Advertisement

The World

Venezuela Court Keeps Both Sides Guessing

Once thought to be under the control of beleaguered President Chavez, judges have favored him one day, the opposition the next.

January 31, 2003|T. Christian Miller | Times Staff Writer

CARACAS, Venezuela — As this nation's seemingly implacable strike grinds through its ninth week, the Supreme Court has emerged as a third axis of power in the dispute that pits President Hugo Chavez against a determined opposition.

Until last fall, the court, like the National Assembly, was assumed to be under Chavez's control because a former ally handpicked most of the court's 20 judges for their 12-year terms.

But in the last few months, as Chavez and his critics have clashed over legal matters, the court has become increasingly unpredictable, issuing some rulings for the president and others for the opposition.

"The picture has changed," said Luis Miquilena, an enigmatic and aging powerbroker believed to have the most influence over the court through a web of political contacts. "The people in the court have realized that we can't have a court that is allied with the president. That would be perverse."

Venezuela's power poles have long been clear: Chavez, a former coup leader, in control of every branch of government, versus his opponents, a patchwork coalition that includes powerful business and union leaders, housewives, dissident military officers and rival politicians.

The opposition accuses Chavez of driving the country into social and financial chaos. They have waged the strike since Dec. 2 to force him from power. The protest has crippled petroleum production and made life miserable for millions of Venezuelans. Gas lines are long and milk and flour scarce.

The first sign that the court was no longer under Chavez's control came in August, when justices issued an 11-8 ruling, with one abstention, that absolved four military officers who participated in a coup against the president in April. Chavez was returned to power 48 hours later by loyal military officers and other supporters.

The stunning decision, which found that the four officers had not participated in an active "military rebellion" because at the time Chavez reportedly had resigned, continues to be a source of deep anger for the president and his supporters.

In the months that followed, however, the court made it clear that the ruling against Chavez was not exactly a change of heart. The court issued a temporary injunction ordering all striking oil workers back to their jobs. The employees ignored the order and are awaiting a final ruling.

But the judges also issued an order forcing Chavez to return control of the Caracas Police Department to a political enemy. The regime took over the force after complaining that police were being used to crush demonstrations by the president's supporters.

Last week, the court suspended a referendum on Chavez's rule scheduled for Feb. 2. The opposition had made the measure the focus of all its recent efforts to oust Chavez. They had collected 2 million signatures, delivered them to election authorities under a hail of rocks and bullets, and battled a series of legal challenges to be able to hold the nonbinding vote.

"I don't know what's going on with the court these days," said Anibal Romero, a political analyst aligned with the opposition.

The court's independence -- or perhaps its willful balancing act between the two sides -- will become more important as the strike continues because nearly any solution to the crisis could wind up before the justices.

Several key opposition figures have proposed a constitutional amendment that would cut Chavez's term short and set immediate elections. But the president has vowed to challenge that effort in court -- and if the fight over the nonbinding referendum is any indication, such a maneuver could wrap up the proposed amendment bid for months, if not years.

A second proposal, favored by Chavez, is to hold a recall election in August. The constitution permits such an election halfway through the president's term. Even in that scenario, the court plays a role.

Previously, the court ruled that the halfway point of Chavez's term would be in January 2004, three years after he was last sworn in. But after that ruling, Chavez made a casual announcement on his weekly radio and television show that the halfway point was really August 2003 -- three years after he was elected in July 2000 to a six-year term.

As a result, opponents fear that the date could become the source of another protracted court dispute. The date is now set to become part of the negotiations.

Former President Carter, acting as a conciliator in the crisis, has suggested that the court issue a second ruling backing the August date before any accord is signed.

All that has led both sides to develop a deep distrust of the court and its motives -- further imperiling the separation of powers in a country that has long had weak public institutions.

"Its decisions are questionable because they are based on political motives," said Juan Barretto, a lawmaker with Chavez's party, the Fifth Republic Movement. "The legitimacy of the institution is in doubt."

Two justices contacted by The Times declined to be interviewed.

Advertisement
Los Angeles Times Articles
|
|
|