The "New" Socialism?

In 2002, I recoiled when the U.S. seemed to approve of President Hugo Chavez's ouster by pro-business conspirators. But what is happening in Venezuela today is dark indeed. President Chavez is promoting a new constitution. Much of what the constitution promises is noble if ill-conceived (six-hour workdays, state pensions for housewives and maids, banning sexual orientation discrimination, the lowering of the voting age to 16, etc.). I support at least two out of four. Nevertheless, Venezuelans must reject this measure that, among other things:

1. Eliminates term limits for the president, but not for mayors or governors.
2. Shifs power from governors and mayors (read, states and cities) to "communal councils" filled with pro-Chavez elements.
3. Raises the number of signatures required for a recall vote.
4. Allows President Chavez to declare states of emergency to shut down televisions and newspapers.

Any substantive gains made by this new constitution is outweighed by the procedural impediments it places on future attempts to remove Chavez, or any president, for that matter, from office. Venezuela is not yet an authoritarian state in the traditional sense of the word, but this is certainly a step off of a bottomless cliff. Admittedly, unlike our "ally" in Pakistan, Chavez has submitted his proposals to the people of Venezuela, but soft Chavezism is only different in degree; our own King George would certainly love to have this kind of power.

The Tribune article also includes this disturbing piece of information:

Lacking here, for instance, is the authoritarianism one might expect in a country where billboards promoting Chávez have proliferated in the last year.
Looming above the Centro San Ignacio, this city's glitziest shopping mall, is one of Chávez hugging a child while he explains the "motors" of his revolution. Others show him kissing old women, decorating graduates of the military university and embracing an ally, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran.

Forgive me, but last I checked President Ahmadinejad is no fan of socialism, democratic reform or free thought, for that matter. That President Chavez hugs the Iranian proto-Nazi while promoting a constitution that protects gays and lesbians is bewildering and suggestive of a pragmatic, anti-U.S. petroleum alliance, not a dedicated egalitarian movement.

For a brief period in the 20th century, we had checks on this soft authoritarianism. Oh, the good old days, when the powers of a state's executive could be countered by self-interested legislators and a media not as complicit or, in the old vernacular, yellow.

Those who have immediate interests that will be negatively affected by the referendum appear to be resigned to its passage. Perhaps just as dissident Russians are resigned to President Putin's move to the center of political power after the expiration of his term, so too are the Venezuelans who stand to lose from this referendum.

In November of 2004, I was extremely depressed to see the American people seduced by this kind of majoritarian "populism," "re"-electing a power-mad, constitution-defying president of dubious character and approving anti-gay ballot initiatives in over a dozen states. If we have learned anything from our post-September 11th political experience, it should be that the procedural safeguards protecting minority rights, free association, speech and elections, limiting the powers of the political branches and preventing the destabilization of a country's economy are vital to modern democracies. Our dance with majority rule, the cult of militant personality (and yes, that goes for King George as well) and perpetual struggle is a dance that is fitting for moths and flames, not for civilized human beings.