CHAVEZ GOVERNMENT: DIVISION OF POWERS WEAKENS THE STATE

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 CARACAS 001555 SIPDIS NOFORN HQSOUTHCOM ALSO FOR POLAD DEPARTMENT PASS TO AID/OTI AMEMBASSY BERLIN PASS TO AMCONSUL DUSSELDORF AMEMBASSY BERLIN PASS TO AMCONSUL LEIPZIG AMEMBASSY ATHENS PASS TO AMCONSUL THESSALONIKI AMEMBASSY BRIDGETOWN PASS TO AMEMBASSY GRENADA AMEMBASSY OTTAWA PASS TO AMCONSUL QUEBEC AMEMBASSY BRASILIA PASS TO AMCONSUL RECIFE E.O. 12958: DECL: 2019/12/15 TAGS: PGOV KDEM VE SUBJECT: CHAVEZ GOVERNMENT: DIVISION OF POWERS WEAKENS THE STATE CLASSIFIED BY: Robin D. Meyer, Political Counselor, DOS, POL; REASON: 1.4(B),(D) ¶1. (C) Summary: President Chavez publicly echoed comments made by President of the Supreme Court (TSJ) Luisa Estella Morales December 5 that "the division of powers weakens the state." The local media has speculated that the comments suggest that Chavez might try to convoke a constituent assembly to redraft the 1999 Constitution. A constitutional change might be intended to reduce the power of the National Assembly (AN) in the event the opposition wins a majority in the September 2010 election. Opposition observers told Poloffs that a constituent assembly could also be a way for Chavez to simply suspend the AN elections. A constitutional expert said the comments might instead be an effort to distract the national debate and/or the opposition from domestic issues that have hurt Chavez's popularity. End Summary. -------------- --- "A NEW PATH OF CONSTITUTIONALISM" -------------- -------------- ¶2. (C) TSJ President Luisa Estella Morales commented December 5 during an event at the TSJ celebrating the tenth anniversary of the 1999 Constitution's passage that "we cannot continue thinking about a division of powers, because that is a principle that debilitates the state." She argued that the Venezuelan Constitution required that the different branches of government collaborate and cooperate together, noting that "one thing is the separation of powers, another is the division." She illustrated her point by asserting that the judiciary is the only branch that should be involved in "judging" a law, but warned that "any action implemented [by a state institution] in an individual and isolated form will fail." (Comment: Morales' confusing rhetoric aside, her proposal seems to be intended to argue for the unifications of government efforts under Executive Branch direction, while maintaining the discrete tasks performed by each branch. End Comment.) Morales added that Venezuela was embarking on a "new path of constitutionalism" and that "this is the time for Latin America and its people, and that moves us to accept the challenge of a new judicial construction that is more humane and liberating." She commented that some aspects of the constitution were contradictory. ¶3. (SBU) Subsequently, President Chavez publicly agreed with Morales' comments, asserting that "the division of powers weakens the state, that is absolutely certain. Ah, but the autonomy of powers is another thing." Chavez noted that "the initial sprout of constitutionalism was born in Caracas [in 1999] and I believe that we should maintain the force of initiative." He criticized the opposition's response to Morales' statements, warning that "the imperial machine presents us like dictators to justify anything." Chavez asked legislators, judges, and jurists to move beyond the legal theories that had been "imposed" on the Venezuelan system. He said that "in Spain, there is a system in which the President can be reelected as many times as the people want. But if it occurs to us, the indigenous, to do something similar, we are dictators, but the cultured Europeans, they can do it! What cynicism." In his weekly "The Lines of Chavez" column, Chavez wrote December 13 that "the time is propitious for all the powers to be liberated from the burden of division - a consequence of an ill-fated heritage that we should overcome sooner rather than later - work in coordination as the popular constitutionalism that takes form in Venezuela and in our America. The day should arrive in which the voice of the people can say with plain certainty: now we have a State!" Echoing these comments, on December 15 the People's Defender ("Defensora del Pueblo"),Gabriela Ramirez, asserted that "the separation of powers is often used as an excuse by cooperative entities not to agree" both at national and local levels. -------------- CARACAS 00001555 002 OF 002 CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY, REDUX? -------------- ¶4. (C) Opposition AN Deputy Juan Jose Molina (Podemos) told Poloffs December 10 that Morales' comments could be paving the way for legal action to delay AN elections slated for September 2010 by convoking a constituent assembly ("asamblea constituyente"). Constitutional expert Pedro Alfono del Pino explained December 11 that doing so would be "dangerous" for democracy because the constitution is vague about the process and rules for convoking a constituent assembly, and makes no mention of how its members should be selected - in theory, giving Chavez near total control over its composition. (Note: The constitution prescribes three ways for making changes: a "reform" for minor alterations such as wording or details of an article; an "amendment" for more significant changes; and convoking a "constituent assembly" for major changes that affect fundamental aspects of the constitution. End Note.) ¶5. (C) Pino noted that legally speaking, a constituent assembly's decisionmaking would supersede all laws and state institutions and could stay indefinitely "in session." He assessed, however, that such a dictatorial scenario was unlikely given the political cost of effectively dissolving the government. He suggested instead that the talk of revising the constitution was just another trial balloon launched by the government, perhaps with the goal of distracting the national debate and/or the opposition from more immediate domestic issues. -------------- COMMENT -------------- ¶6. (C) Given the level of debate preceding the 2009 constitutional referendum, convoking a constituent assembly appears to be the nuclear option for Chavez if he feels his control over the government might be threatened. He already enjoys near total control over the other branches of government, and even opposition officials privately admit that the electoral rules and the disarray of the opposition give Chavismo a huge advantage in retaining a substantial majority of the AN seats in 2010. Nevertheless, Chavez's comments appear to be an effort to gauge public opinion regarding the elimination or revision of constitutional provisions regarding the separation of powers - a goal he may be interested in pursuing over the longer-term, in one form or another as a way of further and permanently consolidating his control over the Venezuelan state. End Comment. DUDDY