More on Venezuela's intelligence law
Even before I had to chance to see the text of the new intelligence law, Hugo Chávez says it will be rewritten. As I wrote before, it is a terrible idea to write an intelligence law in secret and then decree it. It was a political misstep for Chávez, as he should have known it would not simply be accepted.*
Chávez has thus named a new commission to “correct” the law, though the news release did not indicate who would be on it. Will the “correction” be similarly decreed?
This episode highlights problems with lawmaking by decree. On the one hand, it’s good that Chávez had the sense to back off in the face of criticism. On the other hand, this is not how laws should be made in a democracy, with the executive concocting something in private and then presenting it fait accompli, only to scrap it if there is protest.
* As a side note, recent reform of intelligence services in some other Latin American countries has indeed been largely ignored by the public. The degree of political polarization in
3 comments:
Greg,
You write:
"On the one hand, it’s good that Chávez had the sense to back off in the face of criticism. On the other hand, this is not how laws should be made in a democracy, with the executive concocting something in private and then presenting it fait accompli, only to scrap it if there is protest."
Given the years long debate in the U.S. over secret warrantless wiretapping and President Bush's willingness to continue the practice despite being told its against the law I assume that you would argue that Bush has acted in a manner inconsistent with democracy? Lets not start with the extraordinary renditions, detaining thousands around the world without charges, secret prisons in Eastern Europe and the torture of alleged terrorists (this sounds a lot scarier to me than a website requesting denuncias) and this from a country that considers itself (as do many comparativists and NGOSs like Freedom House) as the model democracy for other countries be compared to.
Best,
Will
Yes, I would (and have) argue(d) that.
Lets not start with the extraordinary renditions, detaining thousands around the world without charges, secret prisons in Eastern Europe and the torture of alleged terrorists ((this sounds a lot scarier to me than a website requesting denuncias)
That is a bogus comparison. Chavez decree is widely recognized as giving his intelligence & law enforcement services extremely broad powers of intrusion over the private lives, warrantless detainment and imprisonment over ordinary Venezuelan citizens - as well as creating an army of Cuban-style snitches. It is dishonest to reduce this whole Chavista scheme to the web page, and ignore its implications for Venezuelans. And it is dishonest to compare it to US Policy against terrorists and combatants abroad in a war. SINCE RENDITIONS DO NOT APPLY TO ORDINARY US CITIZENS IN THE WAY CHAVEZ LEGISLATION WOULD APPLY TO VENEZUELANS. Besides the fact, Chavez in peacetime is hardly an angel when faced w/non-FARC foreigners caught in Venezuelan territory. His intelligence chief ordering the holding, torturing, and killing two Colombian intelligence caught on the wrong side of the border.
Ultimately even comparing both sets of legislation does not work because of the context.
Bush heavy handed legislation is against civil liberties. But we have institutional checks and balances, such as an independent judiciary as recourse. As the Guardian pointed out Venezuela's " institutions have been hollowed out by a president assuming all control. Parliament is a rubber stamp, while the central bank, the courts and the military are all politicised." In that context, rules come out by decree with little oversight, and once enacted, there are little brakes to a wannabee authoritarian.
Post a Comment