Where are the latin american leaders with courage and principles 2

Where are the Latin American leaders with courage and principles 2?

Or

Shame on UNASUR…

The first note I wrote in this series was entitled “Where are the Latin American leaders with courage and principles” 1. Well… they do not appear to be in UNASUR. The Union of South American Nations is an important multilateral institution, born in the city of Cuzco Peru in 2004 to fuse and further the parallel integration efforts that were taking place in both the north and south of South America. It has a laudable goal, namely to “build integration in the cultural, economic, social and political areas” within the twelve countries of the region.

According to its website its challenge is to “eliminate socioeconomic inequality, achieve social inclusion, increase citizen participation, strengthen democracy and reduce existing asymmetries, while taking into account the sovereignty and independence of each” member state. In terms of political integration, its website states that UNASUR “was created as a political platform and privileged mechanism for dialogue, where regional policies that promote and respect democracy and human rights in South America are discussed”.

Since its creation the organisation has become a kind of «mini United Nations» of South America; and when one visits the «UNASUR in action» webpage, one cannot but agree that its work is commendable and invaluable. But when one hears the recent remarks of its Secretary General, former Colombian President Mr. Ernesto Samper, one is certainly left with the sad impression that the organisation is less to do with the promotion of democracy and human rights, and more to do with the protection and promotion of a particular brand of political doctrine, the «Bolivarian Revolution» in its various idiosyncratic guises… at whatever costs in terms of democracy and human rights. This is exemplified by the organisation’s conflicted viewpoints concerning developments at two of its leading members, as reflected in the recent comments of its Director General… consider the following two examples: On the one hand one has Brazil. One month ago the Brazilian Parliament set in motion a process to impeach the country’s President, Ms. Dilma Rousseff. To be sure, the whole affair is clouded in mystery; and on the face of it, there appear to be grounds for a badly-informed and neutral observer to question the fairness of it all. After all, it does seem «fishy» for a President that has not been tainted by the country’s worst corruption scandal in its history… to be «hounded out» of her job by parliamentarians, many of which are alleged to be «up to their necks» because of the scandal. Be that as it may, it seems that from a purely legal and procedural viewpoint, Parliament cannot be accused of wrongdoing. It may be said that Parliament has acted in bad faith but apparently, it cannot be said that it has acted illegally or 1

https://issuu.com/virgiliomendoza1/docs/where_are_the_latin_american_leader

unconstitutionally; something that appears to be substantiated by the fact that neither the country’s judiciary nor its military have distanced themselves from the process. Whether in the end the impeachment is considered undemocratic in spirit, will be for the Brazilian electorate to emit judgement next time parliamentarians seek to renew their mandates.

On the other hand one has Venezuela. Six months ago the opposition took control of Parliament on the back of a landslide victory, the scale of which surprised even the opposition itself. In an election with the highest voter turnout (for parliamentary elections) since Hugo Chavez first appeared on the scene, the electorate gave the opposition 67% of all seats (i.e. a supermajority) in Parliament. Within the limits of this note, it is impossible to outline anything but a miniscule portion of what has been happening in Venezuela since «the people» gave the opposition such a solid mandate; a mandate for change incidentally, since in essence, change was the only pledge the opposition made during the campaign. But I am sure the outline will be sufficient to illustrate the relative merits of concerns for democracy in the two countries.

A couple of months before the election (an election which the government was widely expected to lose)… 13 Justices and 21 Alternate Justices of the Venezuelan Supreme Court requested early retirement (respectively over 40% and over 65% of the total number of magistrates). Their requests were approved about one month before polling-day… which was also about one month before they were due retire anyway (had they served their full term).

Why the rush? Among the retired magistrates were the overall Head of the Supreme Court and the Head of the Constitutional Court of the Supreme Court. Incidentally, in Venezuela, magistrates to the Supreme Court are elected by Parliament in a rather complex and bureaucratic process that can take months. One of the first acts of the outgoing Chavista Parliament following the disastrous election was to fast-track the nominations and approvals of the 34 new magistrates, so that they were all in place about one month before the opposition was due to officially take over Parliament. This naturally led to accusations that the government was brazenly preparing to undermine the legislative branch of government.

One of the first actions of the newly formed Supreme Court was to block the opposition’s newly gained «supermajority» in Parliament, by suspending the appointment of three newly elected opposition deputies one week before they were due to be installed. This led to accusations of a «judicial coup» but it was a vital step, because it effectively removed the opposition’s ability to… among other things appoint and remove government ministers, Supreme Court magistrates and National Electoral Council rectors; propose changes to the constitution (which would have to be submitted to public referenda); and convene a National Constituent Assembly. In summary, the newly formed Supreme Court removed the opposition’s power to unravel the PSUV’s control of all branches and elements of government… a power which «the people» of Venezuela had explicitly (through their vote) and unambiguously (considering the scale of the landslide) given to the opposition in the exercise of its democratic rights. So in essence, not only did the Supreme Court disregard the wishes of «the people» but it acted in conflict with its wishes. Incidentally, the three opposition deputies remain suspended to this day, so that the State in question has no representation in Parliament despite the National

Electoral Council considering the charges against their elections without merit and hence, deeming their election lawful.

What has been happening in Venezuela since the election? While the economy collapses, the newly formed Supreme Court has blocked each and every piece of legislation passed by the opposition-led Parliament. In other words, the PSUV has turned the legislative branch of government into a «zombie» parliament, unable to pass any laws. This is no trivial matter, because parliaments perform the vital legislative, representative and oversight functions that help ensure citizens’ voices are heard and their rights are protected. At the same time, the President declared a “State of Emergency” in the country (which has since been renewed) and granted himself the power to legislate by decree. This was «authorised» by the newly formed Supreme Court, because of the «exceptional circumstances». The PSUV has shown its contempt for democracy in such an audacious and arrogant fashion, that even The Socialist International denounced one of the latest Supreme Court rulings banning yet another Law passed by Parliament. However, the international community has finally begun to raise the tone of its condemnation of the Venezuelan government; and even foreign friends of the regime are beginning to emit adverse judgements: former Uruguay President Mr. Jose Mujica, who I have criticised in previous notes for his harmful support of the Venezuelan regime, recently said of President Maduro that he was “mad as a goat” (mad as a hatter).

As expected… despite the pasting the PSUV received at the parliamentary election, the Venezuelan President and the rest of his cronies repeatedly claim, in increasingly «revolutionary» and combative language, to represent «the people» and to have the full support of «the people» for the deepening of the «revolution». This nonsense is exemplified by the ludicrous remarks of one of his senior lieutenants. Mr Tareck El Aissami, Governor of Aragua State (the fifth most populous in the country) and former Minister of the Interior (Home Office) recently said, when commenting about a PSUV-sponsored demonstration in his State…

“The people of Aragua ratified, through this enormous march, its unconditional, loyal and absolute support for the Bolivarian Revolution”… this in a State which returned eight (out a maximum possible of nine) parliamentary deputies to the opposition.

What should be clear from the above to any rational and impartial observer (and from an indepth and objective analysis of developments in each country) or even to an organisation whose explicit objective is to «stimulate policies that promote democracy and human rights» in the region… is that whilst there may be valid concerns about developments in Brazil, there is no question that democracy is being trampled in Venezuela and that soon it will be exterminated, unless the defenders of democracy and human rights (including UNASUR and its Secretary General) do the right thing… and this brings us back to Mr. Samper’s comments.

In the month since the impeachment process begun in Brazil, Mr. Samper has made at least two very explicit and very visible interventions on the subject (when reviewing UNASUR’s website). The day after the Brazilian Chamber of Deputies voted in favour of impeachment, Mr. Samper published the following statement: “The decision made by the Chamber of Deputies of

Brazil to move forward with the impeachment... without there being any indication of the existence of clear and obvious proof during the debate on the alleged crimes, is a cause of serious concern to the region” and he went further, basically saying that the election of Ms. Rousseff as President could not be repealed by a parliamentary majority, unless the existence of evidence directly linking her to the alleged criminal offense was provided… which in his judgment, had not been presented. Beyond the fact that he seems to have vested upon himself the responsibilities of the Brazilian judiciary and legislative systems, it is surprising to see that he feels so strongly about the importance of providing proof… particularly as he has remained conspicuously silent about the lack of tangible proof, when countless political prisoners in Venezuela have been sent to the gallows.

For his second intervention he seemed to have addressed one of the fundamental flaws of his first one… why wait for the Brazilian legislative and judiciary systems to emit judgement on the domestic question of impeachment, when he might be able to influence events by producing his own judgement before them? Therefore, the day before the Brazilian Senate voted on the question of impeachment, Mr. Samper published the following statement on UNASUR’s website: “For the General Secretariat of UNASUR, it would be very painful to accept that majorities formed by caucuses would have the power to impeach a President who was popularly voted into office. Brazilian Senators are definitely facing a dilemma. Either they support justice, or they support power, these being two totally different paths”. There is so much that is wrong with this second intervention, that there is no need for me to say anything.

As we can see, in the one month since Brazil’s impeachment process begun, Mr. Samper has made two very important intervention and therefore, surely this regional leader and staunch defender of democracy has had much to say about Venezuela in the six… months since the parliamentary election. I have searched in the UNASUR website and I have only been able to find a handful of statements from Mr. Samper about Venezuela. In summary, back in December he was very pleased about the way the election was conducted, and about the fact that the government had recognised the outcome… and that’s it! He has remained silent about (I was going to write “some” but then I realised that it would be more accurate to say) all… of the blatantly antidemocratic developments that have gripped Venezuela during the last six months.

It is surprising that someone who has the knowledge and prerogatives to emit a legal opinion pertaining to Brazil’s laws and constitution… is not equipped with the same understanding and privileges pertaining to Venezuela’s; particularly when one considers that as a Colombian, he must be much more familiar with Venezuela’s laws and constitution. His homeland has more in common (culturally, historically, economically, politically and geographically) with Venezuela than with any other country in the world… in fact, the two nations used to be one country! But at least Mr. Samper did express alarm… about the fact that the United States decided to extend for one year the Presidential Decree, which basically authorised some sanctions on a small numbers of Venezuelan government officials (because of their disregard for human rights) and expressed his solidarity with the Venezuelan government. Mr. Samper also expressed support for the Venezuelan President’s initiative of installing a «Truth and Justice Commission» to investigate the events surrounding the 2014 street protests…

Broadly speaking this is all that Mr. Samper has had to say about Venezuela during the last six agonizing months (according to his organisation’s website). To be fair to him and to UNASUR, the organisation did recently take the lead in the latest multilateral efforts to promote dialogue between the Venezuelan government and the opposition… I cannot remember how many times the government has utilised the proposal of a dialogue with the opposition as a tool for buying time and showing good will to the international community… but perhaps this time they really do mean business. Or perhaps one should just let the Venezuelan electorate decide again? The opposition is in the midst of organising a «Recall Referendum» as prescribed by the Constitution. Depending on the outcome of a popular vote, an early Presidential election may follow. This might be a good way for «the people» to emit judgement and for the international community to be satisfied that the result of the parliamentary election last December was no fluke. The Venezuelan government has already said (in the words of the Deputy President) that “There will be no referendum here” 2 even though it is prescribed by the Constitution… perhaps Mr. Samper might be able to offer his legal opinion?

Some folk might say that the sarcasm of the last two paragraphs weakens the integrity of the note… but their tone reflect my frustration (and that of a whole country) with Mr. Samper, with UNASUR and with all the other regional leaders that talk democracy and human rights but do little of practical consequence to defend these values when they interfere with political doctrine (and maybe their jobs). In my humble opinion Mr. Samper is losing credibility, undermining democracy in the region and even risking turning UNASUR into an irrelevance.

As an aside, when I was visiting UNASUR’s website, I came across the newsflash that Mr. Samper had recently met with representatives of the Dutch Presidency of the EU Council (it seems he went on an EU tour, as there were also newsflashes about meetings in Vienna and Madrid). Considering that the EU appears to be genuinely concerned about Venezuela… one hopes that the EU officials would have taken the opportunity to ask tough questions and exert some sort of diplomatic influence.

Virgilio Mendoza

2

http://www.eluniversal.com/noticias/politica/isturiz-aqui-haber-referendo_310002