Several years ago, searches for Venezuela on Google News returned about 3,000 results. Today, that number has skyrocketed to over 25,000. Unfortunately, this surge in news articles doesn’t equate to an eightfold increase in objective coverage. There is still a significant lack of it. For instance, consider the news about Hugo Chávez vetoing universities and tax increase laws. So far, the AP office in Caracas has sent out a telegram from Ian James, which was picked up by the New York Times and Business Week. However, the AP wire fails to mention that Hugo Chávez does not have the power to veto laws according to the current Venezuelan constitution (art. 214)*. This also implies that doing so is yet another example of Chávez’s dictatorial behavior.
In a previous article, I argued that Chávez’s Venezuela was, for all intents and purposes, a dictatorship. This well-documented fact continues to be ignored by foreign correspondents reporting from Venezuela, editors, and news agencies. Many have jumped on the let’s-attack-communist-Chávez bandwagon, but most do so without a basic understanding of what is truly happening in our country. The debate is being driven in outdated ideological terms, left versus right. Few analysts would dare to say that Chávez’s policies resemble those of Benito Mussolini or Juan Perón as closely as they do Fidel Castro. Even fewer would emphasize the fact that Chávez, so virulent in his anti-American rhetoric, has maintained the de facto free trade agreement between Venezuela and the United States, through which the country sends nearly all of its sole commodity up north. No one would dare mention the oil concessions that Chevron has obtained from Hugo Chávez. And what about Chávez’s alliance with Iranian fundamentalists—does this pact reflect a leftist association?
According to the dictionary, “a person who wields absolute power, especially a ruler who has complete and unrestricted control in a government without hereditary succession,” is a dictator. Thus, beyond any ideological or postmodern considerations—such as a dictatorship without thousands of dead or political prisoners—it is undeniable that Hugo Chávez embodies the definition of a dictator. For how can one define a ruler who unilaterally, without consultation and in violation of constitutional mandates, grants themselves veto powers? A few years ago, our issue was that no one paid attention to Chávez’s power grab and criminal intentions. Nowadays, the issue is that there is too much noise and far too little objectivity in coverage.
*Article 214: The President of the Republic shall promulgate the law within ten days following the date on which it is received. During this period, the President may, through a resolution from the Cabinet Minister with justification, request the National Assembly to modify any provisions of the law or to annul its approval in part or in full.
The National Assembly will decide by a majority vote of the present deputies on the matters raised by the President of the Republic and will then send the law back for its promulgation.
The President of the Republic must proceed to promulgate the law within five days of its receipt, with no possibility of further objections.
When the President considers that the law or any of its articles are unconstitutional, they are obligated to request a ruling from the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice within the ten-day period granted by the President to promulgate the law. The Supreme Court of Justice will resolve within fifteen days following its receipt of the President’s communication. If the Court refuses to declare the referred provisions unconstitutional or does not issue a statement within the specified timeframe, the President of the Republic shall promulgate the law within five days following the Court’s decision or the expiration of that period.