Monday, September 10, 2007

Venezuela at LASA

One of the more interesting sessions I attended at LASA was about Venezuela, organized by Greg Grandin and chaired by Daniel Hellinger (who I give credit for making a concerted effort to get audience comments from different viewpoints). The real draw was the Venezuelan Ambassador to the U.S., Bernardo Alvarez. Also on the more “pro” Chávez side was Mark Weisbrot, who these days is almost ubiquitous in the debate on Venezuela. On the “other” side were Javier Corrales (a Chávez critic from Amherst College) and Jennifer McCoy from Georgia State, but more notably from the Carter Center.

The panel was definitely worth attending but ultimately not exactly what I expected. I hoped for some real debate, both with the panelists and the quite large audience. What I found, however, was that each side spoke very cordially past one another. Not that I wanted sparks to fly, but I felt like neither side really sought to engage the other—all had their points to make, and at least in my opinion generally brushed aside opposite arguments.

The ambassador made a point that I found notable. He said he felt that the presence of Hugo Chávez as an individual was critical for transforming Venezuela, and that this represented a weakness for the movement. This comment shouldn’t be taken too far, as part of an entire talk and panel, but I wondered the degree to which Chávez supporters would like to see the development of other leaders who embody the general tenets of “chavismo” without being Chávez.

On the other side, one of the more provocative comments (for me, anyway) was from Javier Corrales, who said that constitutions should not “empower people” but should only “limit government.” I thought it an important statement (in the sense of being a core part of the constitutional debate) that only the ambassador addressed—he very politely disagreed and that was it.

4 comments:

Justin Delacour 11:12 AM  

Interesting. Wish I could have attended, but APSA was enough for me this month.

Ah, yes, Corrales and his "Night Watchman" neoliberal state. In the coming years, he and his crowd will lose the discursive struggle over what Latin American democracy constitutes. Neoliberal elitism is just too much for most Latin Americanists to stomach.

Anonymous,  4:18 PM  

I was not there, and so I know nothing of what Corrales might have said beyond what is in the post.

With that caveat out of the way, I would note that not even the founders of the US constitution made such a one-sided argument about the purpose of a constitution being only to "limit government."

Limiting government was important as a counterweight to empowering it. But both sides were crucial to Madison and other founders.

Corrales is certainly right that a constitution should not "empower people" if that meant people in institutional roles (as I take it from the context of the post). The people are only temporary occupants of institutions that must be at once empowered and limited. That is the central dilemma of constitutionalism and any perspective that focuses on only one side of the dilemma is missing the point.

Justin Delacour 8:25 PM  

Corrales is certainly right that a constitution should not "empower people" if that meant people in institutional roles (as I take it from the context of the post).

That's not what I take from the context of the quote. I think what Corrales means is that the purpose of constitutions isn't to empower the general populace (i.e. to grant it certain social rights, such as labor rights, access to education, employment compensation, etc. etc.). Neoliberals within the Venezuelan opposition have long been opposed to a number of social rights that the Venezuelan constitution guarantees. Having seen Corrales' work, my guess is that that's what Corrales was talking about.

Greg Weeks 2:48 PM  

I've been thinking back, and I believe he made the remark unprompted, and did not elaborate about individual/society or political/economic. My own sense is that it was a bit of both--a reference to government "giving" things to people but also to the fact that the proposed constitution expands the power of the Venezuelan state.

I brought it up because I hadn't thought before in much detail about what a constitution specifically should or should not do, or whether there is (or should be) such a thing as a constitutional template.

  © Blogger templates The Professional Template by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP