The most recent issue of the Economist notes a new set of powers Chavez has gained (democratically, true) that give him and his party the unlimited right to hire and fire judges. The economist has an agenda and clearly they don't like Chavez, nonetheless their reporting is usually scrupulously fair and factual and the basic facts are difficult to question...
The article notes that the alleged coup (which it isn't sure is real or not) gives Chavez a new lever with witch to push his agenda:
A DASTARDLY opposition plot to use Colombian paramilitaries to overthrow the president? Or a government show, designed to discredit a shaky opposition and distract attention from its own manoeuvring to quash a recall referendum? Whatever the truth behind the arrest this week of 90-odd uniformed but unarmed men alleged to be right-wing terrorists at a ranch on the outskirts of Caracas, it spells more trouble for the opposition to Venezuela's president, Hugo Chávez.
The economist sees the new laws as the final step in giving Chavez total control over Venezuala:
Mr Chávez, a populist former army officer, stands on the brink of winning absolute power in his country. The opposition's attempt to invoke the constitution and subject the president to a recall referendum looks doomed. Worse still, a new law enables the president to seize control of the supreme court. And the "paramilitary" incident is the perfect excuse for a crackdown.
Now, I know that may seem like hyperbole to you. However, take a look at the actual facts:
After a long filibuster by the opposition was defeated, the National Assembly on April 30th approved a law that adds 12 new justices to the 20-member supreme court. Hitherto, judicial appointments and dismissals have needed approval by a two-thirds majority in the Assembly, which Mr Chávez lacks. Under the new law, likely to take effect this month, only a simple majority is needed. So the president can now both pack and purge the court. Since the supreme court controls the rest of the judiciary, every judge in the land will have to apply the law the way the government wants--or risk losing his or her job.
This move will also doom the hopes of oposition leaders trying to use the Recall provision of the constitution Chavez himself championed:
That is probably the final blow to the referendum. Six months ago, the opposition gathered over 3m signatures for this, well above the 2.4m required by the constitution. But the government-dominated electoral authority disqualified 1.2m of them--requiring those concerned individually to confirm their signature in a laborious exercise due later this month. Even if enough do, the matter is likely to go to the supreme court. Time is running out. If a referendum is held after August 19th (the mid-point of his term) and Mr Chávez loses, the upshot would not be an election but his vice-president taking over.
But phehaps the most blatant undemocratic act that Chavez has taken is his retaliation against those that have signed the recall petition:
Venezuelans who signed the referendum petition are finding that they may be denied everything from passports to bank loans, government contracts or jobs, and dollars at the cheap official rate.
The article is here
I think that this raises a deep problem for modern global relations. What do you do when a Democratically elected leader ceases to act democratically? Are coups justified? Not yet I'd say. The real test will come in 2007 when Chavez's term is up. Will he allow a free election? Will he release his office if he loses? His behaviour so far gives me little confidence that he will do either of those. Last, I leave you with this:
Since Mr Chávez was first elected in 1998, income per head in Venezuela has fallen by 27% (partly because of a two-month general strike in 2002-03). But this year, the economy has started to recover.
Thats not all due to the strike, some of it comes from botched land reform as I understand it...