A losing battle for Venezuela's opposition?

The opposition sent a letter to the OAS arguing that the government will violate the Constitution if Chávez is not sworn in on Thursday. But many Venezuelans see this as taking advantage of Chávez's health.

Ramon Espinosa/AP
A Venezuelan embassy worker holds up a framed image of Venezuela's ailing President Hugo Chávez during the monthly Catholic service devoted to the sick at the Church of Our Lady of Regla, in Regla, across the bay from Havana, Cuba, Tuesday.

 David Smilde is the moderator of WOLA's blog: Venezuelan Politics and Human Rights. The views expressed are the author's own.

Yesterday the [leading opposition party, the] Mesa de la Unidad, sent a letter (see El Universal article here) to the Secretary General of the Organization of American States (OAS) arguing that the government will be violating the Constitution if Chávez is not sworn in on Thursday, Jan. 10. As I said yesterday, I think that is true. Even with a re-elected president, one term ends and another begins at clearly specified moments, and being sworn-in is not a formality.

However, within Venezuela, this will be a losing battle for the opposition in two ways. If it goes to the Constitutional Chamber of the Tribunal Supremo de Justicia the government will undoubtedly get a ruling in its favor. More importantly, in the court of public opinion, this is an issue without legs. Venezuelans tend to think about democracy in substantive, not formal terms.

What your average Venezuelan knows is that Chávez was elected by an ample majority in an election with high turnout. They also know he is sick and in intensive care. The fact that their sick president cannot come for his swearing in generates sympathy for his condition, not rage at the violation of abstract rules. Venezuela is a society in which people will whiz through a red light if there are no cars coming but come to a screeching halt at a green light to let a little old lady cross the street.

When in 2010 the government pushed through a series of laws of questionable constitutionality including an enabling law that effectively allowed President Chávez to bypass the National Assembly many of us in the international community were up in arms. However, the government portrayed these laws as necessary to address the problems created by massive flooding and Chávez’s popularity actually went up.

For the average Venezuelan, the opposition’s taking the issue of Chávez’s swearing in to international institutions makes them look like they are trying to take advantage of the situation. It only reinforces the popular image of them as people who use democratic formalities for their own interests and feel more comfortable abroad than at home. 

–  David Smilde is the moderator of WOLA's blog: Venezuelan Politics and Human Rights. 

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.