Andean Group - August 2009 (ISSN 1741-4466)

There is little doubt that the path towards '21st Century Socialism' in Venezuela has been well executed by the government of President Hugo Chávez . In recent months several controversial new reforms have been given legal sanction by the unicameral and Chavista dominated National Assembly (AN in the Spanish acronym). This allows Chávez to rebuff those critics who suggest the executive operates outside the bounds of the country's institutions (given his degree of control over these institutions, he has no need whatsoever to do so), though there is a lingering question as to whether he is acting entirely democratically, given that many of these 'Socialist' reforms were rejected by voters in a November 2007 referendum on constitutional reform.

Socialism by stealth_

Over the past 18 months, President Chávez has pushed ahead with the bulk of the reforms narrowly rejected by the electorate in the November 2007 plebiscite dominated by the issue of presidential re-election. The opposition has accused him of introducing 'Socialism by stealth', first using his temporary 'enabling powers' to legislate by decree (to July 2008) and subsequently getting the 167-seat unicameral National Assembly, which is stacked with his supporters, to rubberstamp these reforms.

Since a successful second referendum to remove term limits in February 2009, Chávez has been emboldened to push on with this radical legislative agenda. He has used it to accelerate the government's   intervention in designated 'strategic' key economic sectors (including banking, the food and agriculture sector and the oil and fuel sector) and, under a controversial 18 March amendment to the decentralization law, to take back control of key facilities (ports, airports and toll roads) from state authorities and appropriate political and administrative powers from elected opposition authorities, most notably in Caracas (via the Capital District Law).

Using his inflammatory rhetoric for cover, the president has chosen his battles astutely, often deliberately creating a distraction with one piece of legislation in order to shield the passage of another through the assembly. Not all of the reforms have gone through, with Chávez occasionally forced to backtrack in the face of overwhelming public opposition.   In May 2008 [RA-08-06], the president did a u-turn on a controversial new intelligence law (enacted by decree), following an outcry about its implications for civil liberties and rumoured dissent within the army. Chávez admitted his mistake, and ordered the law be redrafted - it was quietly shelved. And in early August 2009, the government abruptly withdrew a draft 'Media Crimes Bill' from the assembly amid widespread fury over the regulator Conatel's closure of 34 radio stations for spurious bureaucratic reasons (outdated paperwork) and its continued assault on the anti-government cable TV channel, Globovisión.

And by surprise_

This year, the executive has also suddenly and without warning revived bills that had been on ice for several years, racing them through the AN with little or no debate, and giving the opposition (which in any case is not represented in the assembly, after it boycotted the last legislative polls in 2005) little or no time to react.

For instance, while public attention was conveniently focused on the heavy-handed government clampdown on the media, a controversial new Electoral Law, revived in May after almost 16 months on ice, slipped easily through the AN on 1 August. Critics fear that this new law will benefit the ruling Partido Unido Socialista de Venezuela (PSUV) ahead of important congressional elections in late 2010 and the subsequent presidential vote in 2012 [see RA-09-05].

Similarly, on 14 August the AN unanimously approved a highly polemical new Education Law, as the metropolitan police, now under the control of the new Chávez appointed Caracas 'governor' (Jaqueline Farí­a), used tear gas to disperse thousands of demonstrators, including parents, school teachers, trade unionists, civil society activists, university students and professors, and members of the clergy, protesting against the bill outside parliament.

This law, on the backburner for years since its first debate in 2001, was suddenly resurrected in late June and raced through the legislature with virtually no debate. The revised version, which differed markedly from the original 'consensus' 2001 version, was only put fully into the public domain a week before the debate and then only after an opposition party, Podemos, put it up on its website.

The AN, which the AN president, Cilia Flores, ordered to continue to sit through its August recess this year, discussed the 56-article bill for just 10 hours before its unanimous approval. The one small opposition group in the house, Podemos, withdrew from the debate in protest, accusing Flores of blocking its contributions.

Opponents say the new law will 'Cubanise' Venezuela's education system and lead to the 'indoctrination' of pupils with Socialist ideology. There are particular concerns about the law's somewhat ambiguous contemplation of a role in the education system for Chávez 's local 'communal councils', or neighbourhood citizen groups, widely seen as instruments of Chavismo (Arts. 16, 18). It has also led to howls of protest by private schools and universities, who fear they will lose their traditional autonomy (administrative, curricular and financial), and the Catholic Church, given that Religion will no longer be on the national curriculum. The law also appears to leave open the possibility of further legislation to regulate the university sector, long a source of opposition to the Chávez government (Arts. 23, 34).

Certainly, the tone of the new law, which strongly centralises state control over education (via the central education ministry) to the detriment of local authorities, parents groups and schools themselves, does have ideological overtones. At the outset (Art 5, 2c) the law clearly sets out obligatory education “in the doctrine of Simón Bolí­var", though it later also expresses openness to “all currents of thinking" (Art 11).   Throughout the law there are apparent 'Socialist' references, such as in Article 13, which sets out the aims of education, including “the development of human beings committed to the processes of social transformation", and of “a new political culture_founded on popular power, the democratisation of knowledge and the promotion of the school as a space for the formation of citizenship and community participation, for the reconstruction of the public spirit_.with profound conscience of the social obligation".   One observer commented that the good points in the law were overshadowed by the notion among the “reactionary left" that “the Latin American man must be domesticated by the state".

However, the   government ,which argues that it is replacing an outdated 'colonial' and elitist system with one that better promotes equal access to education for all, makes no apologies for this tone: on 10 August the education minister, Héctor Navarro, stated that “the school has always been a tool of ideology, and every intellectual knows that".   Navarro slammed the opposition media for deliberately creating undue panic about the new law.

Notably, Article 50, which sets out penalties and sanctions for those failing to adhere to the new law, also prohibits the media from publishing or divulging in print or in any other form “any social communication that produces terror in children, incites hatred, aggressiveness, indiscipline, deforms language or assaults public morals or mental or physical health" - on pain of having its activities or publications immediately suspended. This, to many, looks like the Media Crimes Bill via the back door, which might explain its earlier withdrawal from the assembly.

A final criticism of the new bill is that it dedicates only a handful of paragraphs to those administrative, financing, evaluation and supervision mechanisms most critical to ensuring any education system's quality and effectiveness - further proof, critics say, that the new law is above all about cementing government control and furthering its Socialist ambitions.

• Property Rights

On 17 August, the assembly also rubberstamped a new 'Urban Lands Law'. This will allow the government to seize idle, unused or underused plots of land or buildings from their purported owners, for 'social purposes'. The minister for housing, public works and telecommunications, Diosdado Cabello, said the law would end “latifundio" practices in urban zones and allow the government to tackle the country's severe housing deficit (est. 1.8m homes). Critics say it is a further attack on private property rights; “a totalitarian smokescreen", sniffed the local consultancy Veneconomí­a.

• Fresh decree powers?

On 6 August the head of the national assembly, Cilia Flores, denied that President Chávez was seeking a fourth 'Enabling Law' giving him decree powers from 15 December 2009, to coincide with the 10th anniversary of his 1999 Constitution, saying there was no need. To date in 2009, the AN has approved 27 laws, 11 more than in all of 2008. A total of 57 laws are on the agenda for this year. The last Enabling Law lasted for 18 months until 31 July 2008, in which time Chávez decreed some 30 laws.