On October 7 Venezuelans will go to vote in the 12th national-level election in as many years. This time they will be choosing whether or not to extend President Hugo Chavez's time in office to 19 years (assuming he makes it that far and does not die of cancer, which is another topic altogether).
For this reason, and considering the seriousness of the choice confronting the Venezuelan people, a quick analysis of the ongoing campaign is important.
Electoral experts often talk about "free and fair" elections as if they were one and the same. In point of fact, these are two different components that together make up a legitimate election. Free elections usually refer to Election Day. Are the people able to vote for the candidate of their choosing, and have their voted counted and respected? It covers issues such as ballot stuffing, poll violence and the like. Fair elections are far more complicated. They involve the playing field set in place by the government. It seeks to answer the question; "is the government picking a side?"
This is an important point that is often missed. People in the United States on both sides of the aisle complain about unfair elections. On the one side they may point out that President Obama has a majority of coverage from the private mainstream media. However, on the other side it looks like Governor Romney will outraise the president and is set to have a better ground game. These are all fine because they represent the free expressions of private Americans. Elections, just like everything else in society, must be unregulated for true competition to occur.
In Venezuela, however, the government itself chooses a side. While the elections may be free, they are far from fair.
Venezuela's Democratic Unity Roundable itself, on a recent trip to the United States, pointed out five ways in which the Venezuelan government stacks the deck in favor of President Chavez. The first is a lack of transparency, represented through the refusal of an audit to the electoral registry (complaints about ghost voters are legion), lack of independent electoral observers to verify the process (even the Carter Center has said it will not accept Venezuela's dumbed-down "accompanying" process), and the closure of the consulate in Miami to disenfranchise Miami's large opposition voting bloc.
The second is media regulation; the National Electoral Council regulates the candidates to three minutes of ads on TV and radio, but allows President Chavez to continue to take over the airwaves to make "public interest announcements," which are almost all used for partisan campaigning. This has accounted for more than 50 minutes a day since the start of the campaign. The third is the use of public funds. By eliminating the important, legal line between party and state, Chavez has access to virtually unlimited oil revenues with which to campaign and give the handouts for which he has become famous; meanwhile the de-capitalized opposition must fund yet another nationwide campaign out of their ever-shallower pockets. The fourth and fifth ways of making the vote unfair are voter intimidation. This involves threatening public employees that their votes are not secret and, should they vote against Chavez, they will be fired. And it involves the appeal to fear, with President Chavez stating he is the only one who stands between Venezuela and anarchy; and with the military putting in doubt their willingness to accept an opposition win.
Due to these sophisticated mechanisms of electioneering, the upcoming election is already unfair. Despite this fact, it is free and the opposition can win. However, in order to do so, they must beat President Chavez by multiple percentages. To do this, they must have voter turnout of above 60 percent (and the higher the better) and opposition candidate Governor Henrique Capriles Radonski must motivate his base while winning over the all-important independents. Current polls show Chavez and Capriles in a dead heat; making this the most significant campaign since the '90s.
To be sure, it remains unclear if President Chavez would accept a defeat. However, the first step for the opposition is to actually beat him in an election. This would radically change the game for the Venezuelan strongman and would dent the one thing he is most careful to protect, his perceived legitimacy.
Follow Joel D. Hirst on Twitter: www.twitter.com/joelhirst
Bruce W. Jentleson: Romney's Foreign Policy Thematics
Ian Bremmer: Welcome to the G-Zero Era
Dr. Josef Olmert: What World Figures Said About Bashar al-Assad -- An Enlightening Reminder
Do you not know the truth or are you just trying to obscure it?
http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/5860
http://upsidedownworld.org/main/venezuela-archives-35/2059--media-in-venezuela-facts-and-fiction
Thanks!
was, as the mentioned article also indicates, a countermeasure against the US expelling a Venezuelan diplomat in the first place....
2) "allows President Chavez to continue to take over the airwaves"
You "forget" to mention that Chavez can only be seen on public TV and radio, say like C-SPAN, while off course EVERY private media network, owned by the Venezuelan "one percenters" pushes Capriles' candidacy.
3) "the Carter Center has said it will not accept Venezuela's dumbed-down "accompanying" process"
No they didn't. The article says they "declined an invitation to have a team at Oct. 7 elections, almost a month and a half away.
"My understanding is that the (electoral council) has come to the conclusion that they no longer need international observation to give confidence to the process," said Jennifer McCoy.
"Since 2006 they've been in consultation with the political parties to establish a number of security mechanisms and audits with the participation of the political parties to give confidence to the process. "Venezuelan domestic observer groups, political parties and voters themselves will have a number of ways to participate in monitoring the vote."
Venezuela isn't alone in Latin America in not hosting international observer missions. Argentina and Brazil don't have a tradition of inviting international observers, McCoy said.
That is a little different than quoting the Carter Center as making statements about a dumbed-down accompanying process.
2) If you consider Venezolana de Televisión, TVes and teleSUR to be "like C-SPAN" then you don't really know anything about this.
3) "My understanding is" Jennifer McCoy of the Carter Center is a very diplomatic individual therefore since she was so subtle here I'll point it out for you... that was a jab at the CNE for not allowing international observers to this election which is vastly modified from the procedures of previous elections by the way.
... and the author is just scratching the surface of the manipulation of the process.
well... like I said: 7th October is still a while...
2) "teleSUR to be "like C-SPAN"
well... Telesur is a lot more objective than, say FoxNews or eve, CNN, bu the actual point was that EVERY single privately owned media stands firmly behind Capriles.
3) "Jennifer McCoy of the Carter Center is a very diplomatic individual"
Well... you can't blame her for not being a bully, I guess...
What I always found so peculiar about Chavez is that he has often actually LOST his own referenda. You see, once "Dictators" have actually consolidated power around them, say like Pinochet, Mubarak, or others, they suddenly win a lot more "elections" or "referenda" than before they abolished Parliament, or staged a coup.
Chavez doesn't belong in that category, he actually regularly LOSES referenda he has called for himself. And on top of it, he respects the results.
Which would those be? Please be specific, and use data from today, not years ago.
This is all you need to know about the man's competence.
Also the lancet put the number of dead in iraq at over 1 million so im not sure you are correct.
... in this case "I doubt it" = facts don't support your argument and I'm 100% sure you're wrong.
This is all you need to know about the man's competence. "
In Iraq, it is well established that the American invasion cost the lives of over a million Iraqis.
So, I am confident that you can easily back up your claim that "more people have died a violent death in Venezuela" than in Iraq?
Or, do you prefer the "Mexican Model"?
Here in the USA state power is used to subsidize the rich and the arrogant at the expense of working people. It is nice in Venezuela to see the shoe on the other foot.
U.S. politics is very clear: when the candidates of their choosing win elections, the elections are free and honest. If United States or their candidates lose the elections, those elections are illegitimate. This is the case in Venezuela where there are popular candidates and nationalists with socialist tendencies.
In contrast to your disinformation, the truth is the opposition in Venezuela continues controlling the main electronic media and particularly the television. During the final weeks prior to the elections, we are going to see the media and the politics of agitation attempting to promote conflicts. The problem is the opposition does not have a critical mass that could rise up. Democracy under the government of Hugo Chávez and the massive influence that it has in all sectors of the country and above all in the popular sectors, makes it very difficult to repeat in Venezuela what they mounted in Syria and other places. Venezuela is not Syria, Venezuela is not Libya; Venezuela is a democratic country with an extensive popular base organized freely.
The opposition can think that they can cause a detonation with a small specific and violent group; a conflict, a confrontation, in which there are injured or dead, using that small motor to start a greater motor (i.e. the suspicious refinery explosion). That type of pyrotechnics will fail.