By a vote of 51% to 49%, Venezuela's constitutional reforms were defeated today.

While there were some good constitutional reforms [en español], like changing the workday from 8 hours to 6, and the work week from 40 hours to 36. But there were more bad reforms, such as:

• President Chavez would be allowed to run for re-election an unlimited number of times;
• The Central Bank would be stripped of its autonomy;
• President Chavez would have control over foreign currency reserves;
• The army would be changed from a "professional" apolitical force to a "popular, anti-imperialist" force (with no mention of its being apolitical);
• The army would be permitted -- and required -- to engage in internal civilian policing;
• High-ranking military officers would be promoted by President Chavez only (as opposed to President Chavez, in concert with the National Assembly)

I have railed against Hugo Chavez before because I feel that he has many dictatorial tendencies.

My friend Alberto suggested that constitutional re-writes in Latin America are not always necessarily bad, since it is often the case that constitutions in that region are written unilaterally to serve the interests of a small group of people. As a result, it may end up that re-writing the constitution is a good thing, since it purges the corruption of previous leaders. While I grant that, the 1999 Venezuelan constitution was definitely not written unilaterally. Half of the articles came from Chavez himself, while the other half of the articles were the result of submissions made by the people. Quite literally, Venezuelans wrote in with their suggestions for constitutional articles. It would be difficult to argue that the 1999 constitution was typical of these dictatorial Latin American constitutions. As a result, I feel confident in saying that a good number of these 2007 reforms are unilateral and unnecessary. There was no corruption that needed to be removed.

Fortunately, the Venezuelan people -- though by a slim margin -- recognized that these reforms were unnecessary and questionable. Why does Chavez need to run for president indefinitely? Why would the military suddenly not be apolitical? And why on Earth does the military need to engage in civilian policing? All of these things can be found in autocratic states, and while Chavez professes democracy (indeed, he claimed that his was the most democratic country in the world), we must judge Chavez against himself, and when we do that, we find that he does not live up to his own standards.

It's also interesting to note that, when facing Chavez supporters, they immediately assume that anyone who is against Chavez is necessarily a neoliberal American imperialist who believes everything the Bush administration says. Chavez himself thinks this. Strangely enough, he has as black-and-white a vision of the world as President Bush does. Whereas President Bush once said that "you're either with us, or you're with the terrorists," Chavez labels anyone who disagrees with him a "traitor." With Chavez, there is no room for debate and no room for nuance. If you disagree with his policies, then you not only disagree with -- and hate -- him, but you also hate Venezuela and necessarily want to see it taken over by the American empire. Does this sound familiar?

Good work, Venezuela!