Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Venezuela and the Collective Defence of Democracy Regime in the Americas

2007; Taylor & Francis; Volume: 14; Issue: 2 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1080/13510340701245728

1743-890X

Randall R. Parish, Mark Peceny, Justin O. Delacour,

Politics and Society in Latin America

Abstract Venezuela has been racked by several years of intense political conflict marked by frequent, massive demonstrations, crippling national strikes and an attempted military coup. Perhaps surprisingly, Venezuelan democracy has been sustained in the face of these challenges and conflicts between supporters and opponents of President Hugo Chávez are increasingly played out through constitutional democratic means. The Organization of American States' (OAS) collective defence of democracy regime has played an important role in maintaining Venezuelan democracy in the face of these intractable conflicts. The OAS regime has been built on the collective interests of elected presidents in weakly institutionalized democracies, the deepening integration of the region's states into the global economy, and the increasingly liberal foreign policy of the regional hegemon. Oil wealth has limited Venezuela's vulnerability to economic sanctions if Venezuelan actors transgressed the norms of the regime, and the US's initial reluctance to condemn the April 2002 coup called into question whether the US would continue to use its influence to support democratic rule in the hemisphere. Nevertheless, the elected leaders of the region condemned the coup attempt, a regional reaction that played some role in the restoration of President Chávez. The subsequent OAS mediation effort has helped keep the ongoing political competition in Venezuela within constitutional bounds, demonstrating that the OAS collective defence of democracy continues to play a useful role in sustaining democracy in the region. Keywords: VenezuelaOrganization of American StatesUS democracy promotion Acknowledgments The authors thank Ann Marie Clark, Larry Diamond, Ben Goldfrank, Darren Hawkins, Barry Levitt, Michael McFaul, and Ken Roberts for comments on previous drafts. Previous versions of this article were presented at the 2006 meeting of the Latin American Studies Association, San Juan, Puerto Rico March 15-18, 2006, the 2003 meeting of the American Political Science Association Conference, Philadelphia, PA, August 28–31, 2003, and the 2003 meeting of the Latin American Studies Association Conference, Dallas, TX, March 27–29, 2003. Notes 1. Andrew Cooper and Thomas Legler, ‘The OAS Democratic Solidarity Paradigm: Questions of Collective and National Leadership’, Latin American Politics and Society Vol.43, No.1 (2001), pp.103–26; Tom Farer (ed.), Beyond Sovereignty: Collectively Defending Democracy in the Americas (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996); Heraldo Muñoz, ‘The Right to Democracy in the Americas’, Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs Vol.40, No.1 (1998), pp.1–18; Randall Parish and Mark Peceny, ‘Kantian Liberalism and the Collective Defense of Democracy in Latin America’, Journal of Peace Research, Vol.39, No.2 (2002), pp.229–50. 2. OAS (Organization of American States), ‘Representative Democracy: Resolution Adopted at the Fifth Plenary Session, 5 June 1991’, OEA/Ser.P AG/RES. 1080 (XXI-O/91), available online at: http://www.ddpa.oas.org/about/documents_related_spa.htm#ag91, accessed 18 February 2006. 3. OAS, ‘Inter-American Democratic Charter', Lima Peru, 11 September 2001’, Available at: http://www.ddpa.oas.org/opd/demo_chart/default.htm, accessed 18 February 2006. 4. Michael Doyle, Ways of War and Peace: Realism, Liberalism, and Socialism (New York: W.W. Norton, 1997), pp.205–311; Bruce Russett and John Oneal, Triangulating Peace: Democracy, Interdependence, and International Organizations (New York: W.W. Norton, 2001); Kenneth Schultz, Democracy and Coercive Diplomacy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001). 5. Kurt Taylor Gaubatz, ‘Democracy and Commitment’, International Organization, Vol.50, No.1 (1996), pp.109–40; Thomas Risse-Kappen, 1996. ‘ Collective Identity in a Democratic Community: The Case of NATO’, in: Peter Katzenstein (ed.), The Culture of National Security (New York: Columbia University Press, 1996), pp.357–99. 6. Darren Hawkins and Jutta Joachim, ‘Legalizing Human Rights and Democracy: Comparing the EU, OAS, and CE’, Paper Prepared for the Latin American Studies Association Conference, Dallas, TX, 27–9 March 2003. 7. Yale Ferguson, ‘The United States and Political Development in Latin America: A Retrospect and Prescription’, in Yale Ferguson (ed.), Contemporary Inter-American Relations: A Reader in Theory and Issues (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1972), pp.348–91. 8. Barry Levitt, ‘A Desultory Defense of Democracy: The Organization of American States, Resolution 1080, and the Inter-American Democratic Charter’, Latin American Politics and Society, Vol.48, No.3 (2006), pp.93–123. 9. Jon Pevehouse, ‘Democracy from the Outside-In? International Organizations and Democratization’, International Organization, Vol.56, No.3 (2002), pp.515–49. 10. Cooper and Legler (note 1); Arturo Valenzuela, ‘Paraguay: The Coup that Didn't Happen’, Journal of Democracy, Vol.8, No.1 (1997), pp.43–55. 11. Cooper and Legler (note 1). 12. OAS, ‘Executive Summary of the Final Report of the Chief of the Electoral Observation Mission for the General Elections in the Republic of Peru, 5 June 2000’, OEA Ser. P AG/doc.3936/00, available online at: http://www.ddpa.oas.org/docs/general_assembly/2000/ag_doc_3936_xxx_O_00_eng.pdf, accessed 18 February 2006. 13. Edward Mansfield and Jon Pevehouse, ‘Trade Blocs, Trade Flows, and International Conflict’, International Organization, Vol.54, No.4 (2000), pp.775–808. 14. Barbara Stallings, ‘International Influence on Economic Policy: Debt, Stabilization and Structural Reform’, in Stephan Haggard and Robert Kaufman (eds), The Politics of Economic Adjustment, (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993), pp.41–88. 15. Ferguson (note 7); David Forsythe, ‘The United Nations, Democracy, and the Americas’, in Farer (note 1), pp.107–31. 16. Richard Bloomfield, ‘Making the Western Hemisphere Safe for Democracy? The OAS Defense of Democracy Regime’, Washington Quarterly, Vol.17, No.2 (1994), pp.157–69; Muñoz (note 1); Hawkins and Joachim (note 6). 17. Anthony Lake, ‘From Containment to Enlargement: Address at the School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University, Washington, DC, 21 September 1993’, US Department of State Dispatch, Vol.4, No.39 (1993), pp.658–65; Mark Peceny, Democracy at the Point of Bayonets (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1999). 18. White House, ‘The National Security Strategy of the United States of America’, 17 September 2002, available online at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html, accessed 18 February 2006. 19. White House, ‘State of the Union Address, 29 January 2002, available online at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/01/20020129-11.html, accessed 18 February 2006. 20. Peter Smith, Talons of the Eagle: Dynamics of US-Latin American Relations, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996); Tony Smith, America's Mission: The United States and the Worldwide Struggle for Democracy in the Twentieth Century (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994). 21. Daniel Levine, Conflict and Political Change in Venezuela (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1973); Terry Lynn Karl, ‘Petroleum and Political Pacts: The Transition to Democracy in Venezuela’, Latin American Research Review, Vol.22, No.1 (1987), pp.63–94. 22. Michael Coppedge, Strong Parties and Lame Ducks: Presidential Partyarchy and Factionalism in Venezuela (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1994); Brian Crisp, Democratic Institutional Design: The Powers and Incentives of Venezuelan Politicians and Interest Groups (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2000). 23. Terry Lynn Karl, The Paradox of Plenty: Oil Booms and Petro-States (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1997). 24. Margarita López Maya, ‘The Venezuelan Caracazo of 1989: Popular Protest and Institutional Weakness’, Journal of Latin American Studies, Vol.35, No.1 (2003) pp.117–37. 25. Felipe Agüero, ‘Debilitating Democracy: Political Elites and Military Rebels’, in: Louis Goodman, Johanna Mendelson Forman, Moisés Naím, Joseph Tulchin and Gary Bland (eds), Lessons of the Venezuelan Experience (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1995), pp.136–62; Harold Trinkunas, ‘The Crisis in Venezuelan Civil-Military Relations’, Latin American Research Review, Vol.37, No.1 (2002), pp.41–77; Margarita López Maya, ‘Hugo Chávez Frias: His Movement and His Presidency’, in Steve Ellner and Daniel Hellinger (eds), Venezuelan Politics in the Chávez Era: Class, Polarization and Conflict (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 2003), pp.73–92; Deborah Norden, ‘Democracy in Uniform: Chávez and the Venezuelan Armed Forces’, in Ellner and Hellinger (this note), pp.93–112. 26. Jennifer McCoy, ‘Demystifying Venezuela's Hugo Chávez’, Current History (February, 2000), pp.66–71; Omar Encarnación, ‘Venezuela's Civil Society Coup’, World Policy Journal (Summer, 2002), pp.38–48. 27. Jennifer McCoy and Laura Neuman, ‘Defining the “Bolivarian Revolution”: Hugo Chávez's Venezuela’, Current History (February, 2001), pp.80–5; Ellner and Hellinger (note 25). 28. Kenneth Roberts, ‘Populism, Political Conflict, and Grass-Roots Organization in Latin America’, Comparative Politics, Vol.38, No.2 (2006), pp.127–48. 29. Scott Wilson, ‘Acting Leader of Venezuela Steps Down; Term Ends after One Day as Pro-Chávez Protests Grow’, Washington Post (14 April 2002) p.A1; Encarnación (note 26). 30. Juan Forero, ‘2nd Day of Anti-government Protests Slows Venezuela’, New York Times p.A6. 31. Sandra La Fuente and Alfredo Meza, El Acertijo de Abril: Relato Periodístico de la Breve Caída de Hugo Chávez (Caracas: Debate, 2004). 32. No definitive account of who was responsible for the deaths on 11 April 2002 is yet available, but the evidence available thus far indicates that partisans of both camps died on that day and that Chavista and opposition forces probably shared the responsibility for triggering the violence. La Fuente and Meza (note 31). 33. Juan Forero, ‘Generals Revolt in Venezuela after 10 Protesters are Killed’, New York Times (12 April 2002), p.A1; Scott Wilson, ‘Venezuelan Military Says Chávez is Ousted’, Washington Post (12 April 2002), p.A1. 34. Encarnación (note 26), p. 43. 35. ‘After the Coup, the Reckoning’, The Economist (20 April 2002), pp.34–35. 36. Larry Rohter, ‘A Vicious Circle: Failures and Instability’, New York Times (13 April 2002), p.A9; Rio Group, ‘April 12 2002, Río Group Statement on the Situation in Venezuela’, in: United States Department of State and the Broadcasting Board of Governors Office of Inspector General, ‘A Review of US Policy Toward Venezuela November 2001–April 2002 Report Number 02-OIG-003, July 2002’, pp.61–3, available online at: http://oig.state.gov/documents/organization/13682.pdf, accessed 18 February 2006. 37. ‘Latin American Countries Condemn Thursday Night's Coup’, Headline.com 12 April 2002, available online at: http://www.vheadline.com/readnews.asp?id = 2940, accessed 18 February 2006. 38. El Nacional de Venezuela (13 April 2002). 39. Levitt (note 8). 40. Interview, Department of Defense, 21 May 2003. 41. Larry Rohter, ‘Venezuela's 2 Fateful Days: Leader Is Out and In Again’, New York Times (20 April 2002), p.A1. 42. Interview, Department of State, 20 May 2003. 43. Norden (note 25), p.109; Harold Trinkunas, ‘Militarizing the State: Implications for Democracy in Venezuela’, Paper Prepared for the Latin American Studies Conference, Dallas, TX, 27-29 March 2003, p.14. 44. Larry Rohter, ‘Fear of Loss of Democracy Led Neighbors to Aid Return’, New York Times, 15 April 2002, p.A8; OAS, ‘The Situation in Venezuela’, CP/RES 811 (1315/02), available online at: http://www.ddpa.oas.org/about/documents_related.htm#cp02, accessed 18 February 2006. 45. ‘Venezuela: Organization of American States Attempts to Mediate Crisis’, NOTISUR, 1 November 2002. 46. Latin American Weekly Report, 15 April 2003. 47. ‘Venezuela: Opposition Strike Continues Amid Rising Tensions’, NOTISUR, 12 December 2002; Bernard Mommer, ‘Subversive Oil’, in Ellner and Hellinger, (note 25), pp.131–46. 48. ‘Venezuela: OAS Dialogue Continues Amid Clashes’, NOTISUR, 22 November 2002. 49. Justin Delacour, ‘Venezuela: With Exception of Brazil, Mediating Countries Favour Opposition to Hugo Chávez’, NOTISUR, 7 February 2003. 50. ‘Venezuela: Business and Labor Union Threaten New Strike’, NOTISUR, 4 October 2002. 51. NOTISUR (note 45). 52. ‘Venezuela: Marches in Support of and Against President Hugo Chávez Show Polarized Society’, NOTISUR, 18 October 2002. 53. Interview, Department of Defense, 21 May 2003. 54. White House, ‘US Reaffirms Support for OAS Secretary General's Efforts in Venezuela and Calls for Early Elections: Press Briefing by Ari Fleisher’, 13 December 2002, available online at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/12/20021213.html, accessed 18 February 2006. 55. Karl (note 23). 56. ‘Venezuela: Failed Coup in Venezuela Exposes US Government Double Standard and Venezuelan Media Bias’, Notisur, 19 April 2002. 57. Interview, Department of State, 20 May 2003. 58. Daniel Hellinger, ‘When ‘No’ Means ‘Yes to Revolution’’, Latin American Perspectives, Vol.32, No.3 (2005), pp.8–32. 59. Ibid., p.14. 60. Roberts (note 28). 61. ‘Venezuela's Chávez Would Win Recall Referendum, Poll Says’, Venezuelanalysis.com, 26 April 2004; ‘New Polls Show Venezuela's Chávez Winning Recall Referendum’, Venezuelanalysis.com, 2 July 2004; ‘Three New Polls Show Venezuela's Chávez Winning Recall by 11% to 25%’, Venezuelanalysis.com, 30 July 2004. 62. ‘Hugo Chávez Wins’, New York Times (18 August 2004), p.A22; ‘Chávez Voters Have Spoken’, Los Angeles Times (21 August 2004), p.B18. 63. ‘Venezuela Vote Promises Strife; Chávez Recall Will be Close, With Oil Markets on High Alert’, Wall Street Journal (11 August 2004). 64. ‘US Reviews Chávez Policy’, Miami Herald (26 January 2005). 65. Michael Weinstein, ‘Washington Loses Control of the OAS’, Power and Interest News Report, 9 May 2005, available online at: http://www.pinr.com/report.php?ac = view_report&report_id = 295&language_id = 1, accessed 19 February 2006. 66. Ibid. 67. Joel Brinkley, ‘Rice Begins Latin America Trip’, New York Times (27 April 2005), p.A4. 68. ‘Pettigrew won't be Heading OAS’, Montreal Gazette (30 April 2005); Larry Rohter, ‘OAS to Pick Chile Socialist US Opposed as its Leader’, New York Times (30 April 2005), p.A5; ‘Setback for Washington as Chilean Takes OAS Helm’, Financial Times (3 May 2005). 69. Joel Brinkley, ‘US Proposal in the OAS Draws Fire as an Attack on Venezuela’, New York Times (22 May 2005), p.1. 70. Ibid. 71. ‘Venezuela's Foreign Minister Denounces at OAS the Frequent Negative Statements by US Officials against President Chávez’, Venezuelanalysis.com, 23 February 2005. 72. ‘‘New Phase’ in Venezuela–Chile Relations, Say Presidents’, Venezuelanalysis.com, 21 April 2005. 73. Joel Brinkley, ‘Latin Nations Resist Plan for Monitor of Democracy’, New York Times (6 June 2005), p.A8. 74. Joel Brinkley, ‘Latin States Shun US Plan to Watch Over Democracy’, New York Times (9 June 2005), p.A8. 75. Brinkley (note 69). 76. Brinkley (note 74). 77. ‘Backhander for US’, The Australian (11 June 2005). 78. OAS, ‘Preliminary OAS Observations on the Legislative Elections in Venezuela’, 6 December 2005, available online at: http://www.ddpa.oas.org/press/2005/dec/press_12_06_05_eng.htm, accessed 19 February 2006. 79. ‘General Secretary Says OAS had a ‘Problem’ with Venezuela's Opposition’, Venezuelanalysis.com, 26 December 2005. Additional informationNotes on contributorsRandall Parish Randall Parish is an Assistant Professor in the Division of Social Sciences, Gainesville State College Mark Peceny Mark Peceny is Professor and Chair of the Department of Political Science, University of New Mexico Justin Delacour Justin Delacour is a doctoral candidate at the University of New Mexico, USA.