The State of Freedom and Democracy

In Venezuela, the broad sweeping amendments to the Venezuelan constitution were narrowly defeated by a 2% margin. Even though Chavez had taken great pains to rally support and jolt the population awake with blaring announcements and nationwide sounding of reveille, many local bloggers reported that the turn out was relatively low for such an important decision. Had it been approved, Chavez would have been able to run for president for as long as he wished, would have been able to appoint local government by fiat, taken enumerable powers unto himself and would have made declaring a state of emergency, where the president held all powers indefinitely, much easier and more enduring.

Daniel in Venezuela had taken great pains to review and explain every amendment and its impact over the course of a month. Even in his elation over the rejection of these constitutional changes, Daniel acknowledged that this is one fight, one storm to be weathered. It did not change the fact that Chavez was still president for the next five years until 2012. Nor did it change the fact that Chavez had already taken many powers already, nationalized businesses, placed restrictions on private organizations and industries, attempted to suppress the opposition, stacked the electoral boards, the judiciary and the assembly with an overwhelming number of his cronies and adherents. Finally, he still maintains control of the police and the military.

While the rejection of these amendments in the referendum may have blunted some of Chavez's tools for continuing to strengthen his dictatorial grip of Venezuela, it has not blunted his drive or desire to do so. In what could be considered an ominous attempt to turn defeat into victory, Chavez stated:

"I don't feel sad, no, I don't feel sad," a chastened-looking Chavez told a media conference early Monday, stressing that he had lost by only a "minimal" margin and that he was encouraged by the support he did get.

He had also attempted to use the device of all dictators by instilling a fear that those rejecting these proposed changes were "traitors" and in the pockets of outside forces. Chavez still has the power of the national assembly to pass laws that will push forward the socialist agenda. The question now will be whether the people, having rejected these sweeping changes and power grab, will be able to reel in their national representatives and insure the continuance of liberty within their nation.

Venezuela is not the only Latin American country faced with the potential loss of democracy and freedom through constitutional changes and referendums. The danger in this erosion within the western hemisphere high-lights the many challenges facing the United States in a post Cold War world. In an opinion piece Sunday, Donald Rumsfeld outlined the need for US vigilance and actions the US should take to combat the threat of dictators and the loss of liberty within these nations.

The United States congress has been losing interest in supporting free trade agreements with these nations as well as providing resources and funds to democratic organizations. Reflecting a discussion on this blog and elsewhere, he also emphasized the need to re-invest in outreach programs and communications such as the United States Information Agency. All of these issues reflect the common tendencies of the US to reduce its presence and resources at the end of conflict. It also reflects the concern of citizens over the loss of jobs to foreign nations.

Yet, the common fears over the deflation of the dollar against other currencies, the loss of jobs to foreign nations and the influx of cheap imported goods does not take into account nor place in proper context, the advantageous that could be gained. Not withstanding creating crucial economic ties with these nations that is as strong or stronger than any military or political agreement, a slightly deflated dollar means that American goods are more affordable within these markets. Free trade agreements reduces the import tariffs on these goods making them even more affordable in these nations. Increased demands for American goods naturally increases jobs and investment opportunities within the United States. It will also allow the US to diversify away from single markets such as China.

While the US is focused on threats such as Islamic extremist terrorism, instability in the Middle East and supporting democracy in Eastern Europe and the Caucuses, it cannot lose sight of its other obligations and interests in Asia or within the Western Hemisphere.

In Russia, Putins "United Russia" party won by a fair margin as predicted by many. The UR will sweep 70% of the seats in the Duma. While Putin is limited in his terms as president, he appears unwilling to relinquish all reins of power. Discussions over his future include the possibility of either becoming Prime Minister or the head of the United Russia party. In either case, the new president will likely be selected by Putin and submissive to his direction. The question is whether Putin as Prime Minister will set a precedent for diminishing the power of the presidency.

In a piece called "War Inside the Kremlin", Newsweek notes that the rivalries among oligarchic clans in control of Russia's ministries and industries could threaten Russian economic and political stability. Many of these ministers and industry leaders owe their allegiance to Putin directly for placing and securing their roles in these positions. There tends to be an equal fear that, if Putin is totally displaced from power, the control he wields over these rivalries and maintaining a balance would be lost.

Internally, Russia exhibits many problems above and beyond the national politics. Southern provinces in the Caucuses have continued unrest with rebellion by separatists aided or hand in hand with Islamist organizations, including Al Qaida. The loss of these provinces would severely degrade Russia's control of its energy resources and ability to export. The reliance on energy revenue, even with its increase due to rising costs, is a serious danger to long term economic stability. Both Russia and Venezuela show the effects of this economic reliance with ever rising inflation that keeps pace with or outstrips rising income. Iran is in a similar economic state despite their oil and natural gas revenues. All of which trends towards instability, not just within these nations, but within their regional spheres.

The stagnation or retreat of freedom and democracy around the globe presents a serious threat to United States security. Where once it was the singular threat of Communism and the spread of control by the Soviet Union, the United States is now faced with multiple entities, organizations, individual states and ad hoc alliances, such as Venezuela, Cuba and Iran or the cooperatives in South America. Instead of disengagement and isolation, the United States needs to re-commit itself to the security, development and freedom of allies.

The lack of a singular, polarizing threat does not mean a lack of any threat. Surely, after over 200 years of experience, we have recognized that isolation and disengagement does not make us stronger either as a democracy or a free economy. All history tends to show that such action on our part leads not to stability and security, but to the rise of new and more dangerous threats.