Termination

It’s hard to say which is more famous, Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez’s radical socialist policies, or his notoriously exaggerated personality. Chávez’s constant interruptions of the Spanish prime minister in late 2007 at a summit in Chile brought the king of Spain, a normally soft-spoken man, to shout, “Why don’t you shut up?” Yet Chávez will not be shutting up any time soon. On Monday, Venezuela passed a national referendum that removed term limits for public officials, allowing Chávez and his appointees to potentially remain in power for life.

While he could theoretically lose the next election, it is unlikely that a viable democratic opposition will emerge with enough support to topple Chávez, who still enjoys a fair amount of popular support despite pursuing economic policies that cause hyperinflation and widespread shortages.

Eliminating term limits brings Venezuela further from democracy and closer to a one-party socialist dictatorship. In any country, incumbents enjoy a huge advantage in name recognition and free media coverage that puts legitimate challengers at a disadvantage. Term limits also help prevent a trend toward career politicians who can grow complacent or unresponsive to public need.

Of course, term limits are not necessary for democracy to function. In the United States, it took until the 22nd Amendment in 1951 before there were term limits on the presidency, and congressmen and senators continue to face no term limits at all. Parliamentary governments like Britain potentially allow a prime minister to serve indefinitely. Often the best person for the job is one who already has the skills and experience, especially during a national crisis, as with the case of President Roosevelt during World War II.

Similarly, the existence of term limits alone does not ensure free and fair elections. Few would dispute that Russia’s Vladimir Putin, despite leaving the office of the presidency because of term limits, does not still retain a great deal of control over his country.

Yet the issue at stake is not term limits in a general sense, but the mechanism by which they were removed. It is theoretically possible to democratically eliminate term limits with a fair election; however, it would be naive to call Venezuela’s recent referendum on term limits a fair election. Though the domestic opposition has not challenged the election results, Chávez has gained such a firm grip on the media during his decade in office that he can readily warp the democratic process to suit his ambition.

In this election, Chávez has used the entire government apparatus to promote the referendum. Pro-Chávez propaganda adorned government vehicles and public buildings, while state radio and television channels promoted the referendum night and day. Passengers on the subway in the capital had to listen to campaign jingles during their commute.

The pre-referendum promotional blitz only compounded the advantages Chávez typically enjoys. The president hosts a talk show for about five hours each Sunday broadcast on state media, addressing current events and showcasing copious on-location footage of Chávez’s social-welfare programs in action. In 2006, Chávez refused to renew the broadcasting license for Venezuela’s second largest TV station, which had voiced opposition to Chávez’s policies and may have endorsed a coup against Chávez in April 2002. There are also reports of Chávez sending gangs to harass journalists critical of his administration and laws that require all media outlets to broadcast his speeches in full.

Add to that the fact that Chávez’s earlier attempt to end term limits, which was bundled with a group of other minor constitutional changes, failed in a national referendum in late 2007, and a picture emerges of a Venezuelan dictator using a hollow patina of democracy to legitimize his aspirations to hold power for life. Since his victory, Chávez has already revealed his wish to remain in power until 2049, when, at 95, he would be older than his inspiration, Fidel Castro, is today. We’ll see if Venezuela’s oil wealth can last until then. For the moment, it’s clear that this new referendum is a step backward for Venezuelan democracy.