Venezuela's Military Is a Political Party

The separation between the military and politics is a delicate matter in most Western democracies. In the United States, active members of the military participate in their democratic process, but within certain limits. While they can vote or attend rallies when not in uniform, they are not allowed to participate in political meetings or fundraising events in uniform. The same is true in most other countries where the military is unambiguously under civilian control.

Venezuela used to be one of these countries ... until recently.

Last week, in a stunning ruling, the nation's highest court re-wrote the constitution to allow the military to actively participate in rallies and gatherings supporting a political party: the government's. The ruling dramatically erodes what is left of democracy, bringing Venezuela back to its nineteenth-century roots when warlords ruled the land.

The Venezuelan Constitution clearly establishes the military as a non-partisan entity. According to Articles 328 and 330, active service members "have a right to vote," but they cannot participate in "acts of propaganda or political partisanship, and they cannot proselytize."

This, apparently, is not clear enough for Venezuela's highest court. In complete opposition to the text, the court ruled that active military participation in partisan acts "is a high water-mark for democratic participation." The ruling goes on to hail the use of the military in partisan activities as "a progressive act geared toward the consolidation of civilian-military union."

The ruling came as a response to a lawsuit from a group of retired generals. Back in March, the defense minister ordered several military units to participate in a political rally in favor of President Nicolás Maduro. The generals sued the government, claiming this was unconstitutional.

The court rejected the argument. The ruling basically sets into law what has been a fact in chavista Venezuela: that the military is the armed faction of the governing party.

Military rule under civilian guise is not new. Many countries in the Middle East and Asia have used this form of government from time to time, and some, such as Egypt, continue on this path.

Yet Latin America had broken the trend. After the end of the continent's brutal military dictatorships, there was a clear consensus that civilians had to control the military, and that military participation in politics was a bad idea, something that had to be constrained and regulated.

This was particularly important for Venezuela, which has only had civilian governments for the last fifty years. Before then, a succession of military dictators and warlords ruled the land.

This trend rose as a consequence of the wars of independence, which were fought by private armies of peasants under the command of wealthy landowners. After the colonies gained independence from Spain, these groups fought each other to obtain power, and so the Venezuelan Republic was born.

Keeping the military impartial was an important part of Venezuela's democracy. The military guards all elections in Venezuela, doing everything from manning voting centers to handling voting material. They are also charged with ensuring safety in and around voting centers. Now that they are part of the governing party, how can anyone in the opposition be sure that results will be respected? Asking the military to take care of elections is like asking your dog to guard a stash of freshly cooked bacon.

Venezuela's independence hero, Simón Bolívar, once allegedly described Caracas as "a garrison."

The Liberator, as he is known to all Venezuelans, was onto something. The military have always felt entitled to play kingmakers in the country's politics. Now, the nation's courts have made this perfectly legal.

Juan Nagel is the Venezuela blogger for Transitions, editor of Caracas Chronicles, and author of Blogging the Revolution. Read the rest of his posts here.



Democracy Lab Weekly Brief, June 23, 2014

To follow Democracy Lab in real time, follow us on Twitter and Facebook.

Christian Caryl laments the destruction of a unique Christian culture in northern Iraq.

Askold Krushelnycky reports from the front lines of a Ukrainian army victory over pro-Russian separatists.

Mohamed Eljarh warns that the U.S. arrest of a Libyan terrorist could trigger an anti-western backlash.

Peter Salisbury explains why a fuel crisis in Yemen has some there yearning for the old regime.

Lincoln Mitchell and Alexander Cooley find that the West has yet to learn from its mistakes in Crimea.

Juan Nagel profiles Rafael Ramírez, the man in charge of Venezuela's economy.

And now for this week's recommended reads:

In The New Republic, Mark Lilla explains why the dogma of democracy doesn't always make the world better. Writing for The National Interest, John Allen Gay contends that the values underpinning American democracy are eroding.

Radio Free Europe/ Radio Liberty's Malali Bashir reports on Afghan hopes that the West will continue to support democracy in the country even after the United States withdraws its forces.

CogitAsia looks at Burma's democratic transition by the numbers. (In the photo above, refugees from Burma's conflict-ridden Shan state rehearse for a U.N. performance for World Refugee Day.)

Christopher Walker, writing for The Washington Post, tracks how authoritarian regimes are working together to limit the spread of democracy. A new Freedom House report blames Russia for the decline of democracy across Eurasia.

In a profile for the Atlantic Council, Tik Root and Peter Salisbury examine Jamal Benomar, the man behind Yemen's dialogue process.

An International Court for Transitional Justice briefing argues that Kenya failed to adequately address sexual and gender-based violence in its post-conflict resolution process.

The National Endowment for Democracy interviews human rights activist Charles Mangongera on Zimbabwe's entrenched military and its impact on democratic reform.

And in the New York Times, Anne-Marie Slaughter urges the United States to intervene in Syria as well as taking military action in Iraq.

Credit: MOHD RASFAN/AFP/Getty Images