Populists intent on destroying democracy

By Marifeli Pérez-Stable
The Miami Herald, January 29, 2009

Except for the past 25 years, democracy -- at minimum, civil liberties, separation of powers, free elections -- has mostly been a stranger in Latin America. Until the 1950s, traditional, strong-man dictatorships were, more often than not, the norm. In the 1960s, ''modern,'' institutional dictatorships entered the stage. Then, beginning in the late 1970s, democratic waves swept away these military regimes. But that's not the whole story. Populism -- el pueblo as the beneficiary of government policies -- left a deep imprint in the region's political culture. Leaders such as Juan Domingo Perón and Getúlio Vargas opened the politics of Argentina and Brazil to include workers and improve their lives. In that sense, this first-generation populism initially did well in Latin America.

In the end, however, the early populism failed. Reasons varied, but illiberalism cuts across them. Populists sanctified el pueblo while disdaining citizens; the first depended on the leadership, and the second exercised their rights independently. ''I know best'' -- the populist leader's motto -- brushed aside separation of powers. Populism looked askance at markets and profits and, unsurprisingly, couldn't sustain economic growth.

This year's electoral calendar is putting the current round of populism front and center.

• On Jan. 25, Bolivians went to the polls and approved a new constitution.

• Last Sunday, Ecuador's Alianza País (AP) -- President Rafael Correa's party -- held a primary that nominated the president and his vice president for the April 26 general election .

• On Feb. 15, Venezuela holds a referendum of dubious legality on the indefinite reelection of President Hugo Chávez and all elected officials.

Bolivian President Evo Morales now has the constitution that he and 60 percent of Bolivians wanted. Even so, the constitution won't be operational until the legislature enacts over 100 implementing laws. The current Congress will have to pass some of these as well as reform electoral legislation in time for the December presidential and legislative contests. The opposition controls the Senate, though it is now divided and may not be able to block the needed legislation.

The new constitution, moreover, won't buffer the conflict between the eastern provinces and La Paz. In the east, voters largely rejected the charter just as last year they voted for regional autonomy in referendums deemed illegal by La Paz. If civil disobedience in these provinces again turns violent as happened in September, Bolivia may be in for an unpleasant haul.

In Ecuador, AP's primary -- open to all citizens -- turned out to be problematic. Rank-and-file AP members denounced irregularities, including insufficient or incomplete ballots and, in a few cases, the suspension of voting. Correa said that if these problems altered the outcome, the primary would be recast. ''These incidents are a blessing in disguise because they help us purge our ranks,'' noted the president, while saying that those within AP who claimed fraud were "childish, immature, absurd, primitive.''

In Venezuela, polls give the No an edge over the Sí, but Chávez is bound to have several tricks up his sleeve. He's certainly conjuring the specter of violence. Were the ''unpatriotic opposition'' to win the referendum, there'd be ''war'' and el pueblo would lose all that's been gained under the ''revolution.'' Chavista delegates resorted to convoluted language in posing the question on indefinite reelection. Chávez couldn't risk clarity, particularly because on Dec. 2, 2007, Venezuelans said No to his forever power.

Constitutions should limit power. That, however, is not the view held by Chávez, Morales and Correa. All three seek to stay in power as long as possible with fewer and fewer checks on their decisions. Each is at a different moment in the trajectory of contemporary populism. Bolivia and Ecuador are in the early stages of their new constitutions.

Chávez, though, is approaching a climax. If he wins on Feb. 15, what will he do about the opposition? Have the military fire upon demonstrators? If he loses, he may well incite the violence he's now predicting.

''Democracy is a system in which parties lose elections'' is a dictum that the new populists don't accept for themselves. The give-and-take of politics, which can't turn every disagreement into a test of patriotism, is anathema. Down that road, democracy ultimately dies. We'll know soon enough in Venezuela.