Lisa McGregor, contributorThe news of the detention, resignation, and reinstatement of President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, was not only an unfortunate episode for democracy in Latin America, but was also ironic.
Despite the many criticisms that could be made of President Chavez, the fact remains that he was democratically elected and it is unfortunate that a military faction saw it fit to oust him in this way.
It is, however, ironic that President Chavez, who himself staged a failed military coup against former President Andres Perez in 1992, suffered this fate.
Mr. Chavez's non-traditional party won the presidency three years ago by a landslide. He campaigned for a political revolution that would rid the country of corruption, create a new constitution, and remedy the social ills of the society.
Like Jamaica, Venezuela suffers from a high debt, high poverty levels, high unemployment, and a great lack of housing for the poor.
Despite Venezuela being an oil-rich country, however, of all his promises Chavez has only managed to fulfill one so far: the creation of a new constitution.
His rhetoric has kept him popular with the masses; but it, as well as his authoritarian ways, has served to alienate him from the business community, the unions, the media, and the Catholic Church.
The catalyst to the events of April 12 was President Chavez's appointment of a new board of the state-run oil company, Petroleos de Venezuela (PDVSA) in late February.
The managers of the company protested that the new board members were merely Chavez-faithfuls with no experience in running a multinational corporation - although state-owned, PDVSA has operated with a good deal of autonomy throughout the years.
After brewing for a while, the situation came to a head on April 4 when the managers shut down the refinery.
A few days later, on April 9, the Venezuelan Workers' Confederation and the Fedecamaras business association called a strike in support of the PDVSA protest.
Other Chavez opposition members joined the strike, and it is alleged that the President sent out the National Guard, along with armed civilian supporters to stop the protests.
After 13 persons were killed and over 100 wounded, some military leaders stepped in on April 12, detained President Chavez, gave word that he had resigned - it is still unclear whether he actually did or did not resign - and installed Pedro Carmona as interim president.
Two days after his removal, President Chavez was rescued by members of the military loyal to him, and returned to the Miraflores presidential palace.
Pedro Carmona, his Cabinet members, and members of the military involved in the coup were detained and are currently under house arrest. These plotters, both military and civilian, will be tried in military court.
No witch-hunt
In his address to the nation after his release, President Chavez indicated that he would not carry out a witch-hunt to seek out all his enemies, as more than ever the country needed peace, unity, and reconciliation.
He also vowed that he would rectify his mistakes of the past, and he accepted the resignations of the controversial PDVSA board members and is in discussions with the managers on the appointment of a new board.
The President also said that he was confident that he would be president for many years to come.
The North American news media had long branded President Chavez a socialist, mainly due to his good relations with President Fidel Castro of Cuba.
I do not think that this is an apt description though. President Chavez is, above all, a populist who wants better for the people of his country.
But with no real commercial or managerial skills, like our former Prime Minister Michael Manley, he has not been able to properly translate his ideals to reality, and this has ended up costing his country.
The international reaction to President Chavez's overthrow were mixed. Most Latin American countries condemned the break in democracy in Venezuela.
The United States, however, although normally quick to condemn attacks on democracy were slow in commenting on the matter, and have yet to concede that it was a coup.
Once President Chavez was reinstated, the statements made by the U.S. Government were condescending at best, blaming Mr. Chavez for bringing the events upon himself and chiding him to learn his lesson and "right his ship".
Newspaper reports carried by The New York Times, The Washington Post, La Jornada (Mexico), and others alleged that Bush-administration officials had met with the coup plotters before the event.
They also alluded to the fact that the U.S. officials had agreed that Mr. Chavez should be removed from office but were vague as to how this should be done, leaving it open for interpretation.
The U.S. subsequently admitted to having met with a number of Venezuelan opposition leaders, but stated that they made it clear that the U.S. would not support a coup.
Whatever the case, as the Christopher Marquis article of April 17, in The New York Times stated, "in its zeal to rid itself of Mr. Chavez, the administration has damaged its credibility as a chief defender of democratically-elected governments".
Despite the U.S.'s Government's dislike of President Chavez, his role as a democratically-elected president must be respected.
Also, as supposed defenders of democracy, the U.S. should send a clear message that they will not tolerate unconstitutional governmental takeovers.
If we had thought that the years of the U.S. interfering in Latin American Governments were a thing of the past, this event has forced us to think again.
Lisa McGregor is a regular contributor who writes on Inter-American issues.
