Venezuela, a Bastion of Democracy?

To no one’s surprise, Hugo Chavez’s 11-year-old populist revolution in Venezuela has a less than stellar record on democracy and human rights.

According to a new 300-page report released by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), the Venezuelan government has undermined democracy through the consolidation of power under the executive and through intimidation and punishment of political opponents, human rights defenders, labor leaders and journalists. In addition, the report says, 50 percent of judges have no tenure and are easily dismissed if they make decisions the government doesn’t approve of.

It is, in sum, the most scathing report of a sitting government since the autonomous human rights watchdog described the abuses of Alberto Fujimori in Peru in 2000. After the Peruvian report appeared, foreign ministers of the Americas, in Canada for an annual meeting of the Organization of American States, voted to dispatch a high level delegation to Peru. The delegation initiated negotiations with the regime and the opposition that eventually led to Fujimori’s resignation.

For the Venezuelan opposition and anti-Chavistas everywhere, the new report is further confirmation of all they have denounced for years. But if they are hoping the international community will respond decisively and that soon Chavez will suffer Fujimori’s fate, they are mistaken.

The situation on the ground is a bit more complicated than it was in 2000. Over the last decade, rising popular discontent for market economies without social gains has brought to power a number of leftist leaders pledging to improve the lot of the poor. Most recently, Uruguayans elected Jose Alberto Mujica, a man who once fought for social justice as a member of the Tupamaro guerrilla movement, over conservative candidate Luis Alberto Lacalle.

Many of those leaders, particularly Chavez, shrug off criticism of their human rights records. They claim to be more committed to democracy than their predecessors. And by certain measures, such as the economic and social rights that the Inter-American Democratic Charter cites as factors in the consolidation of democracy, they are right.

The IACHR report acknowledges such advances in Venezuela: “The Commission emphasizes that the (Venezuelan) State has succeeded in ensuring the majority of its population is literate, reducing poverty and extreme poverty, expanding health coverage among the most vulnerable sectors, reducing unemployment, reducing the infant mortality rate, and increasing the Venezuelan people’s access to basic public services.”

Today Venezuelan income disparity is the lowest in Latin America. It is one of only five countries in the world that moved up more than three slots in the latest United Nations Human Development Index. In last year’s Latinobarometro survey, Latin Americans said that only Uruguay and Costa Rica were more democratic than Venezuela in the region.

This progress adds a new dimension to Washington’s relationship with Venezuela. Prior to President Obama, the powers that be would have seized upon the negative aspects of the report and used it to demonize Chavez and to call on others in the region to stand on the side of freedom. Fortunately, those days of ideological ultimatums are past.

Obama clearly doesn’t want to get caught up in a verbal confrontation with Chavez and stir up further acrimony. Moreover, assuming an anti-Chavez posture risks putting the Obama administration on the wrong end of the urgent and broader mission to reduce inequality in Latin America.

Instead, Obama officials are attempting to restore diplomatic relations with Bolivian indigenous President Evo Morales, reelected in December. The administration too, by sending Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to Mujica’s upcoming inauguration, wants to emphasize the importance of seeking social justice and inclusion through democratic means.

But engagement cannot mean glossing over the real erosion of the institutions of democracy and fundamental human rights. As Dan Fisk, who served as special assistant to President Bush and senior director for Western Hemisphere affairs on the Nation Security Council, said to me in a recent interview, silence can begin “to look like acquiescence of abusive behavior of certain leaders.”

How Washington breaks that silence while maintaining better relations with the populist left in Latin America is part of the debate Obama officials are now having internally. Latin American democracy has evolved and defending it requires a different, more nuanced approach.

Certainly Obama is in a far better place than his predecessor –he can shake Chavez’s hand for one – but Washington has a long way to go to restore trust, given that its record of defending and promoting democracy in the hemisphere has been far from stellar.