11-29-07, 1:57 pm

Much has been made in the US media about the Constitutional reform process in Venezuela, but very little study of what those reforms entail has been undertaken. Certainly no serious or detailed analysis along with any effort to put the proposed changes into context exists in the US media.

According to Olivia Goumbri, executive director of the Washington-based Venezuela Information Office, the December 2nd vote on Venezuela's constitutional reforms has been the result of months of national dialogue and debate in Venezuela and of what may be one of the most democratic processes in the world.

In addition to a far-ranging dialogue that has in many ways altered the Constitutional reforms proposed by the Chávez administration and its supporters, the process has involved millions of people who up until the election of President Chávez were simply excluded from Venezuela's political life, says Goumbri.


One of the first and perhaps most important reforms President Chávez instituted at the beginning of his time in office was the creation of a system that provided Venezuela's poor and working people with citizenship rights. The implementation of a national identification system gave more than 8 million previously invisible people the right to vote, access to government programs and public education, and other citizenship rights that had been denied them, according to Goumbri.

'This was important because (prior to Chávez) there has never been real political participation by Venezuelans,' says Goumbri.

In addition to the creation of popular and successful social programs like free K-College education which has created an approximately 97% literacy rate, an extensive system of free health care, food and other anti-poverty programs, public works programs, boosting the minimum wages, and fostering the emergence of an independent trade union movement, the biggest accomplishment of the Chávez administration has been to recognize poor and working-class people in Venezuela exist, have rights, and can share in the political process that rules their country.

And it is this political process that is overseeing the Constitutional reforms that will be voted on this weekend.

One of the most controversial pieces of the Constitutional reform package is the proposed changes to the presidency. The reforms would extend to seven years the term in office (from six) and allow perpetual reelection rather than limiting reelection to two terms.

Goumbri argues that fears about dictatorship are unfounded. If the reforms pass, elections will remain competitive and presidential candidates will have to win the majority of votes, she says. Venezuelans will also retain the right to recall a president in midterm, 'which is something we don't even have in the US,' she adds.

Further, the plurality of political parties and choices in Venezuela ensure both wide participation and broad debate, something many critics of the US political process say is missing here in a system dominated by media corporations and powerful and wealthy interest groups.

Other observers have pointed out that there are no term limits on the prime minister in the United Kingdom, and no similar criticisms have been lodged against that institution. Additionally, until the 1940s, no term limits existed for the US presidency, having only been instituted out of Republican partisanship aimed at the popularity of Franklin D. Roosevelt and not out of any real fear of dictatorship.

In addition to the changes to the presidency, Goumbri states that another key reform is the decentralization of power through the redistribution of social resources directly to community councils rather than municipal governments. Critics have insisted this would centralize authority, but Goumbri offers another interpretation.

'My assessment of that,' she says, 'is that they're trying to hold the local governments a little bit more accountable.' The point of this reform is to give people in local communities and their representative organizations more access to social resources and more direct influence on the decisions of local governments, rather than imposing government decisions on the people.

Other important reforms would legally define and recognize different forms of property. For the first time private property will be defined and legally recognized along with state, social, and collective forms of property. For the first time, Afro-Venezuelans will be recognized as a national minority which has made important cultural and historical contributions to Venezuela. The central bank will come under the authority of the government. The national boundaries will be redefined to enhance Venezuela's sovereignty over its internationally recognized sea regions.

Finally, a controversial proposal that defines presidential power to declare a state of emergency initially included a measure that would have limited due process rights during a state of emergency, a fact of daily life with warrantless wiretapping in the US under the Bush administration. This particular legal change was an attempt to address what happened during the US-backed coup back in April of 2002, says Goumbri.

After much debate, the proposal to limit due process rights, however, proved extremely unpopular and was withdrawn. In addition to the right to not be tortured or mistreated, detainees held during a state of emergency will retain the right to due process and trial in court, a fact that contrasts sharply with conditions in the US and a fact that has not been reported on in the US media.

In sum the reforms being debated and voted on in Venezuela empower working and poor people. These reforms limit the power of the wealthy and the corporations to influence or control the government of Venezuela. It really is no wonder why the process has been sharply criticized and its content distorted by the US media, the Bush administration, and corporate entities who see profits from exploiting Venezuela slipping away.

--Reach Joel Wendland at