Violent strikes gripped the streets of Caracas, Venezuela on April 9th, and the world watched as democratically elected President Hugo Chavez was ousted from office two days later.

But by April 14th, Chavez was back in power. Talk of the coup and its reversal filled the papers for a little over a week, but has since vanished from mainstream media.

As we look more closely into the events surrounding the coup, however, we can discover more about the conditions that fueled it and the role that the United States played; potentially a role that undermined, rather than strengthened, democracy.

Background for the Coup

Venezuela's last military dictator was removed in 1958, when the Democratic Action (DA) and Christian-Democratic (COPEI) parties took power. These two parties exploited the poor for forty years, creating a space for Chavez to make his own coup attempt in 1992. Despite this failure, Chavez was eventually elected with 56 percent of the votes in the 1998 presidential election. His "Bolivarian Movement" dominated Congress, and members of Chavez's party, the Fifth Republic Movement, replaced regional officials of the previous dominating parties.

In Chavez's own words, he was elected and then reelected for a six-year term with hopes of empowering the masses through elimination of "the savage system of income distribution that exists." Though some accomplishments were achieved, such as increased school attendance and improved health services, many things began to fall apart in 2001.

In November of 2001, Chavez went through the National Assembly to pass a bill that increased government royalties on oil production, from 16 to 30 percent. This action angered leaders of private oil companies and the major business associations that backed them.

Along with criticism over his consolidation of government power, tension built over complaints that Chavez had used promotions to maintain control over the military, held close relations with Fidel Castro, and tolerated the Colombian guerrillas.

Opposition to Chavez continued to rise and on December 10, the national business chamber Fedemcamaras and the Confederation of Venezuelan Workers (CTV) launched a one-day strike against Chavez and demanded his resignation. On January 23, more than 100,000 people returned to the streets to reinforce this message. By the time of the April 9th coup this year, his opponents included the Catholic Church, the media, the unions, and parts of the military. Unfortunately, Chavez never attempted to ease the tensions himself during his three years in office.

Instead of examining the source of his opponents' discontent, Chavez exacerbated it by replacing the president and board of directors of the state-owned oil company, Petroleos de Venezuela (Pdvsa), with politically affiliated appointees. In response, the opposition groups merged into the general strike on the 9th of April.

At 1:20 a.m. on April 12th, after the strikes had turned violent and more than a dozen people had died, the military announced they no longer recognized Hugo Chavez as president, and the media declared that he had resigned.

But the powers that replaced him did little to address the criticisms that had led to Chavez' overthrow. In another move against Venezuela's democracy, Pedro Carmona Estanga, president of Fedecamaras, assumed the presidency of the transitional government and shut down the National Assembly as well as the Supreme Court.

The following day, pro-Chavez demonstrations began to fill the streets in Caracas. Through word of mouth, a demonstration was planned outside the presidential palace at 6 p.m. These 100,000 demonstrators, along with international pressure, led to the resignation of Carmona and the return of Chavez.

U.S. Reaction and the OAS

The U.S. reaction was quick, but highly controversial. Later on the day of Chavez's ousting, the White House announced Chavez's resignation as a "change in government" rather than a military coup.

Other early responses from the White House tried to justify the disruption of democracy: "We know that the actions encouraged by the Chavez government provoked the crisis." Many critics questioned if the Bush Administration's delay on condemning the coup contradicted its commitment "to always stand up for democratic values."

It was not until two days after the coup that the United States joined the OAS (Organization of American States) in condemning "the alteration of constitutional order."

The OAS took a different approach to the coup. They immediately invoked the Inter-American Democratic Charter, a seven-month-old agreement that requires intervention from the OAS if a democratically elected member government is overthrown. OAS Secretary General Cesar Gaviria carried out a three-day fact-finding mission in Venezuela before calling an emergency meeting, and then adopted a resolution condemning the coup and violence.

The delay by the U.S. in condemning the coup became more suspicious when facts emerged suggesting the U.S. had a role in supporting the Venezuelan coup. Chavez has said "worrying details" have been revealed that there was foreign help behind the coup, and the Senate Intelligence Committee is inquiring on a possible U.S. connection to it.

It is known that Charles Shapiro, the U.S. ambassador to Venezuela, met with Carmona soon after he seized power, though the purpose of the meeting is unknown. There are also questions regarding who opened fire during the demonstrations. Two of the gunmen detained were foreign; one American and one Salvadorean. The exact nature of the U.S. involvement with the coup is still unclear, and is likely to remain that way.

Chavez Now

The day after his return to power, Chavez called for a "national dialogue." He recognized the "large number of Venezuelans who were in disagreement with the government, and who would continue to demonstrate peacefully." He also stated that the current polarization "is not positive. There has to be communication among the different sectors" of Venezuelan society.

Chavez's return is too recent to make any concrete assessment of progress, but we can assume that the process of recovery will be a long one. There are no easy answers to the tensions that led to Chavez being ousted from power. As Chavez has acknowledged, Venezuela's society is greatly divided by wealth, and as one expert notes, "at its heart, this conflict is also a class conflict."

Suggested Action:

Now is an excellent moment to use the situation in Venezuela to call for a more positive relationship between the United States and other countries in the hemisphere. The delay by the United States in condemning the coup undermines our government's rhetorical support for democracy around the world; it could also have harmful repercussions for democracy in Latin America. We should criticize the our country's delayed response, and pressure the Bush Administration for programs that will help address the social and economic disparities underlying the Venezuelan conflict.

Please:

• Write letters to the editors of your local papers,
• Look out for articles in your paper and respond,
• Write your member of Congress,
• Write President Bush and Secretary of State Colin Powell.

In your letters, you can talk about the U.S. response to the Venezuelan coup as an action that undermined democracy in our hemisphere. Efforts to support democracy are more important now than ever; transparent governments and high levels of citizen participation will help to strengthen our hemisphere against those who use violence and undemocratic means to achieve political ends. Rather than delay in denouncing threats against democracy, the United States can help support it by investing in programs that alleviate poverty and economic disparity, and by encouraging the democratic process at every turn.

General Assembly

From the Human Rights Update, Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy:

Because of corruptions over the years, Venezuela's economy is in shambles. As a result, many riots have occurred and there is a great unrest among the civilian population. Common people of all walks of life have taken to the streets to demand their economic rights. Promises made by the present administration to help supply the basic needs have not been kept and this has caused constant tension among the population. As a result of the riots, there has been police brutality and violation of the most basic human rights to protest. There is much fear of further devaluation of the Venezuelan currency, which will result in more unrest and violation of human rights. (Minutes, 1998, Part I, p. 499)