Holders of a public trust have several ways of knowing when it is their time to go. One is the end of their term. Another is premature removal from office for cause and according to established procedures–or otherwise, such as in a coup d’etat.
Not as clear-cut, but just as crucial, is the loss of legitimacy in the eyes of those who placed the person in office. Richard Nixon resigned the presidency to spare himself, his family and the country any further humiliation. Boston’s Cardinal Bernard Law finally left his post after losing the respect not only of the laity, but even his own clergy. Regardless of the nuances of ecclesiastical law, his days as a church leader were over and there was no use pretending otherwise. Sen. Trent Lott recognized the obvious on Friday, and stepped down as Republican leader of the Senate.
Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez, on the other hand, can’t seem to take the hint. The country’s economy, including the crucial oil sector, has been all but shut down for more than two weeks. Almost daily street clashes bloody the streets of the capital. Food and other essential supplies are running out. Hardest to ignore are polls showing that 70 percent or so of the population wants Chavez out.
Chavez ought to get out. His days as an effective ruler are done–Venezuelans don’t want him–and using the country’s constitution to delay his inevitable exit can’t change that. Nixon and Law could have grasped at legal straws to hang on to office, but to what end?
Chavez says his opponents must wait until August, when a constitutionally sanctioned “recall referendum” would determine whether he goes or stays. But it has become clear in recent weeks that the chaos that has engulfed Venezuela cannot go on for another seven months.
American stakes in this brawl are high but the options not clear-cut. Venezuela provides about 14 percent of American oil needs. The disruption in Venezuelan production has contributed to a 50 percent hike in world prices compared to a year ago. As the U.S. contemplates a possible war against Iraq, the chaos in Venezuela comes at a particularly bad moment.
The American role in this novella was compromised in April when a coup briefly ousted Chavez. Washington looked either complicit, pleased or unsure what to do. Last week, a White House spokesman called for early elections–regardless of the Venezuelan Constitution–only to reconsider two days later.
A U.S. call for Chavez’ early departure indeed would seem like a late endorsement of the nasty Latin habit of tossing leaders out, constitution or no, whenever some sector of the population grows tired of them.
Yet in Venezuela, Chavez has lost his credibility, both in his own country and around the world. He can best serve his nation now by making a voluntary exit, thus avoiding a constitutional crisis. Negotiations between Chavez and his opponents hosted by Cesar Gaviria, secretary general of the Organization of American States, have gone nowhere. Venezuelans seem to have reached their own conclusions on the streets of Caracas.
Not that the aftermath to Chavez appears all that promising. The fractured opposition, so far largely guided by mob rule rather than a clear agenda, has failed to put up a credible leader who can heal the rifts created by Chavez’ calamitous rule for the past four years.
Whatever the future may hold, his departure has to be the starting point. The status quo is untenable. Preparations for new elections, essentially a cooling-off period, would allow Venezuela’s warring social and economic factions to consider alternative plans and leadership.
His presidency all washed up, Chavez must go. Most everyone seems to realize that, except him.
