A potential deadlock in the Venezuelan Supreme Court over a recall drive against President Hugo Chávez would likely spark a constitutional crisis and street violence

BY RICHARD BRAND

CARACAS - Imagine this: Venezuela's Supreme Court splits 10-10 on the nation's most critical dispute, a drive for a recall referendum on President Hugo Chávez.

Or this: Five or more pro-Chávez justices choose to be absent, blocking the 16-member quorum required for the high court's deliberations.

As farfetched as those scenarios may seem, they are considered to be at least possible outcomes of the Supreme Court deliberations on the case, which may begin today.

Any deadlock on the recall, which Chávez's foes see as their last legal chance to topple the man they accuse of increasingly authoritarian ways and ruining the economy, could spark a constitutional crisis and probably street violence. In a country thoroughly polarized by Chávez's leftist populist rule, it's not surprising that the Supreme Court would be as bitterly divided and intensely politicized as the rest of the nation.

``Right now there is a disaster in the Venezuelan justice system, said José Peña Solís, a lawyer who served briefly on the Supreme Court in 2000. ``The politics have become more important than the law, and it mirrors what is happening in the rest of the country.

At the heart of the recall case is whether 870,000 signatures seeking a referendum, which were challenged by the National Electoral Council, must be individually verified by those who signed, a requirement the opposition says is punitive and logistically impossible. If accepted, those signatures and the nearly 1.9 million others already accepted would force a recall vote.

SUPPORT FADES

But the Supreme Court's politics have been simmering since 1999, when the approval of a new Constitution required the Chávez-dominated National Assembly to appoint 20 new justices, virtually all presumed Chávez supporters.

Just as Chávez's support has eroded nationally -- his approval ratings, once at 80 percent, now hover around the mid-30s -- some of the justices have drifted away from the president. The biggest blow came in 2002, when powerful Chávez backer Luis Miquilena broke ranks, a move that influenced several justices who owed him their appointments.

The Supreme Court is now believed to be split 10-10 between the president's friends and foes. The National Assembly is considering a proposal to expand the court by 12 members, with the new justices to be approved by the still Chávez-dominated legislature.

The largely untested 1999 Constitution also provides few clear guidelines on how to resolve an issue as complicated as the recall referendum, according to judicial experts.

On March 15, the Supreme Court's electoral chamber -- where two of its three justices are believed to be sympathetic to the opposition -- ruled 2-1 that the 870,000 challenged signatures should be accepted unless the signers come forward to disclaim them.

But the next day, the high courts constitutional chamber -- where a majority of justices are considered pro-Chávez -- announced that it had jurisdiction in the case, not the electoral chamber, and annulled the first ruling. On Monday, the electoral branch reasserted its jurisdiction.

Under the Constitution, the full 20-member court must now consider the dispute between its chambers. Supreme Court spokesman Alirio León said the justices could convene as early as today.

But the court is so politically divided that constitutional experts believe the court may split 10-10 on the case, and that pro-Chávez members may refuse to attend the deliberations to block a quorum.

'ABSOLUTE DISASTER'

Pedro Nikken, a Venezuelan constitutional scholar who once served as the president of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in Costa Rica, said a nondecision would rock the legal system to its core.

"It could be an absolute disaster, where the court essentially splits and continues to issue contradictory rulings that are never reconciled, he said.

Venezuelan Vice President José Vicente Rangel has said the government would accept the constitutional chambers ruling but labeled the electoral chamber justices as ``coup plotters.''

International observers from the Atlanta-based Carter Center and the Organization of American States, meanwhile, have been meeting with National Electoral Council officials in the hope of finding a compromise on the impasse over the signatures.

But the split within the Supreme Court is only one of many signs of the extent to which Venezuelas entire judicial system has become politicized, international human-rights groups say.

Two judges were fired in early March after they freed several protesters arrested during violent street demonstrations against Chávez. They were considered ''provisional'' judges because they had not been confirmed under the new Constitution.

"The most serious problem in the judiciary right now . . . is the fact that the vast majority of judges are provisional. They can be hired or fired at the discretion of the Supreme Court chief justice, said José Miguel Vivanco, executive director of the Americas division of Human Rights Watch. ``They have already exercised that power against judges who were investigating human-rights cases that involved the recent demonstrations.''

Chávez's supporters say that adding 12 new justices to the Supreme Court will lighten the load on a justice system dealing with a dizzying backlog. About 40 percent of inmates in Venezuelas prisons, for example, are awaiting trial.

But the turmoil over the justice system has led many Venezuelans to say they no longer have faith in the rule of law.

"People feel helpless. There is nobody to appeal to for help. They cant look to the court because whatever the court does will be viewed with skepticism, decided by politics, said Simon Alberto Consalvi, a political columnist and former ambassador to Washington. ``What does this mean for democracy and institutions, if the Supreme Court cant make a decision?