Politics SARA CAROLINA DÍAZ
EL UNIVERSAL

"Revolutions are not democratic, but they are imposed." This is the premise used by university professor Margarita López Maya,  a specialist in social sciences and expert at the Bolivarian process, to explain President Hugo Chávez's stubborn efforts at implementing by means of directives a proposed constitutional reform that was defeated in a referendum held last December.

What is the impact on the society of the passage of 26 decree-laws by President Hugo Chávez?

All of this is very similar to the 2001 situation. It seems to me that the society as a whole was not consulted, and this is inconsistent with the Law on Participatory Democracy. As for the contents (…), if the Constitution was intended to have 69 articles that were refused, I think that the contents of such articles should not be released through these laws.

No matter if they do not run counter to the Constitution?

Sure. The government may pass laws, but, even if they do not collide with the Constitution, some of these contents were overruled in the December referendum. In this regard, jurists and constitution experts should assess the legitimacy of these laws. The point at issue is that, like in 2001, there are deep changes that were not consulted. They want to pass very fundamental laws for the country's transformation without the country's involvement. This just goes against the principle of participatory, leading democracy, which is what confers legitimacy on the Bolivarian project.

What, in your opinion, is the reason for the president's insistence on this way of rulemaking?

There is a contradictory situation. Sometimes the president uses institutional logic and says that we will make changes by means of democratic procedures; sometimes this logic is breached and a revolutionary logic is used.

But a democratic revolution is supposed to be in progress.

Laws are disregarded because revolutions are not democratic. Revolutions are imposed. I think there is a clash between the democratic logic and the revolutionary logic. There is contradiction. Sometimes the president and his allies feel that they do not need to observe the laws and the Constitution. Furthermore, they have sent many signals that they went beyond the 1999 Constitution and do not view it as legitimate enough for their attempts at social change, or rather, not workable enough for their revolutionary purposes.

Which socialism is sought by means of these laws? Everything points to the same old 20th Century socialism.

The laws are intended to squeeze in socialism; a socialism that did not form part of an initial project. Now, clearly, they try to work on a socialism which, for not being consulted and not being participatory, is not democratic, and the same mistakes of the 20th Century socialism are being made.

Namely?

Exaggerated statism in the economy, which turned out to be a failure in the countries of the Soviet bloc, and, in the political field authoritarianism including subordination of all the public powers to the president, in addition to a highly centralized state, which failed also in the 20th Century.

Why, then, does he insist on it?

It seems that the government is getting short of ideas and it is in a hurry. There have been here creative proposals, but the rush, the revolutionary logic and the logic of military operations, that everything should be solved all of a sudden, prevent things from being matured or perfected. As Fernando Coronil said, here every elite who takes office thinks that they are magicians who will transform the society overnight. As a result, we crash over and over.

Is that rush related to Chávez's potential step-down in 2013?

The president will pursue the passage of the constitutional reform and this is pretty apparent. People should be keenly aware that in November election this is at stake. If he gets a landslide victory, the reform will be effective the first half, next year. Otherwise, he will do it anywhere, but will ponder on it.

For November election, pro-Chávez emerging leaders look faintly autonomous.

They are very cautious, because any move will make Chávez squash them. And those who are in middle cadres and local governments keep a low profile, because they know they can survive Chávez. However, they must be careful because if they look conspicuous, will fall down for sure.

What about the opposition?

I can see a feeble opposition, unable to create an alternative leadership. I do not understand that they insist on leaderships that staged a coup, took part in an oil strike, and now run for local public offices. They refuse to clear the way for people uncontaminated from the polarization process. The traditional leftwing has not managed to establish a trustworthy leadership. Among Chávez's followers there is also much noise and much strain. It is an issue of the two poles and perhaps there is time to go. We have not gone yet through the stage of perplexity.

Translated by Conchita Delgado