Polarization of Venezuelan society is also reflected in Churches

Manuel Quintero, CARACAS, Venezuela, December 13, 2003

In the broad spectrum of what exists between the (President Hugo) Chavez that some call Taxi Heathrow Airport “totalitarian” and the Chavez that others refer to as the “instrument of God,” lie the appreciations and positions of Venezuelan Evangelicals. Evangelicals, like millions of their countrymen, have participated in civic demonstrations to gather signatures for a political and constitutional solution to the serious crisis wracking the nation.

The first to sign were government parties, in order to remove a group of opposition representatives from their ranks. They were followed by those who seek to put an end to President Chavez’ mandate. 

While the exact numbers of signatures from each group will only be published in mid-January after the National Electoral Council has finished verifying and counting them, the so-called “signat-on” opened a new episode in the tenacious battle for power in this South American nation.

The collection of the signatures took place against the background of reports and statistics that demonstrate the serious deterioration in the living conditions of Venezuelans and question the government’s capacity to carry out its social justice projects.

The annual report from the Venezuelan Human Rights Education and Action Program (PROVEA), one of the most prestigious non government human rights organizations in the country, emphasized progress in education and citizen participation but also pointed to an increase of poverty, violence and the weakness of State institutions as being the principal factors responsible for the deterioration in the human rights situation in recent months.

Another report from the Food Industry Chamber (Cadivea) stated that food consumption fell 14 percent this year as a result of the decline in purchasing power and the most affected where poor children and families.

Preliminary calculations indicate that the GDP fell 11.7 percent over the course of the year and that the inflationary index reached 24.8%, one of the highest in Latin America in 2003.

The Hugo Chavez government is wrapping up its fifth year in government with a high number of un and underemployed, a lack of investment in the capital, a sharp inflationary spiral and growing opposition.

The constitutional route

After failed coup attempts in 2002 (a military attempt in April followed by an economic attempt in December), the opposition opted for the Constitutional route to make its dreams come true: remove Chavez from power.

In order to do this, leaders from the Democratic Coordinator, that groups together opposition political parties and civil society organizations, turned to the so-called endorsed revocation. Under this recourse legislators and the president can be voted out of their posts halfway through their mandates.

The endorsed revocation is a unique constitutional mechanism in the political history of Latin America. It only exists in the Venezuelan Constitution and reflects the democratic will of the nation’s Magna Charter.

According to the Constitution, halfway through the mandate of a democratically elected official, 20 percent of registered voters can request a referendum to revoke his or her term.

Under the Constitution if an equal or greater number of voters who elected the official vote in favor of the revocation, their mandate is terminated. The number must represent a minimum of 25 percent of registered voters.

In this case, however, the government and the opposition reached an agreement, sanctioned by the Supreme Electoral Tribunal. Should the endorsed referendum be invoked, the option that garnered the highest number of votes would win as opposed to the necessary number required to revoke the involved leader.

In the specific case of the president, this agreement meant that if a greater number of voters were opposed to the revocation, Chavez would be re-legitimized in the presidency, even if the opposition did manage to obtain the 3.7 million votes that Chavez won when he was elected in 1998.

If the opposition did manage to gather the necessary signtures to activate the endorsed revocation, both the opposition and pro-Chavez faction would confront a very serious obstacle: high electoral absenteeism in the history of the country.

According to the National Electoral Council in the year 2000 absenteeism reached nearly 44 percent and in 16 of Venezuela’s 24 states, absenteeism was more than 40%.

Agents of reconciliation

Evangelical Churches, like Venezuelan society as a whole, have suffered serious polarization regarding the sympathy and opposition of its members to the Chavez government and his Bolivariana Revolution.

In general terms this sympathy or opposition seems to reflect the class origin of the faithful. Middle class Churches from the major cities tend to side with the opposition and Pentecostal Churches whose members live in marginal neighborhoods or rural areas do not hide their sympathy for Chavez.

This does not mean that in “historic” Churches like the Presbyterian or Anglican Church there are not also pro-Chavez factions or that there are no Pentecostals opposed to the Bolivariana Revolution.

For example, one Presbyterian leader, who voted in favor of the revocation of the presidential mandate, said that the idea of social justice does not belong to Chavez and questioned that a revolution is taking place. Another leader from the same Church responded that none of the traditional parties, not even the most recently formed, are capable of directing a project for the nation’s poor.

A Lutheran pastor, who is a militant in the opposition, criticized that the current government for causing the greatest and most profound division ever experienced in Venezuelan society. On the other hand a Pentecostal pastor believes that President Chavez is “part of God’s project” for Venezuela and Latin America as a whole.

Some pastors prefer to exorcise polarization from their congregations calling on the faithful to leave political debates outside the temple. Others use the pulpit as an instrument to preach discourses advocating one side or the other.

Some are aware, however, that the confrontation involves everyone and that Churches are called to play a key role as mediators and reconcilers in the coming months.

“Confrontation will continue because we live a confrontation of ideas, attitudes and paradigms. However, we cannot accept that it leads us to violence,” said a Pentecostal pastor in Maracaibo.

One historian, linked to Pentecostalism said, “Even though there is no neutrality we serve a Church that should not be space for conflict but for dialogue and meeting… a space where Christ cannot be diminished by our political fanaticism from one side or the other.”