Will Hugo Chávez Ever Leave the Presidency?
Posted by Charlie Hardy - February 23, 2006 at 9:13 pm
I can imagine the scene now. I am in the little cubicle that I have been given on the periphery of heaven. It is July 29, 2054, and I am reading the morning newspaper. Looking at the inter-galactic section (a bit bored with only heavenly news), I notice a photo of Hugo Chávez.
The caption under the picture reads: “Hugo Chávez, president of Venezuela on Planet Earth, yesterday celebrated his 100th birthday. He said that he had not yet decided whether he would run for re-election, since such an action would require another referendum for a constitutional change. Currently, a president is limited to only ten consecutive terms in Venezuela.”
You may laugh at such an idea, but I sincerely think that it is within the realm of possibilities for two reasons. One, Chávez has manifested incredible vitality. His athletic and military training has served him well. He may live to be one hundred. Secondly, the majority of Venezuelans may want to keep him as president until then if they are happy with the way he is governing.
Chávez has often said, with a smile, he plans to be around until the year 2021. Most people I know saw it as a joke to rankle the opposition. Within the past year or two, a congressperson wanted to introduce legislation that would permit more than two consecutive terms as president. Chávez said at that time that he was not in favor of such an idea.
However, this past Sunday on his radio and TV program, Alo Presidente, Chávez said that he might stay in office until 2030. Was he joking?
Many see Sunday’s announcement only as a threat to the opposition to get serious about elections or they will never get him out of office. If that was his intention, he may have a valid point. Even Julio Borges, who has announced his candidacy for the presidency, says that the opposition is wasting their time fighting about how they would like the balloting to take place (with machines, without machines, with paper ballots, without paper ballots, with finger prints, without finger prints, etc.) instead of doing serious campaigning.
But maybe there was something more to Chávez’s statement. Only a few weeks ago, Vice-President José Vicente Rangel said that Chávez would be in office as long as the people wanted him in office. Now Chávez has said the same.
Again, was he joking? The Attorney General, Isaias Rodriquez, said that Chávez was speaking in the exaggerated “language of the plains people” (or maybe better, “in cowboy language”).
On the other hand, maybe he was serious. And if he were, would that put him in the realm of wanting to be a dictator? Not necessarily so. We never elected my father out of our home; was he a dictator? The pope stays in office for life; is he…? Well, maybe so--by divine command, the hierarchy say. Supreme Court justices in the U.S. are there for life—and are not exactly democratically appointed by the people. Do we consider them to be a dictatorial group? I guess they could be, but I think we can also see the advantage of some longer or even lifetime terms of service. Alan Greenspan was Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board in the United States for almost twenty years. Not replacing the Chairman every four years has probably been helpful to the economy of the U.S.
Leopoldo Puchi, general secretary of the MAS party in Venezuela (not the MAS party of Bolivia, to which Evo Morales belongs) said that the rotation of elected officials is one of the basic principles of democracy. But is it? The Merriam Webster Dictionary that I have says that democracy means “government by the people; esp: rule of the majority” and “a government in which the supreme power is held by the people.” In itself there is nothing that says the people cannot have someone as their leader as long as they want to have the person in that position. Mr. Puchi, as all of us do sometime, is making his own definition of what the word “democracy” means.
I have always been in favor of limited terms for high-ranking officials. But living in Venezuela, I also recognize that Chávez has a strong majority support that few other presidents in the world have had. Some love him as a father, others as a brother and others as a son or grandson. (Yes, I carefully chose the word “love.” I also realize that other people hate him). Should these people be obliged to kick him out of office?
All of this is theory at the moment. But it has caused me to rethink some of my notions of what is best for a country. I recall the words of Jorge Eliecer Gaitan (the Colombian presidential candidate who was assassinated in 1948, and whose death gave rise to the current guerilla movement there): “I am not a man, I am a people.” “The people are superior to its leaders.”
That possibly puts this whole matter into perspective. In a democratic society, who has the right to make decisions? Is it the minority or the majority? And therefore, even more importantly, is it really Chávez who is at the center of this discussion or is it the people of Venezuela?
A footnote If you are anywhere near Washington, D.C., and even if you are not, please mark March 4-6 on your calendar for the National Solidarity Conference on Venezuela.
You can obtain more information at The National Solidarity Conference on Venezuela website.
-30-
Other essays by Charles Hardy can be found on his personal blog Cowboyincaracas.com . You may write him at cowboyincaracas@yahoo.com.
The caption under the picture reads: “Hugo Chávez, president of Venezuela on Planet Earth, yesterday celebrated his 100th birthday. He said that he had not yet decided whether he would run for re-election, since such an action would require another referendum for a constitutional change. Currently, a president is limited to only ten consecutive terms in Venezuela.”
You may laugh at such an idea, but I sincerely think that it is within the realm of possibilities for two reasons. One, Chávez has manifested incredible vitality. His athletic and military training has served him well. He may live to be one hundred. Secondly, the majority of Venezuelans may want to keep him as president until then if they are happy with the way he is governing.
Chávez has often said, with a smile, he plans to be around until the year 2021. Most people I know saw it as a joke to rankle the opposition. Within the past year or two, a congressperson wanted to introduce legislation that would permit more than two consecutive terms as president. Chávez said at that time that he was not in favor of such an idea.
However, this past Sunday on his radio and TV program, Alo Presidente, Chávez said that he might stay in office until 2030. Was he joking?
Many see Sunday’s announcement only as a threat to the opposition to get serious about elections or they will never get him out of office. If that was his intention, he may have a valid point. Even Julio Borges, who has announced his candidacy for the presidency, says that the opposition is wasting their time fighting about how they would like the balloting to take place (with machines, without machines, with paper ballots, without paper ballots, with finger prints, without finger prints, etc.) instead of doing serious campaigning.
But maybe there was something more to Chávez’s statement. Only a few weeks ago, Vice-President José Vicente Rangel said that Chávez would be in office as long as the people wanted him in office. Now Chávez has said the same.
Again, was he joking? The Attorney General, Isaias Rodriquez, said that Chávez was speaking in the exaggerated “language of the plains people” (or maybe better, “in cowboy language”).
On the other hand, maybe he was serious. And if he were, would that put him in the realm of wanting to be a dictator? Not necessarily so. We never elected my father out of our home; was he a dictator? The pope stays in office for life; is he…? Well, maybe so--by divine command, the hierarchy say. Supreme Court justices in the U.S. are there for life—and are not exactly democratically appointed by the people. Do we consider them to be a dictatorial group? I guess they could be, but I think we can also see the advantage of some longer or even lifetime terms of service. Alan Greenspan was Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board in the United States for almost twenty years. Not replacing the Chairman every four years has probably been helpful to the economy of the U.S.
Leopoldo Puchi, general secretary of the MAS party in Venezuela (not the MAS party of Bolivia, to which Evo Morales belongs) said that the rotation of elected officials is one of the basic principles of democracy. But is it? The Merriam Webster Dictionary that I have says that democracy means “government by the people; esp: rule of the majority” and “a government in which the supreme power is held by the people.” In itself there is nothing that says the people cannot have someone as their leader as long as they want to have the person in that position. Mr. Puchi, as all of us do sometime, is making his own definition of what the word “democracy” means.
I have always been in favor of limited terms for high-ranking officials. But living in Venezuela, I also recognize that Chávez has a strong majority support that few other presidents in the world have had. Some love him as a father, others as a brother and others as a son or grandson. (Yes, I carefully chose the word “love.” I also realize that other people hate him). Should these people be obliged to kick him out of office?
All of this is theory at the moment. But it has caused me to rethink some of my notions of what is best for a country. I recall the words of Jorge Eliecer Gaitan (the Colombian presidential candidate who was assassinated in 1948, and whose death gave rise to the current guerilla movement there): “I am not a man, I am a people.” “The people are superior to its leaders.”
That possibly puts this whole matter into perspective. In a democratic society, who has the right to make decisions? Is it the minority or the majority? And therefore, even more importantly, is it really Chávez who is at the center of this discussion or is it the people of Venezuela?
A footnote If you are anywhere near Washington, D.C., and even if you are not, please mark March 4-6 on your calendar for the National Solidarity Conference on Venezuela.
You can obtain more information at The National Solidarity Conference on Venezuela website.
-30-
Other essays by Charles Hardy can be found on his personal blog Cowboyincaracas.com . You may write him at cowboyincaracas@yahoo.com.
Email this page
Comments