supreme Court on the consultative referendum. There are many reasons for this. Outrage was one. A second one was that the story can only be told in context. Each decision in Venezuela recently may appear to be reasonable, but they are not when they are viewed in context. In this essay I attempt to provide the full context of the Supreme Court, the Electoral Board and referenda in the last four years. Those that argue the simplistic argument:- Why can’t you wait a few months? – should read it carefully, the answer is clear, for the same reason Chavez could not wait a few months. Except in our case, it is legal, which was not tru for him! But in his case, it did not seem to matter, while we get nothing. Sorry for the length, could not shorten it!   A story of pilferage (or is it rape?)               When Hugo Chavez was elected President, one of his first acts was to call for a referendum to ask the people on whether they wanted or not to have a Constituent Assembly. Such a referenda was not contemplated in the Constitution of 1961. In fact, only Congress could change that Constitution according to the mechanisms of protection it contained. But the Supreme Court of the pre-Chavez era ruled that power resided in the people and thus, if the people approved the Constituent Assembly in a referendum, then it was legal.

            In the same act, the “people” gave the Government the power to set up the electoral rules for the elections to the Constituent Assembly. The 1961 Constitution guaranteed the principle of proportional participation (as does the 1999 one) to protect the rights of the minorities. However, the rules made up by Chavez and his collaborators were such that despite the fact that they received only 67% of the vote, they had 96% of the representatives, but no matter.

            The Constituent Assembly rewrote the Constitution, approved it and on that fateful day in December of 1999 it (thousands died due to flooding) was approved by less than 36% of the registered voters. In the next few weeks, three different versions of the Constitution were published, none of which agreed with the version approved by either the Assembly or the people. But no matter.

            In January 2000, Hugo Chavez, in a preview of the famous words he said in 2001 “I am the law, I am the State”, decided that all electoral positions had to be reelected, that he would remain in his post, but everyone else would be removed immediately. There was one problem though. Who would legislate in the time between his decision and the rightful elections of the new National Assembly? The solution was simple, a “transient” body called the “ Congresillo”, which had no legal bases was created and Venezuela was run and ruled by such an undemocratic, lawless body for 6 months. The members of this body were appointed by the Chavez Government and even though I recall Chavez saying that “all” were elected members of the Constituent Assembly and thus were elected by the people to represent them, this was incorrect as an acquaintance of mine, Nelson Merentes, was part of the Congresillo but was not elected to the Constituent Assembly. But no matter.

            The “Congresillo” ran onto another problem. What to do until the National Assembly was elected with important positions like the members of the Supreme Court, the Electoral Board, the Attorney General and The people’s defender? All of these had been forced to resign except for the People’s Defender which did not exist. Once again the powerful concept of “transitivity” was invoked and the lawless Congresillo selected and elected all of these positions. This is the origin of the current Supreme Court and Electoral Board that so irk the Chavez administration. Moreover, the current Attorney General was Chavez’ first Vice-President. You can see how this is a tale of pilferage and some rape. By piling one illegality on top of each other, Chavez managed to personally select the Supreme Court without the participation of the opposition as well as the Electoral Board. And this was a “new” democracy. But no matter.

            Roughly speaking, because it can’t be proven, the Supreme Court was composed of roughly a third chosen from loyal lawyers to the “cause”, another third from corporate lawyers associated with Chavez’ biggest fundraiser and one third by academic sympathizers. The Electoral Board was composed roughly half by Chavez’ loyalists and the other half by independents with no evident political affiliation. The Court ruled along the Government party line up to April of last year. Since then, the Court has rebelled against Government pressure, becoming more independent. In fact, in December eight of the twenty Justices said they were declaring a work stoppage to protest the Government’s pressure and persecution.

            The Electoral Board was a different matter. While in the limelight when elections take place, the Board has little political “glamour” in between elections. Thus, many of its members, particularly the Chavistas, began looking for greener pastures (no pun intended!). On Nov. 4th., only four of its ten members remained in their jobs and the National Assembly had not only failed to take actions in naming replacements to those that had resigned, but it had failed to even formally accept the resignations of three of them, as required by law.

            On Nov. 4th. over two million signatures were submitted to the Electoral Board asking for a referendum to ask the question: “Do you want Hugo Chavez to voluntarily resign from his position?”. The first attempt to block the referendum took place that day, when the path of the march/caravan carrying the boxes with the petitions was violently blocked by Chavez’ supporters led by Chavez’ well-known associate Lina Ron. The National Guard intervened, everybody was sprayed with tear gas but the petition was somehow handed in.

            Later that same month, Hugo Chavez asked the Supreme Court to rule that some of the articles of the new Electoral Power Bill approved by the National Assembly were unconstitutional in an attempt to stop the referendum. The Court ruled they were not and Hugo Chavez sent it back to the National Assembly. However, the Venezuelan Constitution says that the President can do one or the other, but not both and the Supreme Court ordered the President to decree the new bill, as it was.

            By then the Electoral Board had approved the referendum and its legality and scheduled it by a vote of three to one to take place on Feb. 2nd.. But the Supreme Court issued a ruling saying that any decision had to be made by a majority of four, which at the time meant it had to be unanimous, since six members of the Board had resigned, even if only three of these resignations had been formally accepted by the National Assembly. Roughly at the same time, the Court rejected an injunction to declare the question illegal.

            At this point, one of the members of the Board who had resigned announced that he was withdrawing his resignation and would join the Board. A pro-Chavez member of the Board said she would do the same, but her resignation was indeed legal as she had held another Government post since. All votes of the Electoral Board were recast with the extra member and decisions approved as required by the Supreme Court. At this point the Chavez administration said that it considered the referendum illegal, had no money for it, would provide no military security on the day of the vote and would not allow the use of public schools to hold the vote as it is customary.

            Chavez’ supporters introduced then two injunctions, one to declare the question illegal and another one to declare the participation of the additional member illegal. The Electoral Board proceeded making plans for the referendum Feb. 2nd. asking the public to donate the funds and the private sector the material for the ballots. With only thirteen days to go, the Electoral Hall issued this week an injunction suspending the referendum until the full Court decides on whether the new member was or not a legitimate part of it, and ordering the Board not to carry out any electoral activity until the issue is resolved. According to Venezuela’s laws there is no time limit on how long this may take. Thus, not only was the referendum suspended but, at this time, no election is possible in Venezuela, until the Electoral Hall allows it!

            This is the context of this week’s decision which was reported by the New York Times as “High Court suspends referendum” but within the text of the news it quotes Chavez and its supporters saying they consider it illegal, but no mention is made of the fact that the suspension was made simply on a technicality and not on the illegality of the referendum. In fact, that same day The Constitutional Hall ruled, once again, that the question, and thus the referendum itself was legal.

            The sad truth is that the referendum was not only the origin of the current general strike, but that it would have provided a relief valve for the current crisis. A resounding defeat by Chavez would have removed the “mandate” he claims to have for his revolution and forced him to negotiate an electoral solution ahead of the recall referendum in August. The High Court may yet give us another surprise. There are two “revision” requests introduced in the Constitutional Hall of the Supreme Court. While many believe that there is little chance that the decision by the Electoral Hall will be overturned, I would not dare predict it will not happen. By now, the ways of the Court are highly mysterious as it distances itself from Chavez and its administration.

            What is most remarkable about this story is how the unwritten “power resides in the people” allowed the 1998 referendum, but its presence in the new Constitution has simply been immaterial. Some call it pilferage; I prefer to call it rape.

An interesting piece. Actually, it wasn't too long, it was too short which is why it was a little hard to follow.

A quick comment before I get to the main point. It would seem to me from this that your main beef should be with the Supreme court, not Chavez. According to you the referendum on the Consituent Assembly was clearly unconstitutional at the time. But the Supreme Court ruled it legal. The Supreme Court was not out of line because was they did was interpret the law at the time which is precisely the role of courts - legislators make laws, executives enforce them, and the courts interpret them. Now you may think the decision was completely wrong but nevertheless that is what they ruled. Now with the ruling a couple of days ago you didn't like the courts ruling but again that is the court. I can't make heads or tails of anything they do but that is the system and you have to follow it wether you like it or not. So I really think your comlaint is more with the rulings of the courts then Chavez. (BTW, if you like places where the constitution is ignored you ought to hang out in the U.S. were wars are started all the time with no declaration of war from Congress as clearly written in the U.S. constitution. The U.S. Supreme court of course does nothing which shows Venezuela is not the only country with inept courts).

Anyways, there is really one sentence in your article that cuts to the heart of the whole dissagreement between us. You wrote: " A resounding defeat by Chavez would have removed the 'mandate' he claims to have for his revolution and forced him to negotiate an electoral solution ahead of the recall referendum in August". This is precisely what I disagree with.

In my opinion what that will lead to is government by opinion poll. No president will ever be able to make any decision which may adversely effect any significant segment of society for fear of having these referendums which will then undercut them and force them to resign. This is totally against the concept of what a republic is. In a republic (which is what Venezuela and all countries in the free world are) decisions regarding what the government does are made not by the "people" but by the elected representatives of the people who are elected in regularly scheduled elections. Any elected office holder has a complete mandate from their election until the next scheduled election irrespective of what any popularity polls indicate. Your proposed system of having votes at any time to determine wether or not the presidents mandate still exists or not would completely subvert this.

The effect of this would be to completely emmasculate and render impotent the executive branch of government. The executive branch would only then make decisions that would ensure its continued popularity irrespective of the long term harm those decisions may have on the countries welfare and would avoid unpopular actions even though they may be in the countres best interest. In my view any competent Supreme Court would take that into account in rendering a decision on this subject and therefore decide not to interpret the constitution in a manner that would allow these type of referendums to be held (and yes, courts always take into account the effects of their decisions on other branches of government and their ability to function - an example of the above is the U.S. Supreme court allowing the President to go to war without Congress declaring it).

Just one example of this would have been President Reagen in the U.S. When first elected he took actions which pushed the U.S. into its most severe recession since the great deppresion. That lasted for about two years and due to high unemployment he was very unpopular - I believe he was about 20% in the polls for a long time. Then the economy turned around and he became popular again and everntually won re-election by a huge landslide. I personally couldn't stand him but many conservatives consider him one of the greatest presidents ever - and under your method of doing things he would have been driven from office as a complete failure after a couple of years. (another little aside - you mention that the Constitution was only approved by 36% of the total electorate as if that undermines its legitimacy - it does not - Bush was elected U.S. president with less than 25% of the total electorates vote - if you don't bother to vote then you don't count.)

So this is why I consider all of the opinion polls irrelevant (as the saying goes - the only poll that counts is the one on election day). Obviously, the supreme court has to decide ultimately what it thinks is the correct interpretation of the constitution but this is certainly what I would recomment they decide. I think this is really the central, and very key, difference in our points of view. And everything else follows from that difference.

Further, even if you believe these referendums are allowed under the Venezuelan consitution I don't believe that justifies illegal strikes (such as the one at PDVSA) that have as their aim deabilitating the economy and government revenue to the point that the government collapses or it leaders are driven from power. It doesn't justify the mass media becoming seditious and it certainly doesn't justify threats against the presidents life.

BTW I'm sure you enjoyed the Americas column in the WSJ today by Mary O'Grady - I'm surprised you didn't post it verbatim on your website :) As much as a lunatic as I think she is at least the Journal keeps this stuff on the editorial and opinion pages which is more than anyone in Venezuela does.

Take care. Dan [dburnett@nyc.rr.com] • 1/24/03; 7:44:38 PM

Did you understand the article: The court says it is legal. Miguel Octavio [moctavio@bbo.com.ve] • 1/24/03; 8:22:23 PM

Dan, Go to Venezuela, experience the day to day in a conflict country, and then you can start your critics to Miguel's comments. It is very easy to see things from far and criticize but is very hard to live it day by day. What you family tells you can be true, but listening to it and living it are two different things... Gabriela y Juan Borges [gprietor@alumni.brandeis.edu] • 1/24/03; 8:41:07 PM

It is totally incredible how these people have destroyed our Country. It is just amazing... Afrael [afrael@yahoo.com] • 1/24/03; 9:31:19 PM

Miguel, no I didn't understand that they had made a definitive ruling on it that it was legal. If that is what they decided then that is what we have to go by. But it doesn't change any of what I said except to say that instead of potentially making a bad decision appearently they have already made a bad decision. That is very bad for the future. It is one thing to occasionally have bad presidents, it is another, and much worse, to permanently have a bad system of governence. Venezuela will never develope and will be mired in the same mediocrity and poverty for the next 200 years that it has been in the for the last 200.

Mr. Borges: I travel to Venezuela 4 to 5 times a year - I was there for most all of December. I'll probably be back in April. We'll see what is left of it by then. Dan [dburnett@nyc.rr.com] • 1/25/03; 7:38:23 AM

On the same day that one Hall ruled that theat member of teh Board may be illegal, the Constitutional Hall ruled (for the second time!) that the question of the refeendum is legal. Also, it is not a matter of whether you like it or not, it is in the Constitution and is what Chavez said he would do, ask "the people" about everything. It is crazy, but it is the law. Miguel Octavio [moctavio@bbo.com.ve] • 1/25/03; 8:25:04 AM

That?s the point, the law is enforced by Chavez? supporters when they like to. And when it could come against them, then the law does not exist. Guillermo [guillo@mac.com] • 1/25/03; 8:30:59 AM

www.voanews.com VOA News 25 Jan 2003, 21:35 UTC

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez says he finds "interesting" the proposals of former American president Jimmy Carter on how to end the current crisis in Venezuela.

In an interview published Saturday in a Montreal newspaper, The Press), Mr. Chavez said these are "interesting proposals, not necessarily new, which it will be necessary to discuss."

Mr. Carter, last year's Nobel Peace Prize winner, in recent days has offered two proposals to end the opposition general strike that began December 2 and has crippled the nation's economy.

One calls for the government and opposition to agree to a constitutionally permissible recall referendum in August. The other calls for a constitutional amendment to shorten the presidential term, allowing early elections this year.

In the interview, Mr. Chavez said it would be "premature" to give an opinion immediately on the proposals, but he said he is ready to talk about them with his country's democratic opposition.

Meanwhile, opponents of the president began a 24-hour street demonstration Saturday to protest a court ruling that suspended plans for a non-binding referendum next month on his rule.

Opposition leaders blame the country's worsening economic woes on Chavez policies and remain determined to see him leave office.

Friday, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said the Carter proposals represent the best available option to the Venezuelan people. Secretary Powell and officials from five other nations met in Washington to seek solutions to Venezuela's political crisis. The countries make up the recently-formed "Group of Friends," which is expected to send a high-level team to Caracas next week to help find ways to break the political impasse. The six-nation group brings together the United States, Brazil, Chile, Mexico, Portugal, and Spain. The strike has paralyzed Venezuela's oil production, the mainstay of its economy, and pushed up global oil prices.

www.thenation.com

by MARC COOPER [posted online on January 25, 2003] Porto Alegre, Brazil Friday Night

The highpoint of this year's World Social Forum was reached earlier this evening when newly elected Brazilian president "Lula" showed up to address an outdoor crowd of as many as 75,000 cheering supporters. Accompanied by seventeen of his cabinet ministers, this was the socialist president's first visit to this city of 1.2 million since he formally took office on January 1.

Lula arrived before the sea of waving flags and cheering voices on his way to Davos, Switzerland, where he was invited to deliver an address to the World Economic Forum, the yearly gathering of the globe's corporate and political elite. (The Social Forum held here in Brazil was founded three years ago as a "people's" alternative to the Davos meetings.)

Lula, who as a child worked as a bootblack, dropped out of school, and then as a metal worker led strikes against Brazil's military dictatorship, went on to found the leftist Workers Party in 1979--a unique amalgam of Marxist, Trotskyist, Catholic and democratic populist currents. Last fall he was elected President with a resounding 61 percent of the votes.

Speaking in a simple, conversational style, he told his crowd of supporters tonight that his new government was committed to reforming a "global economic system in which some people eat five times a day and others eat only once every five days." At one point in his speech when referring to children who go hungry at night, the new Brazilian president's voice wavered on tears.

Openly recognizing that Brazil is saddled with crushing debt and onerous obligations to international financial institutions like the IMF, Lula said that while he "would not cede an inch" on his campaign promises of reform, progress would nevertheless be achieved "cautiously." There was a smattering of hisses from the radical fringes of the crowd when he pronounced that word--but they were drowned out by thousands who throatily roared the trademark sing-song slogan "Olé! Olé! Ola! Lu-La! Lu-La!"

Lula's popularity is downright contagious in Brazil: Latin America's most powerful economy but one of the most unequal societies in the world. Lula is the first President in Brazilian history who looks, talks and indeed is of the bottom half of the population. All around the Port Do Sol amphitheater where he appeared tonight, a crop of what you might call "Lula Stores" mushroomed, busily selling Lula T-shirts, Lula calendars, Lula key chains, even Lula mouse pads, as well as stacks of the Workers Party red-and-gold flags.

"I know that my election has raised hopes not only among you, but also among the entire international left," Lula said in conclusion, "and that makes me even more aware of the heavy responsibilities I now bear." As Lula was finishing his half-hour speech, the crowd began to shout "Fica! Fica!" Stay! Stay! I'd love to see an American presidential candidate pull that off on the stump.

Earlier in the day thousands of delegates attended the first full day of the third annual World Social Forum crowding into a panoply of dozens--more like scores--of conferences, panel discussions, workshops and lectures on just about every imaginable aspect of globalization. With the threat of imminent war in Iraq weighing heavily over the conference, the most heavily attended events were those that focused on militarization. Thousands jammed into a local arena to hear speakers like author Tariq Ali analyze the Bush Administration's plans for the Middle East.

In another roundtable discussion, international trade activists, including Martin Khor of Malaysia and Lori Wallach of Public Citizen, outlined the high stakes in play at the next ministerial meeting of the World Trade Organization, scheduled to take place this September in Cancun, Mexico. Over the next few days activists and organizers here will be informally networking, developing joint plans for mass demonstrations against the WTO meeting as well as strategies for opposing the looming Free Trade Area of the Americas--the continent-wide trade pact being pushed by the Bush White House.

Indeed, Porto Alegre the week of the World Social Forum becomes a heaven-on-earth for political networkers of every stripe. With 29,000 delegates in town from all over the world, and three times that number of "participants," onlookers and political tourists, it's virtually impossible to escape the activist buzz. Today during a brief time-out I took in my hotel bar, I had former French First Lady Danielle Mitterrand and legendary McDonalds-masher José Bové sitting at the table to the right of me, the former president of the Brazilian central trade union federation to my left and a radical Spanish mayor in front of me. Whom to talk to first?

abcnews.go.com WASHINGTON Jan. 25 —

Venezuela's foreign minister said Saturday his government welcomes preliminary suggestions made by diplomats from the United States and five other countries to end the political unrest in his country.

"We are convinced that we will reach a solution in democratic way," Chaderton said in an interview.

Chaderton came to Washington to participate in the meeting Friday of the newly formed "Group of Friends," which also includes officials from the Brazil, Chile, Mexico, Spain and Portugal. Also participating was Cesar Gaviria, secretary-general of the Organization of American States, which hosted the meeting.

The diplomats called on the government of President Hugo Chavez and the opposition to tone down their inflammatory rhetoric and end political violence. The countries will send delegations to Caracas, the Venezuelan capital, on Thursday to continue talks to break the political impasse.

"A concern for the risk of violence in Venezuela is valid," Chaderton said. He also said his government would cooperate with the meeting.

A general strike called by the opposition has lasted more than two months, hurting oil production in the world's fifth-largest exporter. The opposition sees the leftist Chavez as authoritarian and hostile to business. Chavez's backers say he has strong support among the country's poor and see the opposition as undemocratic, noting a failed coup attempt in April.

The strike has been marked by large demonstrations and occasional violence. On Saturday, Chavez's opponents held a protest in Caracas to denounce a court ruling that postponed a referendum on Chavez's rule.

Chaderton did not respond directly when asked if Chavez feared the protests would force him from office.

"We have very good reasons to be optimistic that this will have a democratic outcome, because we are a democracy," he said.

Diplomats are discussing proposals made by former President Carter to either hold a binding recall referendum or amend the constitution to allow early presidential elections.

abcnews.go.com Jan. 25 — By Knut Engelmann

DAVOS, Switzerland (Reuters) - Saudi Arabia said on Saturday there was no lack of oil in world markets despite fears of war in Iraq, signaling the world's top oil producer has no intention to raise production further for the moment.

"There is no shortage in the market and there should be no reason for prices where they are today," Saudi Oil minister Ali al-Naimi told a panel discussion at the World Economic Forum annual meeting in the Swiss ski resort of Davos.

"We checked. We called. I checked with individual customers, refineries and others. I ask them one question: Do you feel you need more oil? And the answer is no," he said.

Oil prices have surged -- topping OPEC's $22-$28 a barrel target range -- amid fears of a U.S.-led war in Iraq and because of a seven-week-old general strike that has cut exports from OPEC member Venezuela.

In the United States, the main buyer of Venezuelan crude, prices this week hit a two-year high of $35.20 a barrel, closing at $33.40 on Friday.

"We believe $25 is the right price to meet the interests" of producers, consumers, and world oil companies, Naimi said. "We will try to get it back at $25. That's where we want it to be."

OPEC two weeks ago raised production quotas by seven percent or 1.5 million barrels a day for 10 member countries.

Despite the extra oil, Naimi said prices remained high for fear of war in Iraq.

"There are all these drums of war going around," he said. "It has nothing to do with supply. We know there is a balance of demand and supply."

Still, he pledged that Saudia Arabia and the rest of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries would ensure sufficient supplies should an attack on Iraq and continued troubles in Venezuela continue to hamper world supplies.

"We have always said that regardless of the cause of the shortage, OPEC and Saudi Arabia will do their utmost to make up for the shortage," he said.

His comments echoed those of OPEC Secretary-General Alvaro Silva, who told the high-powered gathering on Friday there was nothing more OPEC could do to rein in prices.

"What can we do more? I do not agree there is a lack of oil," said Silva. "The problem of the price is the threat of war."

Naimi said oil prices would be above $40 a barrel now if Saudi Arabia had not maintained spare capacity of 3-3.5 million barrels a day.

He declined to say exactly what Saudi was pumping but reiterated that Riyadh could quickly boost oil output to full capacity of 10.5 million barrels per day. He said t would need around 90 days to get the infrastructure in place to support such high output levels in the longer term.

Saudi Arabia's production quota was set at 7.963 million barrels per day from February but sources in the kingdom say it is expected to be pumping 8.5-9 million in the next few weeks.

OPEC President Abdullah al-Attiyah highlighted concerns in the cartel that high prices might quickly turn lower if Venezuelan exports were restored and war cut Iraqi supplies for only a short period.

He warned there could be a glut of oil in world markets when the onset of warmer weather in the northern hemisphere cuts demand just as the group has raised supply.

"We calculated that we will have a three million barrel (per day) surplus by March," he told Reuters. OPEC will next meet on March 11 to review its output levels.

World demand for crude in the second quarter usually falls by around two million bpd, and another two million bpd could be flowing onstream if the strike in Venezuela is resolved by then.