By Arthur Shaw

So far, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has suffered three bouts with cancer — in June 2011, Feb. 2012, and Nov. 2012.

On Dec 11, 2012, Pres. Chavez underwent surgery in his third bout which began in November this year.
The results of the Dec. 11 surgery are not yet clear.

Article 234 of the Venezuelan Constitution says “A President of the Republic who becomes temporarily unavailable to serve shall be replaced by the Executive Vice-President for a period of up to 90 days, which may be extended by resolution of the National Assembly for an additional 90 days.”

“If the temporary unavailability continues for more than 90 consecutive days, the National Assembly shall have the power to decide by a majority vote of its members whether the unavailability to serve should be considered permanent.”

There is a question whether the unavailability of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is permanent or temporary. If the presidential unavailability is temporary, then Article 234 applies. But if the unavailability is permanent, then Article 233 applies.

At the moment, the unavailability of Hugo Chavez seems more temporary than permanent, because nobody knows the results of the surgery and other treatments in Cuba which Chavez is about to undergo. If the surgery and other treatments are successful, then Chavez will be again available to serve. Hence, the temporary character of his current unavailability to serve. But if surgery and other treatments fail, then Chavez’ unavailability is permanent.

Chavez got surgery and other treatment in Cuba for his cancer in the same pelvic region of his body in July 2011 and Feb. 2012 without any declaration of unavailability to serve. So, why say he’s unavailable this time when nobody said he was unavailable last time?

It seems hard for revolutionary forces and the proletarian media in Venezuela to argue that Chavez is still available to serve. According to this argument of continued availability, Chavez is neither temporarily or permanently unavailable. This argument does not break down because Chavez is sick or outside of Venezuela. This argument in favor of the continued availability of Chavez breaks down because Chavez asked the vice president to serve as president while Chavez is in Cuba getting medical treatment. Two individuals cannot serve as president at the same time because nobody will know what government actions are legal if the wrong president approves the action. One of them has to be unavailable.

The first day of the temporary unavailability of Chavez to serve as president was Sunday, Dec. 9, 2012 because Dec. 9 was the day on which the National Assembly — that is, the Venezuelan legislature — approved the temporary replacement of President Hugo Chavez by Vice President Nicholas Maduro for a period of up to 90 days under the provisions of Article 234.

So, the 90-day period runs out on March 15, 2013.

It is likely that the doctors treating Chavez in Cuba will know whether the surgery and other treatment fails or succeeds by March 15, 2013. Thus, it is possible or even likely that the Venezuelan Government will know, by March 15, whether the unavailability of Chavez to serve as president is temporary or permanent, invoking respectively Article 234 or 233 of the Constitution to resolve the constitutional crisis.
If the surgery and other treatment Chavez gets in Cuba succeeds, then the revolutionary forces may seek another 90 days under Article 234 so that Chavez doesn’t have to rush his recovery. After all, Chavez relapse is possibly related to the strenuous campaign for reelection which Chavez “won” on Oct. 7. Even if Chavez knew that the strenuous campaign for reelection would trigger a recurrence of his cancer, he still had to go through with the campaign, because the future of the revolution was at stake. This second 90-day period gives Chavez and his revolutionaries a whopping 180 days or six months to maneuver while Chavez recovers his availability to serve.
But if the treatment Chavez gets in Cuba fails, then Chavez should be allowed to spend the time he has left in peace. It will be pointless to go for another 90-day period, knowing the hopelessness of the situation. So, if the treatment fails, Chavez will likely be declared permanently unavailable to serve as president, invoking the provisions of Article 233.

We will not discuss in detail the provisions of Article 233 that deals with permanent unavailability because at this time permanent unavailability doesn’t seem to exist and because it might be hard to digest detailed discussions of both permanent and temporary unavailability at the same time. But we still have to discuss Article 233 a little, because we claim that permanent unavailability doesn’t exist.

We therefore must show it doesn’t exist.

According to Article 233, to be permanently unavailable one of six things got to happen to the president:

(1) death
(2) resignation
(3) removal from office by decision of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice
(4) permanent physical or mental disability certified by a medical board designated by the Supreme Tribunal of Justice with the approval of the National Assembly
(5) abandonment of his position, duly declared by the National Assembly and
(6) recall by popular vote.

So far, Chavez has not died, resigned from office, been kicked out of office by the supreme court, certified as physically or mentally disabled, declared to have abandoned his office by the legislature or been recalled from office in a referendum.

None of these six events has occurred.

So, Chavez isn’t permanently unavailable under Article 233.

There is another point we want to discuss.

The bourgeois media and reactionary deputies in the Venezuelan legislature don’t talk as much about permanent or temporary unavailability of the president to serve as Article 234 and 233 do. The bourgeois media and these deputies talk about permanent or temporary “absence” of the president as Article 235 does. On Sunday, Dec. 9, Diosdado Cabello, leader of revolutionary deputies in the National Assembly, almost told reactionary deputies to shut up when the reactionaries demanded an opportunity to talk about “the temporary or permanent absence of the Head of State,” according El Universal, a big bourgeois newspaper in Venezuela.

What’s up with these bourgeois media and reactionary deputies?

Again, “absence” is discussed in Article 235, not 234 and 233, both of which deal with unavailability..
Article 235 of the Venezuelan Constitution says “The absence of the President of the Republic from the territory of Venezuela requires authorization from the National Assembly or the Delegated Committee, when such absence continues for a period exceeding five consecutive days.”

So, here’s the question we must answer: Is the absence of the president from the territory of Venezuela the same thing as the unavailability of the president to serve?

No, of course not. They are not even close to being the same thing.

First of all, Article 235 doesn’t divide absences into permanent and temporary. Art. 235 divides absences into 5-day absences and more than 5-day absences. There’s a big difference.

Second, presidents travel all the time. Sometimes a president has to go outside his country in order to serve, like when a president goes somewhere to sign a trade deal. Absence from the territory of the country doesn’t mean that the president isn’t serving the country. So, Article 235 which deals with “absence” doesn’t cover the same ground as Articles 234 and 233 which deal with different types of unavailability of the president.

Not only can a president serve while he’s “absent” from the territory of Venezuela, but also he can fail to serve while he’s present on the territory of Venezuela. Say, for example, the president resigns while he’s in Caracas. Clearly, he’s present on the territory but he still is unavailable to serve.

So, again, absence and unavailability are not the same thing and not close to being the same thing.
This tactic of these reactionaries of savagely attacking the “absence” of Chavez seems design to shove Chavez into his grave.

Reactionaries know that Chavez is sick and he’s a workaholic. Reactionaries believe that if Chavez keeps working while he’s sick, he’ll sooner or later kill himself. Clearly, when he works before he fully recovers, he’s more likely to trigger a recurrence of his illness. So, every time Chavez goes to Cuba for medical treatment, the bourgeoisie and bourgeois media in Venezuela are enraged. During the “absence,” reactionaries try to generate panic and hysteria throughout Venezuela to draw Chavez back home before he’s ready medically. Chavez returns home to calm the panic and hysteria, but he quickly gets back to work. As long as Chavez is at home, he’s going to work whether he’s sick or well, because the work of revolutionary politics is his essence. Fidel is the same way, but once one gets close to 90 years of age like Fidel, time slows you down, whether you’re sick or well. Chavez is only 58.

By invoking Article 234 on temporary unavailability, Chavez found a way of getting 90 days of rest and treatment without producing a national panic or hysteria. If we substitute “absence” for unavailability, the 90-day period in this case would not begin Dec. 9 but eight or nine days before Dec. 9. The cut-off will not be March 15, but eight or nine days before March 15. But there seems to be something else behind the preference of the bourgeois media for the term “absence” over unavailability — something sly and insidious. We’ll find out because the bourgeois media is a sewage system.

From all this, we surmise that the main tactic of the bourgeoisie and its media in their class struggle against the workers during the 90-day period afforded by Article 234 will be to find a way to drag Chavez home or make him work while he’s in Cuba. To do this, the bourgeoisie will have to ignore Vice President Maduro who is now the “acting president ” of and in Venezuela. During the 90-day period, the bourgeoisie will likely announce every other day that Chavez passed away and the Cubans are hiding his remains. When Chavez shows he’s still alive, the bourgeoisie will demand that president get any further treatment in Venezuela. So on and so forth.

The main tactic of the proletariat in its class struggle against the bourgeoisie during the 90-day period should be to preserve the unity of the class and leaders of the class. The bourgeois media will pounce on the smallest rift within the class and supersize the rift. The best way to preserve unity is for the workers to do their jobs in Chavez’ “absence.” The biggest challenge to the unity of the class and leaders of the class during the 90-day period will likely be the class struggle over the de-valuation of the Venezuelan currency which the bourgeoisie presents as its most important and its most immediate aim. Whether the class surrenders or resists the bourgeoisie on de-valuation of the bolivar, there may be serious tensions and stress within the class. Clearly, if the surgery peformed Dec. 11 in Havana shows that there is only a temporary unavailability to serve, then Vice President Maduro shouldn’t even touch the de-valuation issue until Chavez returns. In any case, the class has very able people to assist the head of state on the de-valuation issue in the finance minister, oil minister, and head of the central bank. We will find out whether they can preserve their ideological, organizational, and political unity in these very turbulent conditions. They are going to need unity on Jan. 10, the day of presidential inauguration and on March 15, the expiration of the 90-day period of temporary unavailability.