Not surprisingly, Venezuela’s legislature unanimously approved changes to the constitution that would (among other things) extend the presidential term from six to seven years & allow for unlimited reelection of presidents. Essentially, Hugo Chávez could be president for as long as he wishes (he’s currently been president for almost ten years).
I’m usually skeptical any time a legislature does anything so sweeping by unanimous consent. But that’s a whole other issue. No doubt there will be much debate from pro- & anti-Chávez pundits explaining why this move is/isn’t a threat to democracy. I subscribe to a non-majoritarian view of “pluralist democracy” (as do many political scientists) that suggests that there are no majorities, only a myriad constellation of minorities, and that majoritarian systems tend to create minority tyrannies (for more, see Robert Dahl, A Preface to Democratic Theory). So, yes, I don’t like proposals for “indefinite” reelection (which, btw, are also being considered in Bolivia).
One of the simplest—and rarely mentioned!—criticisms of indefinite reelection is this: Why does the continuation of certain policies require the continuation of a certain person in office? That is, if the Venezuelan people really support Chávez’s “Bolivarian revolution,” shouldn’t there be someone else both capable & ideologically committed to its goals who could step in & continue in Chávez’s footsteps? If not, what does that say about the movement? Similarly, if Chávez refuses to allow others w/in his movement or party to challenge his personal grip on power, what does that say about Chávez’s ambitions?
Yes, in theory democracy should allow voters to keep their leaders for as long as they wish. But we don’t live in a theoretical world; we live in a real one. And we’re well aware that power can corrupt, that majorities can be manipulated through electoral rules or other means, that long tenures in office tend to diminish accountability, and that the advantage of incumbency increases w/ time. It’s for these reasons that many have settled for a weaker form of democracy that relies on representation, political parties, and frequent elections.
A pure majoritarian democracy existed in Athens nearly three thousand years ago. In theory, the people ruled. They gathered thousands at a time to discuss & decide the day’s political issues. But as historians of Athenian democracy tell us (see M. I. Finley, Democracy Ancient & Modern), the reality was that demagogues ruled. And since Athenian democracy meant majority rule w/ no constraints, it frequently ostracized its citizens. In the Greek practice, any citizen could be nominated for ostracism. There was no defense, and no reason was necessary. Citizens would then vote. The most common punishment seems to have been ten years of exile, though it was not uncommon for the punishment to be death. Not surprisingly, citizens often came to regret their decisions soon after. A number of exiled Athenians were recalled; the dead, of course, couldn’t be.
In Athens, demagogues maintained their power largely by appealing to the people’s baser instincts or by offering monetary rewards (this, of course, was simple in a slave-based society). Often ostracism was used merely to expropriate property from political opponents, which could then be distributed to poor citizens. If you think Chávez behaves differently, one should wonder why the constitutional reforms—which will be treated en toto—include a six-hour workday. I’m sure this will become a centerpiece of the government’s referendum campaign. How many voters are likely to vote against a six-hour workday?
Athens, the world’s most ancient democracy was clearly one of its least liberal (and this w/o mentioning its highly restrictive citizenship requirements!). Those who advocate majoritarian visions of democracy should be careful what they wish for. Like the French revolutionaries of 1792, they may come to regret their decisions.
