Democracy interrupted: Lessons from Venezuela

Democracy interrupted: Lessons from Venezuela

Philips J Vermonte, Centre for Strategic and International
Studies, Jakarta, pjvermonte@link.net.id

A study conducted jointly by two respectable institutions, the
Institute for Economics and Social Research, Education and
Information (LP3ES) and the Center for the Study of Development
and Democracy (Cesda), concludes that the Indonesian Military
(TNI) is still a major political player in the country's
politics.

The study reveals that the TNI is still trying to reassert its
political control over the civilian leadership (The Jakarta Post,
May 10). The question of putting the military under civilian
control frequently appears in the process of democratization.

Unfortunately, in the case of Indonesia, the cohesiveness of
civilian leadership as the principal requirement of erecting
civilian supremacy is non-existent.

It is represented at least in continuing debates on the
amendment process of Indonesia's constitution.

The growing tendency from some part of civilian elites in the
parliament to stop the process raises speculation that there will
be a constitutional crisis, which many remind that the similar
situation in the 1950s provided an entry point for the TNI to
increase its social and political control.

Regarding this matter, recent political event in Venezuela
provides lessons for Indonesia. The coup against the incumbent
president Hugo Chavez aborted, then Chavez was able to regain his
presidency. He revives his power with even more support from the
armed forces, as well as from the Venezuelan people at large.

As widely reported, the saga begun when Chavez appointed new
board of directors of the country's state-owned companies.
Venezuela's trade unions protested the decision, organized a
massive demonstration that turned into chaos after Chavez's
supporters faced off with the anti-government demonstrators.
Amidst the crisis, a clique consisted of top officials within the
Venezuelan armed forces, declared its opposition to the
president, demanded him to resign and installed Pedro Carmona --
a civilian businessman -- after the clique detained Chavez.

What had been seen in Venezuela was a mixture between mass and
electoral politics. Thousands of people were on the street
demanding Chavez to resign.

It therefore created a room for the military group to maneuver
and overthrew the democratically elected president. In the very
next day, thousands of Chavez supporters took on to the street
triggered a political turmoil that finally forced Pedro Carmona
to resign.

The Venezuelans, who may initially tolerate the attempted
coup, were disappointed by Carmona's decisions to dissolve the
National Assembly and also the Supreme Court. These decisions, in
the view of the Venezuelan people, obviously threatened the
country's democracy. Moreover, it would create precedent of coup
and counter-coup, which in fact had been substantially reduced
not only in Venezuela, but also in most of the Latin American
countries for almost a decade.

It is worth noting that Venezuela has developed a modern
electoral political system since the death of the former leader
Juan Vincente Gomez, who ruled the country with iron hands, in
1935. Since then, as observed by Kornblith and Levine in their
work Venezuela: The Life and Times of The Party System (1995),
political parties has always been at the center stage of the
Venezuelan politics.

Although surely there were periods of ups and down, the
Venezuelan democracy continuously undergoes reform, including the
one to make political parties "more participatory and subject to
democratic control". The reform program carried out during 1980s
has created more channels for citizen participation. As a result,
democracy in Venezuela has become what Juan Linz and Alfred
Stepan termed as "the only game in town". The Venezuelan people
value democracy as procedural norms, as well as a source of
legitimacy for anyone or any group seeking for power. In short,
in the eyes of most Venezuelans, the only legitimate way to
assume power is through democratic election.

Interestingly, Chavez's journey to the presidency is a
pertinent example of the above statement. As a lieutenant colonel
of the armed forces, Chavez staged a coup back in 1992, He
failed, but was fortunate enough that president Rafael Caldera at
that time granted an amnesty for him in 1994. Then, in the 1998
general election, Chavez secured the majority of the votes, which
finally elevated him to the presidency.

It is crystal clear that for democracy to survive there must
exist at least two conditions. First, democratic norms and
procedures must be acknowledged both by leaders and people.
Therefore, building a healthy party system must be regarded as a
high priority. The healthy party system is needed for ensuring
that political change will only occur in a democratic way.
Second, the party system must be able to channel, defend and
articulate the interest of the people, not the interest of the
small circle of parties' elites.

There is another important lesson. The existing discussion on
democratization has mostly focused on domestic challenges that
can support or impede the successful efforts of the entire
democratization process. However, the international dimension
also needs to be taken into account, as it appeared in the case
of Venezuela.

The Organization of American States (OAS) was quick to condemn
the political move of Pedro Carmona and the military. It was
widely regarded in the region as a coup. The statement was not
surprising, since its members had agreed multilaterally at their
annual meeting in 1991 "to adopt any measures deemed appropriate
to restore democracy if one of their members were to be
overthrown by non-constitutional means". The organization just
recently renewed this important agreement.

In its new Inter-American Democratic Charter signed in
September 2001, the members reinforce the previous agreement that
the organization will never legitimize an unconstitutional
interruption of the democratic order or an unconstitutional
alteration of the constitutional regime occurred in any one of
its member countries. The new charter stipulates several measures
that can be taken by the Organization in dealing with such a
case, including the postponement of the membership of the
particular country.

Such a strong commitment certainly comes from a notion that
democracy is the rights of the people of the American continent.

The same is apparently true for people in Indonesia and in
Southeast Asia. Indonesia is at the point of no return to
continue the democratization process. How the OAS handled the
attempted coup in Venezuela presents another lesson that one
possible way to guard our own democratization process is by
promoting an environment conducive for the consolidation of
democracy under the framework of regional organization,

Indonesia might seek support if there is any unconstitutional
attempt to alter our newly established democratic system.