| VENEZUELA Venezuela and Direct Democracy Venezuelans are faced with an impossible choice. They can support the continued presidency of Hugo Chavez, who was indeed elected in a fair vote; unfortunately, this option seems to have the country headed for economic collapse. The other decision Venezuelans could make is to depose Chavez, through strikes, pressure, or an extra-constitutional vote. That would mean going outside the duly established procedures for selecting and removing the president. Additionally, replacing the current president may still fail to fix the problems Venezuela is having, as voters in Argentina have learned painfully over the last two years. What if the Venezuelan people could make changes and initiate laws in their government on a continuing basis? This is an option taking place in a growing number of countries known as direct democracy. It is a corrective for Venezuela that would not simply be a way to get rid of the president; it would also provide an opportunity for the voters to reject or revise policies on currency, privatization, and social matters. Switzerland, a country run by direct democracy, is a model for Venezuela. According to Gregory Fossedal, “Five to ten times a year, the people of Switzerland vote directly on issues at the federal, state (cantonal), or local (commune) level. Each citizen is then put in a role of a ‘mini-legislator,’ if you will.” The Swiss are invested in their governmental issues because they get to legislate on them. Switzerland’s system of direct democracy gives new meaning to the saying, “Your vote counts.” The Swiss voice a high degree of satisfaction with their system—“…a feeling that the leaders of the country listen to them on an ongoing, issue-specific basis.” While this system may sound like a radical idea, it is actually in practice in much of the United States and a growing number of European countries. As these countries suggest, direct democracy is associated with stability in government, rather than revolutionary shifts. A more democratic regime in which the Venezuelan citizens legislate on governmental matters may slow or halt people from continual striking, an act that does not improve the situation but worsens it by creating chaos and instability. For instance, opponents of President Chavez continue to have a national civic strike. On December 5, the captain of the tanker Pilin Leon, Daniel Alfaro, declared the ship on strike and anchored off the western city, Maracaibo. The tanker was carrying 280,000 barrels of fuel. On December 6, at least one gunmen began shooting into a group of more than 1000 anti-government protestors at the Plaza Francia in the Altamina district, where dissident military officers have held sit-ins since October 22. Three people were killed, including a seventeen-year-old girl, and over twenty were wounded. To some extent, each of these incidents came about as a result of differing opinions about the political and/or economic situation in Venezuela. If the people were given a say in what the government enacts as law, hopefully, in the future, similar disorder could be avoided. Obviously, the transition in Venezuela from a shaky representative government to a direct democracy is not going to be flawless, but the initial difficulty will fade. Their current representative democracy does not allow regular input by the voters, nor does it allow focused input. There are two choices for president, and all that the people can do is pick one and hope for the best. There needs to be feedback, both positive and negative, at frequent intervals, in order for a government to work in a way that satisfies the majority of the people. Direct democracy cannot solve everything; there will still be that handful of people that refuses to act within the margins of any government. But giving the people the opportunity to voice their opinions, and the knowledge that their vote will count, on issues directly affecting them will give them a reason to vote. Venezuela’s nascent democracy will transform into a developed and active democracy, which will help bring an end to the chaos that now pervades this country. It makes many people uneasy to think about direct democracy in practice anywhere, let alone in an unstable country. Consider the precedent set in the 19th century by the governments of Switzerland and the United States. They adopted elements of direct democracy as a weapon against the corruption inherent in representative bodies and also as a check on executive power. The system turned out to be pro-stability by allowing people with strong feelings on an issue to create a debate, which brought them to the ballot box rather than to the streets. Voting is a more effective and reasonable way of getting one’s voice heard than protesting in the street. Direct democracy is also pro-development because it helps build associations that cross-cut social and political alliances. Opening up the democratic process by providing reasons for people of differing mindsets to come together is a tremendous step in the right direction. The stability and development that come about due to direct democracy will benefit Venezuela because, at this point, it is a country polarized along economic and racial lines. Imagine people from both sides being given the opportunity to vote. The elite man is almost inevitably going to want something different than the working man, yet, for once, the former’s opinion will not be valued over the latter’s. Imagine a dialogue being formed, in which people from all walks of life voice their views and at the same time listen to differing standpoints. Imagine direct democracy successfully uniting a nation whose people are being asked to vote on the same issues, not just once in a while, but on an regular basis. Direct democracy is the one shot for everybody to have a say in their
future. There will never be a society that makes every single citizen
happy. For Venezuela, direct democracy seems to be the most viable
option, as it actually gives the citizens the chance to directly influence
the government. The people of Venezuela could finally have the chance
to be heard without feeling compelled to strike.
|
