Much is being made of the so-called “enabling laws” (“leyes habilitantes”) being granted to Hugo Chávez. His defense of the laws is that they are constitutional. This is true, but in terms of whether it is democratic is also irrelevant. Here are the relevant parts of the Venezuelan constitution:
Article 203: “Son leyes habilitantes las sancionadas por la Asamblea Nacional por las tres quintas partes de sus integrantes, a fin de establecer las directrices, propósitos y el marco de las materias que se delegan al Presidente o Presidenta de la República, con rango y valor de ley. Las leyes de base deben fijar el plazo de su ejercicio.”
The relevant role of the president is in Article 236, section 8: “Dictar, previa autorización por una ley habilitante, decretos con fuerza de ley.”
In short, with a 3/5 vote the National Assembly can delegate decree power to the president. It is within the constitution. Being constitutional, however, is not the same as being democratic. By far the best analysis of this is Brian Loveman’s The Constitution of Tyranny. “States of exception,” a concept borrowed largely from revolutionary France, have been part of Latin American constitutions from the beginning. They are undemocratic, as they allow for extraordinary powers, thus stripping citizens of their rights and giving the executive carte blanche to go after political opponents.
6 comments:
Dr. Weeks, wasn't this constitution written under Chavez? How is this really democratic or not a step towards authoritarianism if the constitution was authored under Chavez and then this law created only years later? I watched him speak the other day on CNN en español, and he said that he’s been there for years and never has acted as a dictator. But, can we not see that little by little that he continues to allow less and less democracy and political freedom? He just seems he uses his “democracy” or his own constitution as a cover.
Yes. Authoritarianism can be constitutional. Likewise, virtually all autocrats refer to their political systems as democratic, and to themselves as the choice of the "people." This is often true both on the left and on the right.
The move was as legal as it is in other countries. The extent of the powers conceeded, however, are unnecesary to the point of making congress itself redundant. Indeed, what I don't get at all is why Chavez did this when he controls congress. All he needs to do it to call Ameliach (or however presides Congress nowadays) and ask him to vote whatever resolution or law he wants. He doesn't even care about the form!
I can think of several possible reasons, though I am just guessing. It eliminates an extra step, so you don't need to even bother with fake legislative debate. It is also far more glorious to take personal credit for what happens, without having to share that credit.
I would not conflate leyes habilitantes with states of exception.
True--it wasn't my intention to, though rereading it, I made it sound that way. I was just trying to highlight the difference between constitutional and democratic.
Post a Comment