In recent days, more and more Venezuelans have come to realize that the sweeping constitutional reforms championed by President Hugo Chávez represent a mortal threat to democracy. As the December 2nd referendum approaches, Venezuelans are contemplating the downside of dozens of radical changes that were approved by Chávez’s rubberstamp national assembly. Predictably, one of the proposed changes would extend the presidential term and allow indefinite reelection. Another would modify the military’s nonpartisan character to make it a servant of Chávez’s “Bolivarian” mission. Still others would permanently grant Chávez and his cadre the authority to expropriate private property, control the central bank, fire Supreme Court justices, and suspend essential rights as they see fit. Yet by overreaching in this manner, Chávez may have sown the seeds of his own destruction.

Unless he retreats in the face of widening opposition, he is provoking a showdown with Venezuelans of all stripes. Just this month, patriotic students protesting Chávez’s power grab braved bullets from masked gunmen. Jurists have questioned the very legality of the referendum. Absent the scrutiny of foreign observers, few trust the partisan electoral board that will conduct the process. Meanwhile, Chávez’s former defense chief, Raúl Baduel, has denounced the reforms as a coup d’etat and reminded the military of its institutional obligation to safeguard democracy. 

Chávez has used his power to rig Venezuela’s electoral apparatus and rob it of all credibility.

Chávez has been galloping toward this cliff since he took office in 1998. He has packed the courts and the legislature with his supporters so that not a single opposition voice can be heard in either branch of government. He has militarized politics and politicized the military, co-opting the once-proud Venezuelan armed forces with lucrative sinecures and organizing circles of thugs and militias to brutalize opponents. True enough, Chávez was elected, but he has since used his power to rig the electoral apparatus and rob it of all credibility. He has made democratic change impossible and peaceful dissent useless, so it should come as no surprise when demonstrations turn deadly and elections are utterly discredited.

Yes, a neglected majority and an indifferent political class fostered the social division that helped Chávez win power in the first place. But the dangerous polarization that exists in Venezuela today is something altogether different: it was created by Chávez as a tool to corner his opponents and cultivate absolute loyalty among his supporters. Few would have faulted him for renovating Venezuela’s corrupt political order to address the needs of its poorest citizens. But of all his self-serving abuses, perhaps the most unforgivable was his conscious decision to consolidate power by sowing bitterness and civil strife and pitting Venezuelans against each other.

Now Chávez’s popular base is getting shaky. Rampant street crime, persistent shortages of basic food staples, sluggish and uneven social programs, breathtaking corruption, polarizing rhetoric, and lavish overseas spending have tested the patience of his core supporters among the Venezuelan poor. Shouldn’t it be possible for them to enjoy their fair share of Venezuela’s oil wealth without having to surrender their freedoms and their future and without having to get in line behind Chávez’s foreign clients?

Other leaders in Latin America are trying desperately to make democracy serve the needs of all their people. They cannot help but be appalled by the Chávez model of tearing down democratic institutions and putting society on a war footing. Chávez’s neighbors have steered clear of confrontation with him, except when he has intervened brazenly in their internal affairs. But they have resisted any temptation to criticize the undemocratic maneuvers of their oil-rich, irascible neighbor. They even have remained silent while Chávez blackmailed and bullied the Organization of American States (OAS) into submission. Abandoning its worthy mission to defend democracy, the OAS leadership has whitewashed his abuses and stood by as Chávez built and backed autocratic rule.

When the vast majority of Venezuelans either vote against the constitutional reform measures or boycott the process outright, it will be clear that Chávez has forfeited his last ounce of political legitimacy. The Venezuelan people may then decide to take their nation back. If they do, they should move swiftly to restore democratic order, the separation of powers, and the rule of law—hopefully with the solidarity and support of their neighbors. 

Roger F. Noriega is a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a director of Tew Cardenas LLP. He was U.S. Ambassador to the Organization of American States and Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs from 2001-2005.