Venezuela’s Enabling Law Could Also Enable the Opposition

[Say_What]

<clips>

Venezuela’s opposition and critics of the Chavez government around the world finally feel vindicated (again). The Venezuelan dictatorship that they have been predicting for the past eight years has, according to them, finally come to pass – for the sixth or so time. Already when Chavez was first elected in 1998 critics predicted Chavez would bring about a dictatorship in Venezuela. They kept having to revise their estimates for when this dictatorship would set in, though, because following each prediction of impending dictatorship Chavez would do something that completely negated the announcement.

For example, following his election in 1998, the first thing he did was to call for a referendum on whether to have a new constitution and held a vote for a constitutional assembly. When the constitutional assembly took on more powers than the legislature, opponents were again screaming “dictatorship,” except that the assembly proposed a constitution that was more democratic than the previous one. Similarly, the 49 law-decrees of 2001 were another marker for the onset of the Chavez dictatorship, except that these laws democratized land ownership and access to credit in Venezuela, among other things. Then again, the April 2002 coup was justified with the story that Chavez was ordering supporters to shoot at opponents, except following the coup very few of the coup organizers were arrested. This pattern repeated itself again with the 2002-2003 oil industry shutdown and with the struggle around the 2004 recall referendum. Each time the opposition and international critics were forced to revise the start date of the Venezuelan dictatorship backwards, much like a religious cult that predicts the end of the world and keeps having to revise its doomsday date.

Now, with the latest series of Chavez’s moves, of asking for and getting a new enabling law, of not renewing the broadcast license of a TV station, of launching a united socialist party, and of proposing an indefinite number of reelections, Chavez’s opponents are at it again. This time, they say, Chavez is definitely stepping over the line. After all, what could be more dictatorial than “ruling by decree,” “closing” an independent TV station, forming a “single party,” and becoming “president for life”? If this were what is happening in Venezuela, it would be ominous indeed. However, these descriptions, taken from the opposition and the international media, are completely removed from what is actually happening in Venezuela. Let’s take a closer look at the “rule by decree” story, which poses risks, but not the ones that opposition analysts are hyperventilating about.<1>

“Rule by Decree”

Even a progressive media outlet such as the extremely popular radio program Democracy Now! adopted this terminology for the recently enabling law that Venezuela’s National Assembly passed.<2> After all, isn’t this the essence of what the enabling law means, that Chavez can “rule by decree”? The problem is that this term can cover a wide range of situations, but is often associated with the power of a dictator or monarch to issue any decree he or she pleases and that everyone must follow, no matter what. Classic examples of such power are the governing styles of an Augusto Pinochet or an Adolf Hitler.

In Venezuela, however, the enabling law is completely different from the above type of “rule by decree” in that it is limited in several ways. First, the President is bound by the constitution. He can only issue so-called “law-decrees” in the areas named by the National Assembly, in the time limit the Assembly imposes, and that are consistent with the constitution. In other words, he cannot arbitrarily order someone’s arrest or do away with basic civil rights, for example. Some of the laws even need to be submitted to the Supreme Court, which vets the law for its constitutionality.

Second, contrary to popular belief, even though Chavez supporters control all branches of the state, law-decrees can be reversed by the most important power of all: the citizens. That is, law-decrees can be rescinded by popular vote. According to Venezuela’s 1999 constitution all laws can be submitted to a referendum if at least 10% of registered voters request such a referendum. Law decrees have an even lower signature requirement, of only 5% of registered voters (800,000 out of 16 million registered voters).<3>

Third, the National Assembly may also modify or rescind law-decrees, at any time, should it feel the need to do so. This is quite unlike the enabling law in the U.S., known as the “Fast Track” law, where the president may sign international treaties that are automatically binding and not open to revision or rescinding by the population.

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1953

[BayCityProgressive]

1. LOL

thank you for posting. The hysteria in the ruling classes is absolutely hilarious. Their howling knows no end.

[pnorman]

2. Thanks for that link.

I'll bookmark it for later study.

pnorman

[originalpckelly]

3. So says the propaganda organ for Venezuela.

That's like listening to Tony Snow to find out what's going on in America.

:eyes:

[Say_What]

6. So says the VENEZUELAN CONSTITUTION and LAW... law-decrees can be RESCINDED...

So much for the 'Chavez is a dictator' bullshit.

From the article:

That is, law-decrees can be rescinded by popular vote. According to Venezuela’s 1999 constitution all laws can be submitted to a referendum if at least 10% of registered voters request such a referendum. Law decrees have an even lower signature requirement, of only 5% of registered voters (800,000 out of 16 million registered voters).<3>

Third, the National Assembly may also modify or rescind law-decrees, at any time, should it feel the need to do so. This is quite unlike the enabling law in the U.S., known as the “Fast Track” law, where the president may sign international treaties that are automatically binding and not open to revision or rescinding by the population.

[Say_What]

7. Venezuela Constitution Article 74: 10% of voters can call a referendum on decrees...

....Article 74: Statutes whose abrogation are requested on the initiative of a number of voters constituting at least 10% of the voters registered in the civil and electoral registry, or by the President of the Republic taken at a meeting of the Cabinet, shall be submitted to a referendum for its abrogation in whole or in part.

Decrees with the force of law issued by the President of the Republic, making use of the authority prescribed under article 236, section 8 of this Constitution, may also be submitted to an abrogatory referendum, when it is requested by a number of voters constituting at least 5% of the total number of voters registered in the civil and electoral registry. In order for the abrogatory referendum to be valid, a number of voters constituting at least 40% of the total number of voters registered in the civil and electoral registry shall be essential.

It shall not be possible to submit budget laws to an abrogatory referendum, neither those establishing or modifying taxes, relating to public credit, to amnesty, the protection, guaranteeing and developing human rights, nor those which ratify international treaties.

There shall not be more than one abrogatory referendum on the same matter during the same constitutional term.

http://www.embavenez-us.org/constitution/title_III.htm

[Say_What]

8. Article 36: Venezuela Supreme Court reviews decrees for constitutionality...

Oh yeah, Chavez *rules by decree* :sarcasm:

<clips>

Article 336: The following are functions of the Constitutional Division of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice:

(1) To declare the nullity, in whole or in part, of national laws and other acts of National Assembly with the force of law, which are in conflict with this Constitution.

(2) To declare the nullity, in whole or in part, of state Constitutions and laws, municipal ordinances and other acts of the deliberating bodies of the States and Municipalities which are issued by way of direct and immediate implementation of the Constitution and are in conflict with the same.

(3) To declare the nullity, in whole or in part, of acts of the National Executive with the force of law, which are in conflict with this Constitution.

(4) To declare the nullity, in whole or in part, of acts issued by way of direct and immediate implementation of the Constitution by any other government organ exercising Public Power.

(5) To verify, at the request of the President of the Republic or the National Assembly, the constitutionality of international treaties signed by the Republic, prior to ratification of the same.

(6) To review in all cases, even ex officio, the constitutionality of decree of the President of the Republic decreeing states of exception.

(7) To declare the unconstitutionality of omissions on the part of the municipal, state, national or legislatures, in failing to promulgate rules or measures essential to guaranteeing compliance with the Constitution, or promulgating it in an incomplete manner; and to establish the time limit and, where necessary, guidelines for correcting the deficiencies.

(8) To resolve any conflicts existing between different provisions of law, and declare which of the same must prevail.

(9) To resolve constitutional controversies arising between any of the organs of Public Power.

(10) To review judgments embodying constitutional protective orders or control on the constitutionality of laws or juridical rules, handed down by the courts of the Republic, on the terms established by the pertinent organic law.

(11) Any other functions established by this Constitution or by law.

http://www.embavenez-us.org/index.php?pagina=constitution/title_VIII.htm&titulo=Government

[Judi Lynn]

9. A good test for grasping if an article is propaganda or not is learning

if it is telling the truth.

If it is truthful, if it doesn't bend or omit the facts altogether, it's not propaganda.

You'd be well advised trying to educated yourself on the actual facts of Latin American history. You'll be able to keep up with the Democrats around here.

[al bupp]

4. I found the piece reasoned and well written

Thanks for the heads-up. Such reporting on Venezuala can be hard to come by.

[Mojambo]

5. Good info. Thanks for posting. n/t

[Peace Patriot]

10. Thanks for this post! What strikes me about the hysterical rightwing/

corporatist/Bush State Department's "meme" that Chavez is (or soon will become) a "dictator" is the insult that they thus fling at the people of Venezuela, at the many grass roots groups that support the Chavez's leftist program, and at the many intelligent people who work in the Chavez government--as if they would PUT UP WITH a "dictator"! Chavez is implementing measures that over SIXTY PERCENT of the people voted for. To make it about Chavez, and not about THEM, is typical corporate monopoly "news" bullshit.

In other words, what these global corporate predators and their colluders among the tiny rich oil elite in Venezuela REALLY fear is a "dictatorship of the proletariat"--i.e., hot button terminology for fear of the poor, and distaste for social justice. They don't fear Chavez. They fear THE PEOPLE. And well they might. In a democracy, the People RULE. And in Venezuela, one of the better democracies on planet earth, they are doing so by means of the rule of law, with restraint, without retaliation, and for the betterment of the entire country and its society.

So, the next time you hear Chavez criticized as a would-be dictator, just substitute "the people of Venezuela" for the word "Chavez," and you will have a window into the minds of these rightwing/corporatist anti-Chavez critics.

Thus: "The leftwing 'people of Venezuela,' whom critics accuse of being increasingly dictatorial, and who are allied with Fidel Castro, recently seized new powers to implement 'laws by decree' and declared that they will deny a license to use the pubic airwaves to a broadcaster that supported a military coup against 'the people of Venezuela.'"

Fun, huh? I think I've found the new formula for debunking anti-Chavez ditto-heads. (Far be it from me to try to stifle criticism of ANY politician. I don't trust ANY of them--even the best of them. But dittoheads are another matter. I'm pretty convinced that the anti-Chavez dittoheads are paid by Exxon-Mobile.)