Chávez must yield to election calls*** After being the fastest-growing economy on record between 1920 and 1980, Venezuela experienced an extraordinary reversal of fortune in the following two decades, with income per capita falling by half. Disappointed with their lot, Venezuelans voted for a candidate who blamed corruption and privilege - not lack of growth - for their miseries and who offered a political agenda centred on constitutional reform. Since Mr Chávez took power four years ago, income per capita has fallen by another 20 per cent, in spite of high oil prices. The constitutional reform approved in 1999 did away with a 40-year-old constitution that had generated enough political stability to ensure the transfer of power to nine elected presidents, seven of them running from the opposition. Enough checks and balances were put into the system and sufficient institutional space was created for political parties so that all constituencies found it in their interest to play by the rules and to search for consensus.
The new constitution, through design and circumstance, ended up concentrating power in the presidency and eliminating most checks and balances. It was drafted by a constituent assembly elected through a rule that gave Mr Chávez 92 per cent of the seats with just over 50 per cent of the vote, essentially disenfranchising the opposition. This winner-take-all assembly dissolved the elected Congress and appointed loyal supporters to the Supreme Court, the attorney-general and the comptroller-general without following constitutional procedures. In addition, the new constitution extended the presidential period, allowed for a one-time re-election and substituted a two-chamber congress with a one-chamber national assembly, in order to lessen the burden of consensus-building. This concentration of power has allowed the government to get away with murder, misuse public funds, arm violent gangs and disarm opposition local police.***