Red flag in Venezuela

VENEZUELAN President Hugo Chavez is set to unleash on his countrymen his own brand of “21st century Socialism”. He has urged his voters to approve a slew of constitutional reforms in a referendum that, he maintains, will guarantee more rights for ordinary people. Among the reforms suggested are doing away with limits on presidential terms and curbing the autonomy of the nation’s Central Bank. Though voices of dissent are getting louder across the South American country that prides itself on its oil reserves and even as opinion polls predict a close fight, Chavez seems to be heading for yet another victory. With the opposition failing to make any dent in his soaring popularity, Chavez will in all probability manage to bring about the proposed reforms that will apparently serve to gain untrammelled power over his country and its people. Under the current constitution, Chavez is expected to step down when his term ends in 2012. But if he manages to garner enough votes to push through his proposed reforms, he could be continuing as the head of the state as long as he enjoys popular support. In addition to this, he will have total control over the Central Bank, managing the economy on behalf of his people and ensuring that there are more and more federal provinces or communal councils that take care of the rights and concerns of their respective communities. This community ownership or governance or the establishment of a socio-economic system that is run by a centralised authority on behalf of the people is in keeping with the socialist ideology, true. But from the West’s perspective, Chavez’s desire to remain a president for an unspecified period of time (As President Chavez himself put it, “If God gives me life and help, I will be at the head of the government until 2050”) is nothing short of a dictatorial aspiration. If we go by the Western parameters of judging how democratic a country is, then Chavez’s Venezuela is inching towards a totalitarian state.
There’s no denying the fact that the Western media love to brand any country that calls itself socialist as dictatorship. And they cannot apparently reconcile the idea of socialism with economic progress (there’s enough evidence that Venezuela is not failing miserably on the economic front). So there’s some truth when leaders like Chavez, or for that matter, Russian President Vladimir Putin, say that the West has no business meddling in their countries’ internal affairs. If they enjoy popular support, then Western countries have no power to question their authority. President Chavez, continuing his anti-US tirade, has even threatened to stop oil exports to America if it tries to manipulate the country’s voting process. But Chavez’s opponents have every good reason to fear that he is aiming for a more centralised authority that runs counter to the notion of democracy in the country. By claiming to unleash people power and creating more officially-selected federal councils, the Chavez regime may end up forcing the people to toe the government line thereby trampling on their right to democratic debates. It therefore remains to be seen whether or not Chavez’s true intentions are focused on making his ‘socialist vision’ a reality.
 

Dangerous vacuum

MORE than a week after Lebanon tumbled into its political vacuum, there are no signs of the presidential space being filled. Doomsday predictions may have abated for the time being, but there are growing fears that the stalemate will not be broken on Dec. 7, the last date set for a vote for a new president after six delays. In all previous attempts, Parliament has failed to muster the two-thirds quorum necessary to elect a president, and signs suggest the failure could happen again. Neither the government nor the opposition could agree on who should succeed Emile Lahoud, and while Lebanon’s army chief Gen. Michel Suleiman has emerged as the latest candidate for the post, even while enjoying the support of prominent opposition figure Michel Aoun, Aoun’s conditions — which include the appointment of a neutral prime minister — have previously been rejected by the governing coalition. So Lebanon might return to square one, but the addition to the dangerous power vacuum is the growing sense of alienation among the once-powerful Maronite Christians. During its 15-year civil war, Lebanon became a playground for foreign machinations of all kinds. The current political problem could once again expose the extent to which Lebanon can be prey to outside meddling and plotting. Hence, this largely domestic issue has become both a regional and an international affair. The US, Russia, Syria and Iran are all intensely involved and there was a great deal of diplomatic shuttling between Damascus, Moscow, Tehran and Paris just before the end of Emile Lahoud’s term. The shuttling will very likely continue.
Lebanon’s presidential palace now stands empty for the first time in the country’s troubled history. How long the country can take this political polarization and high level of sectarian tension is unclear. The stalemate could conceivably last weeks or months, all the way to the parliamentary elections in 2008. And when remembering that under Lebanon’s sectarian power-sharing system, all the country’s presidents must be Maronite Christians, no-one can say for sure how long the country’s Maronites can withstand — what is to them — an unacceptable decline in their traditional power. But at least there is calm. It is becoming clear that even while both the opposition and pro-government forces remain keen to maintain the status quo, fortunately neither party wants to resort to violence as a means of ending the crisis. Although when Lahoud departed, he referred to the threat of a state of emergency and entrusted the country’s security to the army, he made no attempt to form a parallel government as many had feared, for that would surely have instigated armed confrontations. However, it is still possible for violence to flare up anytime in any country without a president and without a functioning Parliament. Lebanon currently is filled with tension and is in a state of political paralysis — not too far off could be actual hostilities. The sooner the country finds a new leader, the better.

—Arab News