WALTZING WITH THE DICTATOR:

Peron, Pinochet and Patience (Jorge I. Dominguez and Steven Levitsky, January 26, 2003, NY Times)

Argentine history offers lessons about the consequences of trying to save democracy by going around the constitution. The 1955 coup against Juan Peron, a semi-autocratic populist much like Mr. Chavez, did not bring about a return to stable constitutional rule. Those who supported Peron denied the legitimacy of all successor governments and worked actively--and at times violently--to bring them down. Those against Peron fought back. Three more presidents fell victim to coups. More than 30 years passed before another elected president completed his mandate.

Fortunately, there is an alternative model: Chile. During the mid-1980's, after protests failed to topple the dictator Augusto Pinochet, Chilean democrats embarked on a different course. The opposition decided to abide by Chile's Constitution and wait for a plebiscite in 1988 to determine whether General Pinochet would step down. Opposition parties used the time to build a broad coalition and organized an ultimately victorious campaign. Because the plebiscite had been General Pinochet's idea and was run according to his rules, he stepped down. Chile became one of Latin America's most successful democracies.

The Venezuelan opposition can follow suit. Mr. Chavez's 1999 Constitution allows for a binding referendum to remove the president at midterm, or in August 2003. If Mr. Chavez were to be voted down, a new presidential election would be held within 30 days.

Thus far, the opposition has refused to wait until August. It should reconsider. The opposition could use the next seven months to organize an effective campaign and agree upon a single candidate for future presidential elections. In playing by the rules, the opposition would also be able to maintain the domestic and international legitimacy that it forfeited with a failed coup in April 2002.

Unlike a forced resignation, a recall election would be constitutional and more peaceful. [...]

The Venezuelan opposition should be patient. As former President Jimmy Carter recently proposed, the opposition should lift the general strike and abandon current efforts to remove the president in exchange for an agreement with the Chavez government to choose the day for an internationally monitored referendum in August. If the opposition were to force Mr. Chavez's removal before that, it would risk ushering in a cycle of polarization and violence that could grip the country for years. Avoiding this and saving Venezuela's constitutional democracy is well worth waiting eight months.

The authors may well be right, however there's an important factor that they fail to consider: the damage that may be done while you're patient. This failure would appear to stem from their lack of comprehension that there's a massive difference between dictatorships of the Left and of the Right. Thus, Pinochet, like Franco, could be granted patience precisely because his mission was to preserve civil society and its institutions until an orderly transition of power could occur. Compare this to a place like Russia or Cuba, where patience did or will eventually lead to a replacement
of dictatorships of the Left, however, in the meantime, civil society and all of the institutions that might counter-balance the centralized government were destroyed.

Unfortunately, Mr. Chavez has left the opposition with little reason to believe that he will preserve Venezuelan society and it is therefore a reasonable thing to wonder whether they can afford to leave him in power to further damage a nation he seems bent on destroying. Patriotism can't be mere legalism: one must be loyal to society in general rather than just to a constitution. Government is, after all, only one part of the nation, and not the most important part.

Posted by Orrin Judd at January 27, 2003 10:01 AM