By Caroline Stauffer
As voters head to the polls in Venezuela this weekend, the larger-than-life persona of Hugo Chávez looms heavy over the proceedings—now, and potentially, for years to come. Venezuelans will vote on a referendum to abolish term limits, which would clear the way for Chávez to run for president indefinitely.
A close vote, leaning either in favor or against the referendum, would inconclusively answer the question of whether elected officials in the executive and legislative branches of government can seek reelection. Yet this is the likely outcome of the February 15 referendum, in which a simple majority of the population could further erode the tradition of single term limits in the country. Under Chávez, who was first elected president in 1998, Venezuela adopted the 1999 constitution that increased presidential term limits to two elected periods of six years.
A January poll by the Venezuelan firm Datanalysis found that 51 percent of the population supports amending the constitution to allow officials to seek reelection. The firm has compiled four polls since President Hugo Chávez announced the referendum last December. Two polls indicated a vote in favor of amending article 230 of the Venezuelan Constitution and two predicted an oppositional triumph in a “no” vote. During a panel discussion at the Council of the Americas in New York on Tuesday evening, Luis Vicente León, the director of Datanalysis, said the inconsistencies were unprecedented.
A similar referendum was narrowly voted down on December 3, 2007, and Chávez admitted defeat. But almost overnight, Caracas was covered with billboards threatening another referendum with the phrase “por ahora” (for now). The battle had been lost, but not the war. Chávez says the re-vote is necessary now, just 14 months later, to allow him to stay in power and consolidate his socialist-inspired Bolivarian revolution, which will take at least 10 more years in his estimation.
Alejandro Grisanti, senior economist for the Andean Region, said at the Tuesday panel that the timing of the referendum could also be economically motivated. Although presidential elections are not scheduled in Venezuela until 2013, the global economic slump and declining oil prices make solidifying power even more of an interest to Chávez. He may soon be forced to slow the process of nationalization and cut back his popular social missions.
Though Chávez recently told Bloomberg News that the global economic crisis has not touched “even a hair” of the Venezuelan economy, crude oil prices have in fact fallen 71 percent since July 2008, threatening the government’s windfall revenues from the state-run oil industry. Venezuelan bonds have also decreased in value since Chávez announced the referendum in early December 2008.
Gristani thinks a calm and orderly election is more important for markets than the actual outcome of the vote. Given the close polls and recent demonstrations, this may be too much to hope for.
León does not believe Chávez played with the numbers in the 2007 referendum, when the revolutionary leader experienced his first loss at the polls. He doubts there will be direct number manipulation this time around either. Some blamed Chávez for delaying the release of the referendum results in 2007, but León believes that officials simply awaited results from remote rural communities, where support for Chávez is strong.
Considering Sunday’s plausible scenarios, analysts project that the opposition could win by just two or three percentage points, and Chávez would once again accept the loss. But, now that the Supreme Tribunal of Justice in Venezuela has agreed that referendums on constitutional amendments may be held every year, there is nothing to stop Chávez from hoisting new signs and raising the question again next year, and the year after.
Another panelist at the Council of the Americas event, Allan Brewer Carías, adjunct professor at Columbia Law School, disagreed with the high court’s judgment: the principle of indefinite reelection should only be tested once per electoral term—not again and again.
If the referendum narrowly passes by two or three points, student opposition leaders will call foul play and take to the streets, staging mass protests and possibly strikes. Given the presence of unruly pro-revolutionary groups whose ties to Chávez remain unclear, a narrow “no” vote—even if accepted by the president—could also lead to demonstrations.
While many analysts believe the polls will reflect an accurate vote count, the weeks leading up to the referendum have been characterized by widespread intimidation and threats. Playing on fears of instability to gain support, the president has sought to gain “yes” votes by hinting that anti-revolutionaries will take the country into a state of violence and even civil war without his leadership.
The most visible opposition—university student protesters—are rallying around an “only you can know your vote” cry in response to rumors that votes will not be kept entirely secret from the government. The anonymity of voters has been threatened in several recent cases, making government employees and those that rely on the government’s social welfare programs susceptible to intimidation. Student movements are largely credited with defeating the referendum in 2007, but university leaders have reported a greater effort on the part of the government to silence them this time around.
Though Chávez publicly condemned violent attacks on local independent media outlets and Venezuelan journalists by the radical pro-Chávez group La Piedrita, he has taken advantage of state-owned media to campaign for the “yes” vote. Chávez says he needs extra airtime to counteract bias in the independent press. His rhetoric against the opposition includes calling supporters of the “no” vote “imperialists,” “anti-revolutionaries,” and the ultimate insult, “little Yankees.”
While the opposition student movements in the streets and radical pro-Chávez groups like La Piedrita make international headlines, the referendum may be decided by moderates, such as those who like Chávez’s social policies, but are uncomfortable with the indefinite perpetuation of his rule.
****
****
The outcome of the Sunday referendum will depend on voter mobilization. But the results are likely to be too close to comfort either side.
Caroline Stauffer is an intern at the World Policy Institute and an independent research consultant.