Venezuela’s Judiciary: A Tool for Authoritarian Control
Venezuela’s recent election turmoil highlights the country’s deep-rooted judicial manipulation under the regimes of Hugo Chávez and Nicolás Maduro. This historical analysis explores how the erosion of judicial independence has facilitated authoritarian rule in Venezuela and beyond.
The events surrounding Venezuela’s July 28 elections have brought the country’s longstanding issues with judicial independence back into the spotlight. When global leaders and independent observers cried foul over the election results, President Nicolás Maduro responded with a pledge to “throw myself before justice.” However, such a promise rings hollow in Venezuela, where the Supreme Court has been reduced to a mere extension of presidential power.
To understand how Venezuela reached this point, one must look back to the late 1990s when Hugo Chávez first came to power. Chávez’s rise marked the beginning of a systematic dismantling of Venezuela’s democratic institutions, with the judiciary being a primary target. In 1999, shortly after taking office, Chávez convened a constituent assembly to draft a new constitution. The revised constitution initially appeared to strengthen democratic checks and balances, including guarantees for an independent judiciary and an autonomous Supreme Court.
However, this commitment to judicial independence was short-lived. In 2004, Chávez’s congressional majority passed legislation to expand the Supreme Court from 20 to 32 members, a move that allowed him to stack the court with loyalists. This “court packing” effectively neutralized the judiciary as an independent branch of government and set the stage for the authoritarian rule that would follow. Chávez’s actions laid the groundwork for the manipulation of Venezuela’s judiciary, a tactic that has been employed by his successor, Nicolás Maduro, to maintain control over the country.
The Consequences of Court Packing
The expansion and subsequent manipulation of Venezuela’s Supreme Court under Chávez had far-reaching consequences. By turning the judiciary into a tool of the executive branch, Chávez ensured that his policies, no matter how controversial or undemocratic, would face little resistance. This erosion of judicial independence also played a key role in the consolidation of power under Maduro, who inherited a judiciary that was already compromised.
The implications of this were evident in the July 28, 2024, elections, where Maduro claimed victory despite widespread allegations of electoral fraud. The opposition candidate, Edmundo González, was disqualified from the race under dubious circumstances, and the National Electoral Council, heavily influenced by the executive, refused to publish the electoral tallies. With the Supreme Court firmly in Maduro’s corner, there was no legal recourse for the opposition, and the election results were rubber-stamped despite credible exit polls suggesting a landslide victory for González.
Venezuela’s descent into authoritarianism through judicial manipulation is not an isolated case. Across Latin America, other leaders have followed Chávez’s example, using court packing and other forms of institutional reengineering to undermine judicial independence. This trend has contributed to a broader decline in democratic governance across the region, as leaders increasingly turn to authoritarian tactics to maintain power.
Regional Spread of Authoritarian Practices
The strategies employed by Chávez and Maduro in Venezuela have found resonance in other Latin American countries, where leaders have similarly sought to undermine judicial independence to consolidate their power. In El Salvador, for example, President Nayib Bukele used his party’s majority in the legislature to remove a significant portion of the judiciary, including all members of the Constitutional Court. Bukele’s actions, like those of Chávez and Maduro, were justified as necessary for purifying the judiciary, but in reality, they were aimed at eliminating checks on his power.
In Nicaragua, President Daniel Ortega has also manipulated the judiciary to entrench his rule. Ortega’s government has systematically targeted judges and prosecutors who have shown any inclination to challenge the regime, replacing them with loyalists who ensure that the legal system serves the interests of the executive. This erosion of judicial independence has allowed Ortega to silence dissent and maintain a firm grip on power, even as his government faces international condemnation for its human rights abuses.
Mexico has also seen troubling developments under President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, who has proposed reforms to make judges and justices subject to popular elections. While this move is presented as a way to democratize the judiciary, critics argue that it could further politicize the courts and undermine their independence. López Obrador’s proposals have sparked significant debate, with many warning that they could lead Mexico down a similar path to that of Venezuela.
The regional spread of these authoritarian practices is not limited to countries with strongman leaders. Even in countries with more democratic traditions, there has been a growing trend of executive overreach and judicial manipulation. In Brazil, President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva has faced criticism for his attempts to influence the central bank and for his public attacks on the judiciary. Although Brazil’s institutions remain stronger than those in Venezuela or Nicaragua, the pressures on judicial independence are a cause for concern.
Global Implications of Judicial Undermining
The erosion of judicial independence in Latin America has significant implications not just for the region, but for the broader global order. As more countries in the Americas and beyond witness the undermining of their judiciaries, the very foundations of democracy are at risk. Judicial independence is a cornerstone of democratic governance, providing a check on executive power and ensuring that laws are applied fairly and impartially.
The decline in judicial independence in Latin America has been accompanied by a broader erosion of democratic norms. According to the Economist Intelligence Unit’s Democracy Index, Latin America and the Caribbean have seen a decline in democratic resilience for eight consecutive years. This trend is particularly alarming given the region’s history of military dictatorships and authoritarian rule.
The weakening of judicial independence in Latin America also has implications for the United States, where concerns about the politicization of the judiciary have been growing. Although the U.S. remains a strong democracy, it has been classified as a “flawed democracy” in recent years, in part due to increasing polarization and concerns about the independence of the judiciary. The experiences of Latin American countries offer a cautionary tale for the United States and other democracies about the dangers of allowing the judiciary to become a tool of the executive.
The global spread of authoritarian practices, including judicial manipulation, is a reminder of the fragility of democratic institutions. Once the independence of the judiciary is compromised, it becomes increasingly difficult to reverse course. The judiciary, as the arbiter of the rule of law, plays a critical role in maintaining the balance of power within a government. When that balance is disrupted, as it has been in Venezuela and other Latin American countries, the consequences for democracy can be severe.
Also read: Latin America Must Lead on Venezuela’s Democratic Crisis
The history of judicial manipulation in Venezuela serves as a stark reminder of the dangers of undermining judicial independence. The tactics employed by Hugo Chávez and Nicolás Maduro to consolidate power have not only eroded Venezuela’s democracy but have also set a dangerous precedent for the region. As Latin America continues to grapple with the challenges of authoritarianism, the importance of protecting judicial independence cannot be overstated. The lessons from Venezuela are clear: when the judiciary is compromised, the very foundations of democracy are at risk.
