Venezuela Passes Rule by Decree; Chávez Steps Up Attacks on Unions

 
One of the most promising areas of the Summit of the Americas process has been the expanded role it offers to civil society. This is perhaps a natural outcome of the spread of democracy throughout the hemisphere, with only Cuba remaining as an authoritarian regime. At the same time, however, democracy has faced some serious challenges in the region, notably in Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela. In each of these countries, civil society has been a real factor in confronting authoritarian advances.

Of course, the powers that be can just as easily turn around and accuse these popular protests of being "destabilizing." In Venezuela, for example, the Chávez government has been working to diminish the role of one of the key remaining political barriers "Bolivarian democracy": the labor unions. Chávez has consistently characterized Venezuela's unions as corrupt and unrepresentative. Yet, since the beginning of his government, the unions have staged a series of well-supported strikes and job actions. Although the unions represent traditional and now discredited political parties, COPEI and Acción Democrática, they have managed to maintain their rank and file and certainly increase their militancy. Recently, Chávez was forced to agree to a new contract with the country's petroleum workers after a lame attempt at sidestepping their union federations. Strikes or threats of strikes continue by a series of important public sector unions, as well as unions representing the informal sector and several of the state-run industries.

Chávez continues to threaten and denigrate the unions. They and other civil society institutions he opposes will certainly be challenged by the exceptional "rule by decree" powers just passed by the Venezuelan Congress, where Chávez's party already has a 60% majority. These measures are sure to produce continued unrest and instability, but they will also unite civil society opposition to his regime. A similar scenario has played out in Peru, where unions that appeared to have been brought to their knees through privatization, "flexibilization" and deregulation played an important role in the general civic movement to bring down the Fujimori government.

Armed with its new decree powers, the Chávez government appears ready to promulgate "legislation" to create an officially sanctioned trade union movement. This measure, which forms the essence of the Ley de Protección de las Garantías y Libertades Sindicales, seriously violates the rights of freedom of association and collective bargaining. Over the last year, the unions and international organizations such as the International Labor Organization have cautioned the government against its implementation. The law would interfere in the process of choice and the role that a free labor movement plays in society.

As a first step, the Chávez government is moving ahead with a December 3 popular referendum on restructuring the labor movement. Armed with a successful referendum and the new law, the government could begin to close down current union organizations and form a single union body with the votes of all workers, not just union members. This government alternative is still vague, but clearly violates the democratic nature of these civil society organizations. It is sure to bring international condemnation of the regime. Yet, Chávez is confident about moving ahead, stating in his usual Sunday radio address that the union referendum is "irreversible."

On November 2, the Washington Post published a scathing editorial, entitled "The Next Fidel Castro," on the dangers of the Chávez government for the next US president. The editorial point out that this new authoritarian regime controls the biggest oil reserves outside the Middle East, a major source of US petroleum imports. It ends by saying:

"Rather than merely hoping for the best, the next president needs to limit Mr. Chávez's opportunities to export his ideology. That means getting more engaged with Latin America, as Gov. Bush has urged, including with the sort of nation-building that he has often disparaged. If Latin America's democracies fail and its economies collapse, popular frustration will create openings for Mr. Chávez and his imitators. But if the United States helps moderate governments succeed, the Chávez rhetoric may not matter" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60943-2000Nov1.html).

Nations in dire economic straights often use government by decree to seek emergency solutions to their most pressing financial problems. It is a far different proposition to methodically develop and implement fiscal and economic reforms designed to undermine the social institutions of a nation. It appears that Venezuela will provide us with another example of how uncertain and fragile the concept of democracy can be in our region. The situation again raises the question of whether trade- and investment-based integration can proceed at such a rapid pace without a stronger effort to bring civil society into the process, instead of attempting to isolate it. This seems to be what the Washington Post refers to when it encourages "nation building." Without a rigorous defense of civil society, the hemisphere's economic growth and integration will create imbalances that threaten our own national security.