The dramatic crisis that is unfolding in Venezuela has formed part of the
international news cycle since mid-January, but it has been in the making for
nearly a decade. And it finds its roots in the controversial popular authoritarian
regime of Comandante Hugo Chávez, who
ruled the country from the previous decade, until his death in 2013.
 |
| The late Comandante Hugo Chávez...where it all began |
In this latest chapter, a nationwide crisis has been sparked over who,
indeed, is the legitimate president of the country. This constitutional crisis
took shape when, in early January, the National Assembly, in which the
opposition holds a majority, pointed to alleged election tampering and declared
the 2018 re-election of leftist authoritarian Nicolás Maduro null and void.
In Maduro’s stead, the Assembly named opposition candidate Juan Guaidó to
serve as acting president until new elections could be called. The pro-Maduro
Supreme Tribunal of Justice (Venezuela’s supreme court) has declared the
National Assembly’s de-authorization of Maduro and the appointment of Guaidó to
be unconstitutional. This is where the battle-line has been drawn separating
the two diametrically opposed sides in the crisis—a test of strength between
the legislature and the judicial branch of government.
The National Assembly, for its part, is responding to the Supreme Tribunal
by quoting the very Constitution enacted under Maduro’s predecessor and mentor,
Hugo Chávez, as backing its authority to question the legitimacy of the
elections and to appoint an interim president. The specific constitutional
passages that the opposition is invoking include Article 333 and Article 350.
The first of these states that the Constitution “shall not be rendered
invalid through any act of force or because it is repealed by any method other
than that (legally) provided for.” It goes on to say that “should this happen,
every invested citizen shall have the duty to cooperate in the re-establishment
of its effective validity.”
 |
| Embattled president Nicolás Maduro |
Article 350, meanwhile, states that “the Venezuelan people, in keeping with
their republican tradition, (and) with their struggle for independence, peace
and freedom, shall not recognize any regime, legislation or authority that
might run counter to these democratic values, principles and guarantees, or
that undermine human rights.”
International support for one side or the other in diplomatic circles has
divided along what might be considered logical lines, with Russia and its
allies supporting Maduro and the US and Europe pledging their backing for Guaidó.
US President Donald Trump—who, in other instances, has often indicated his
admiration for authoritarians—has demonstrated vehement opposition to the
Maduro regime and has imposed economic sanctions against Maduro’s government.
Although the European Union and the Trump-era United States see eye-to-eye on very
little these days, in terms of the Venezuelan crisis they are both clearly
siding with Guaidó and the National Assembly and against the continued presence
of Maduro as head of state.
Where the US and EU disagree is on Trump’s openness to possible military
action in Venezuela should it be necessary to wrest power from Maduro’s hands
by force. Most European leaders agree that this course of action would not only
be inadvisable, but also potentially disastrous and counterproductive. Considering
the checkered history of US intervention in Latin America, many observers feel
any direct action by Washington in Venezuela would quickly sour the mood of other
South American countries that are currently pleased that the US has joined them
in bolstering democracy by welcoming Guaidó and censuring Maduro. US military
action in any South American nation would very likely be considered an attack
and a renewed act of imperialism by the United States on South America as a
whole, and would thus be more likely to help rather than hurt Maduro’s
standing.
The current national socioeconomic crisis, with Maduro as its focal point,
has been brewing since 2010, beginning, briefly, under Hugo Chávez but
intensifying under Maduro. Venezuela’s economy has long been largely dependent
on oil revenues, which at one time made it the wealthiest country in Latin
America. Comandante Chávez drew his
vast support as a populist authoritarian from the re-distribution of oil
profits, without seeking diversification of the country’s economy. But when the
bottom fell out of the international oil market, it also fell out from under
his presidency, which Maduro inherited on its way down following Chávez’s
death. Maduro’s ineffectiveness in dealing with this crisis led to extreme
hyperinflation (over a million percent) and severe shortages of everything,
including basics such as food and medical supplies, with the standard of living
for average Venezuelans plummeting—in many cases, to the point of starvation.
Through the “magic” of hyperinflation and prices pegged to international
currency, there were cases of bottled water or a single trip to the grocery
store costing as much as or more than many Venezuelans made in a month.
This crisis also led to rampant murders, abductions and other crimes, turning
Venezuela’s cities into some of the most dangerous in the world. This situation
led not only to violent street protests in which casualties have numbered in
the hundreds on both sides, but also to the election of an opposition majority
in the National Assembly for the first time since 1999, when Chávez took over
as the country’s flamboyant leader. But the lame duck pro-Maduro Assembly
quickly stuffed the Supreme Tribunal with Maduro allies in order to have that
institution act as a counterbalance to the opposition’s legislative majority.
Not content with that, the Maduro government also managed to strip three
opposition leaders of their seats in the Assembly, citing “irregularities” in
their election. This kept the opposition from gaining a super-majority, by
which it would have had the constitutional power to pose a direct challenge to
Maduro’s authority.
Maduro’s friends in the Supreme Tribunal invented and granted extensive
new powers to him in 2017. Armed with this increased authority, Maduro mounted
a so-called Constituent Assembly, with the aim of drafting a new Constitution
to replace the one enacted by his predecessor in 1999. Members of this
Constituent Assembly were not elected to it but were appointed from within the
ranks of Maduro supporters.
This drew worldwide attention since it indicated a bid by Maduro to
remain in power indefinitely. In diplomatic circles it was deemed important by
many to take a stand against increasing authoritarianism in Venezuela, and
scores of countries made it clear that they would not recognize the Constituent
Assembly. On the domestic front, however, in the face of a virtual opposition
boycott of these government moves, the Constituent Assembly was handed an inordinate
quota of power. It became the body that guaranteed non-interference with
measures “in solidarity” with the presidency. For all practical purposes, this
meant that, between the power of the Supreme Tribunal and the all-pervading
power of the Constituent Assembly, the legitimately elected legislative branch
of the Venezuelan political system was stripped of any power that it had
managed to retain until then.
Due to oil-price instability, an under-diversified economy and Maduro’s
clear lack of ability to deal with the economic situation, the once wealthy
Venezuela has been plunged into a prolonged crisis described by some economists
as being far worse than the Great Depression. This has led to a vast
humanitarian crisis in the country. Although less is being reported about it
than the crises in Middle Eastern war zones, the Venezuelan socioeconomic
situation is no less grave. For several years now, there has been a constant
flow of socio-economic refugees hemorrhaging from Venezuela’s borders in search
of a better life in other parts of Latin America and the world.
The greatest numbers of displaced persons—over a million of them—have settled
in neighboring Colombia. But there are also large Venezuelan diaspora
communities in other major countries, such as Argentina. So far, about three
million Venezuelans have left the country in search of peace and prosperity.
That’s about one out of every ten Venezuelans who has opted to leave.
 |
| Provisional President Juan Guaidó |
Provisional President Juan Guaidó has called on all Venezuelans to
protest against the Maduro government. And over the course of the past month,
the response to this call has been enormous, with hundreds of thousands taking
to the street again and again in mass anti-Maduro rallies.
Maduro is already suffering defections in pockets of the military. Small
groups of active-duty and retired military personnel—some currently living in
exile—have vowed to come to the defense of the National Assembly against the
Maduro regime should the situation morph into increasing civil strife. There
are also defections in the Venezuelan diplomatic corps including Venezuela’s
top diplomat in the United States, José Luis Silva, a military man who has,
nevertheless, stated recognition of Guaidó as his president. Yajaira Flores,
Venezuela’s consul general in Houston, Texas, told Guaidó that she was “at your
service and at your disposal to serve my country”, while the top Venezuelan
consular official in Miami, Scarlett Salazar, offered her support to Guaidó, “in
keeping with my democratic principles and values.” She urged other diplomats to
do the same. Venezuela’s Ambassador to Iraq Jonathan Velasco swore his loyalty
to the National Assembly and its decision to appoint Guaidó provisional
president, saying that the Assembly was “the only government branch attached to
ethics, legitimacy and legality.”
At mid-month last month, Venezuelan intelligence agents loyal to Maduro
detained Guaidó after intercepting the car in which he was traveling. The BBC
claimed it was an ambush created to intimidate opponents to the regime. But
Organization of American States Secretary-General Luis Almagro was quick to
call the arrest “a kidnapping”, and US Secretary of State Mike Pampeo decried
it as an “arbitrary detention”. The government ended up releasing Guaidó within
45 minutes and reprimanding the arresting agents.
OAS chief Almagro was among the first leaders of organizations and
governments to lend official support to Guaidó. Brazil quickly followed suit.
Spain and most of the rest of Europe swiftly concurred. And the plethora of
support for the decisions and democratic legitimacy of the Venezuelan National
Assembly continues to burgeon.
With sanctions levied on his oil exports, a freeze placed by the Bank of
England on Venezuelan gold reserves in its vaults and three quarters of all
Venezuelan imports coming from countries that now recognize Guaidó as the
country’s president, Maduro is being backed ever tighter into a corner. It can
only be hoped that his patriotism will overcome his authoritarian ego and that
he will withdraw quietly and with no further bloodshed in a country that has
suffered far too long under his pernicious regime.
No comments:
Post a Comment