Two Votes, Two Ways

It is a surprising day when Hugo Chavez, populist leader of Venezuela and fierce enemy of the United States, turns out to be an effective example of how a leader handles electoral defeat. On the other hand, the example of Russia's "managed" elections is a more common example of how autocratic governments can subvert the forms of democracy to obtain their desired vote. In examining these two cases, we can look at what it takes to run a successful democracy, and what sort of checks leaders need in order to avoid the corruption of a democratic society.

The Odd Case of Venezuela

Throughout the history of Latin America, there has been a cycle (a very depressing cycle) of fragile democracies that fracture between the interests of rich and poor, whites, mestizos, and "Indians," replaced by the rule of dictators (or caudillos) that promise economic growth or fairness to the people, at the cost of civil liberties and freedom, and end up resulting in a privileged class stealing the rich natural wealth of these nations and seeking control over all aspects of life. This cycle is not limited to Latin America (witness, for example, the African Continent, much of the Middle East, Central Asia, and Southeast Asia), though it is very entrenched here and has been for the last two centuries or so.

This grim history of the failure of democracy in the region (despite the nearby example of one of the world's most successful republican regimes) now has, it appears, a rather surprising chapter in a particularly unlikely place. Hugo Chavez, the blustering and arrogant leader of Venezuela, had been riding high with large victories, and even overcoming a failed coup attempt. However, his attempt to revise the Venezuelan constitution to allow himself a lifetime term of office and the freedom to control all the press as well as the political and economic life of Venezuela, was too much for the nation to accept and was defeated in a narrow vote. Better yet--the spearhead of the opposition was not the fractured older leaders of the opposition, but rather intelligent and fredom loving university students who mobilized in the tens of thousands against the proposal. Even better still, it appears that Chavez will respect the vote, a much better outcome than could have been predicted before this weekend.

A question that merits being asked is how these particular events can serve as an example for others. It is noteworthy in this case that the revolt was led not by the corrupt leaders of the "old regime" but by the young. If there is to be genuine change, there needs to be a changing of the guard in leadership to remove the corrupt holders of power. Such removal needs to be by just and democratic means (as was the case in Venezuela) lest new corrupt powers take hold and entrench themselves just like the old ones did (witness the depressing aftermath of most revolutions around the world). It is easier to reject the leaders of the past for their problems than to build a more just society in the aftermath of that rejection, but having rejected a dictatorship for Chavez, hopefully the young of Venezuela can overcome the mistakes of their fathers and build a more just and more open society in place of the fiercely divided one at present. Hope springs eternal.

Russia's Managed "Democracy"

A more typical example of pseudo-democracies around the world is the case of Russia's election. Vladimir Putin sought to expand the powers of his government for his successor to continue along his lines of controlling the country and limiting dissent, giving power and wealth to his corrupt friends and assassinating critics and rivals. He managed this task through pressuring voters to vote in their places of work where they could be under the supervision of their bosses (and through economic pressure that jobs and financial survival would be dependent on making the "right" vote, which was of course whatever Putin wanted).

This is a typical example because the forms of democracy itself can be corrupted by authoritarian tendencies which may, for political reasons, which to have the illusion of popular consent even when that reality is not present. Popular support, even if it is received by illegitimate means, often confers the appearance of legitimacy that even bullies and tyrants like to maintain. Even the appearance of consent helps to reduce the threat of rebellion and uprising in the most unjust socieities. Most leaders are savvy enough to realize the need for these shows of consent (Soviet Elections, as well as the throngs of cheering masses desired by every dictator), as it gives them the (often undeserved) satisfaction of having done the will of the people.

It is possible, though, that Putin may have overstepped his bounds. Of course, he does not wish for the approval of the West in his election practices, but he does wish the respect of the West as well as economic help for his nation, and this is jeapordized by corruption that becomes too obvious or behavior that becomes too heavy-handed. Having the suspected assassin of one of Russia's heroes of democracy elected to the Russian Congress would appear to be a mean-spirited move designed to demonstrate Putin's control over Russia. Such insults often tend to backfire--managed democracy, like revenge, is a dish best served cold. There are, no doubt, many people who would wish to emulate Putin's example, as Putin emulated the behavior of countless dictators before him.