Bush's Betrayal of Democracy
The Washington Post
By Arturo Valenzuela
Tuesday, April 16, 2002; Page
A19
Had the armed forces and
its allies succeeded in
forcing Venezuela's
democratically elected
president and legislature
out of office this past week,
Latin America would have
experienced its first outright military coup in 26 years,
with the notable exception of the overthrow of Haiti's
first-ever elected president in 1991. The collapse of
democracy in Venezuela would have exacerbated the sharp
social tensions in a bitterly divided country that is the
United States' third-largest source of imported oil. It also
would have seriously undermined hemispheric efforts
championed by three previous American presidents to
strengthen democracy and the rule of law and put an end
to military in politics. A successful coup in Venezuela was
averted when it became clear that President Hugo Chavez
retained considerable support in the country and the
military belatedly realized that the provisional government
it had installed severely overreached in a misguided
attempt to dismantle the elected legislature and dismiss
the supreme court.
Unfortunately, the Bush administration did not seem to
understand what was at stake in Venezuela. Deviating
sharply from the policies of its predecessors, and confusing
the understandable dislike of a particular leader and his
policies with the importance of supporting democracy, it
publicly countenanced the military action. The
administration was visibly out of step with other
hemispheric leaders who condemned the military coup. It
also stood in sharp contrast to the policies of the first
President Bush, who vigorously opposed the overthrow of
the leftist, anti-American Aristide in Haiti, sending an
unmistakable signal of the U.S. commitment to upholding
democracy in the post-Cold War era. As a result, the
United States now risks losing much of the considerable
moral and political leadership it had rightly won over the
last decade as the nations of the Americas sought to
establish the fundamental principle that the problems of
democracy are solved in democracy, not through resorting
to unconstitutional means.
Rather than categorically condemn the military coup in
Venezuela, official White House and Department of State
statements appeared to justify military intervention by
arguing that people were killed in anti-Chavez
demonstrations, that the president had ordered the closing
of television broadcasts, and had been acting in an
increasingly authoritarian manner. Nor did the
administration's spokesmen encourage the armed forces to
avoid a disruption of the constitutional order or call for the
restoration of Venezuela's elected authorities. Instead,
they accepted at face value Chavez's purported resignation
and did not question the legitimacy of the ad hoc
"provisional government" blessed by the high command.
Nor did the United States unequivocally call for the
convening of an immediate meeting of hemispheric foreign
ministers to address the crisis, as has been done
repeatedly in the past under the provisions that mandate
the Organization of American States to come to the
defense of democracy. The silence of President Bush
regarding events in Venezuela was particularly jarring.
There is no doubt that Chavez's actions and rhetoric have
contributed to aggravating the severe crisis of Venezuelan
democracy. He is a demagogue, an instinctive
authoritarian who has consistently squandered his chance
to regenerate Venezuelan politics and address the nation's
economic problems. He has also gratuitously antagonized
the United States and his neighbors through his
anachronistic embrace of the Colombian guerrillas,
Saddam Hussein and Fidel Castro. But whether we like it
or not, Chavez is also a democratically elected leader who
governed with an elected legislature and, for all of his
antics, generally abided by the strictures of the
institutional order. If he violated his oath of office or the
law of the land, the proper course is impeachment, not a
military coup. If he did resign his office, it should have
been up to the legislature, not an unrepresentative body
appointed by the high command, to determine his
successor.
A chastened Mr. Chavez has so far given positive signs that
he wishes to avoid retribution and build bridges to other
sectors of society. The Bush administration has
admonished him to mend his ways and seek to abide by
the rule of law, an exhortation that unfortunately has less
credibility after it failed to call for upholding those same
principles last week. The administration should also resist
further temptations to demonize the mercurial Mr. Chavez
and look for ways to work with the other countries of the
hemisphere to support a constructive dialogue between his
government and the opposition.
Finally, it is time for the U.S. government to move beyond
the rhetoric of making democracy, trade and security its
top priorities in the hemisphere by addressing the severe
problems of a region where democracy is in genuine peril.
In a world fraught with uncertainties and risks, legitimate
and stable democracies in our hemisphere are
fundamental to the national interest of the United States.
It should not take our hemispheric neighbors to remind us
of that fact.
The writer directs the Center for Latin American Studies in
the Georgetown School of Foreign Service. He was special
assistant to the president and senior director for Western
Hemisphere affairs in the second Clinton administration.
© 2002 The Washington Post Company |
