According to news reports, protests in Venezuela broke out on January 23rd as a result of electricity and water rationing. Indeed, Venezuela was suffering major shortages of electricity at crucial times. As protests grew more intense and furious, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez proceeded to close RCTV, a private TV cable channel. The rationale for taking such a step was RCTV's failure to broadcast his speeches. That triggered a new wave of protests that drew thousands of Venezuelans to the streets. At least two students were killed by Chavez forces during the demonstrations.

Following all this the Vice -president and Minister of Defense, Mr. Ramon Carrizales resigned from the cabinet along with his wife Yubiri who was Minister of the Environment.

The resignation of Mr. Carrizales seems to have something to do with the fact that Cuban military officers have been promoted in the ranks of the Venezuelan national Armed Forces. The army tends to be nationalistic and the promotion of these foreigners certainly creates a serious issue.

However, all these events do not have a simple explanation of cause and consequence.             

Massive protests are not merely related to electricity and water rationing or the closing of a media outlet.  The fact that this could have triggered the anger that motivated the action does not mean that these protests have a single cause. In fact, in the face of an indifferent world and a very inept leadership by the Organization of American States, Chavez has systematically been violating all possible rights in the country. Chavez's restrictions on the press have been going on for a long time. RCTV was forced to withdraw its broadcast frequency a number of years ago and the government has continued its efforts to restrict critical coverage. Other stations such as Globovision were intimidated as well as others.

Another reason for the public's discontent was the government's approval of a law that instructs educators to teach according to the "Bolivarian Doctrine." This step basically follows the Bolshevik and Cuban model of government control over the minds of the people. Chavez has also used his power to intimidate the opposition, forcing some opposition leaders into exile and physically undermining the everyday work of locally elected opposition officials or by taking away functions they were supposed to perform.

Moreover, Chavez has established full control of the judiciary and most recently removed a judge who set free a person Chavez considered to be an enemy. Furthermore, the judicial process does not consider a person's individual rights or rights of habeas corpus. A prisoners' uprising in Venezuela was triggered by the fact that charges lack evidence and merit and trials freeze indefinitely and are ultimately forgotten. This applies to ordinary cases but also to high profile political cases such as the case of General Raul Baduel, a Chavez opponent, imprisoned since April on charges the government cannot even prove. 

It is likely that the resignation of the Minister of Defense reflects a general discontent in the army. This discontent is the result of Chavez's strong interference in internal military affairs, and his promotion of certain people at the expense of others. Chavez's closeness to the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) is also an issue of contention.  Most recently a military reform was advanced. This reform mandates the creation of a militia parallel to the regular army. The law enables the inclusion of foreigners in their ranks. Clearly, the intent of this new policy is to establish a sort of revolutionary guards to help Chavez exercise power and also control the army, which Chavez does not trust. 

In other words, the Chavez regime is no longer a democracy though it has employed democratic processes in order to legitimize itself.  Since his election to the Venezuelan presidency ten years ago, Chavez has used his office to crush dissent, close media outlets that do not represent his point of view, imprison members of the opposition and to gain control of the congress and judiciary.  Chavez is openly hostile to the United States and employs policies that attempt to counteract American interests. In terms of U.S. foreign policy, our decision makers need to recognize that Venezuela is no longer a democracy and that Venezuelan citizens are being denied their basic human rights.

Unwavering Support For Democracy

In this regard it would make sense for the Obama Administration to denounce the Chavez regime's violation of democracy and human rights. Likewise, it will have to demand that political prisoners be released and that constitutional guarantees are restored including on all the accounts I mentioned above.

The Administration will also have to exercise a less shy leadership within the Organization of American States. Currently, the mindset in Latin America is not ready for a new way of thinking. Most recently a report presented by the office of Senator Richard Lugar established that the leadership of the OAS, particularly its Secretary Jose Miguel Insulza has failed to promote democracy in the region and of allowing constitutional and human rights violations to go unchecked, particularly in Venezuela. Likewise, the countries where the moderate left is in power have been tolerant of Chavez and his allies' anti-democratic practices. Examples of such behavior are Brazilian President Jose Inácio Lula Da Silva and Chilean President Michelle Bachelet.

If the U.S persuades as many countries as possible that Insulza should not be re-elected as OAS secretary and he is consequently defeated, this would be a step in the right direction. It is encouraging that the party of the moderate left in Chile lost the election to a more conservative candidate, Sebastian Piñera.  Polls in Brazil are indicating that Lula's Workers Party is not likely to win re-election in the October, 2010 election. Without Insulza and with a more forceful leadership in Brazil and Chile, the anti-democratic practices of Chavez and his allies might be more closely scrutinized and condemned.   

The new scenario in Latin America requires a new type of thinking. As I have pointed out elsewhere, in several countries of Latin America today democracy has served rulers and leaders who abused the process to become de-facto dictators. If we were to follow the simple formula that democracies elect leaders and therefore those leaders are legitimate, it would not provide us with the right tools to face the reality of Venezuela. 

The goal of U.S. policy must always be to promote Democracy.  Democracy must remain an important pillar of U.S policy in the region. However, if we are to succeed our thinking must be nuanced.

Luis Fleischman is Senior Advisor for the Menges Hemispheric Security Project at the Center for Security Policy in Washington D.C.