Last Monday, with less than 90 percent of the vote counted and the opposition leading by just 50.7 percent to 49.3 percent, President Chávez congratulated his opponents on their victory. They had defeated his proposed constitutional reforms, including the abolition of term limits for the presidency.
No one should have been surprised by Chávez's immediate concession: Venezuela is a constitutional democracy, and its government has stuck to the democratic rules of the game since he was first elected in 1998. Despite the non-renewal of the broadcast license for a major TV station in May - one that wouldn't have gotten a license in any democratic country - Venezuela still has the most oppositional media in the hemisphere.
But the U.S. media has managed to convey the impression to most Americans that Venezuela is some sort of dictatorship or near-dictatorship.
Some of this disinformation takes place through mere repetition and association (e.g. "communist Cuba" appearing in thousands of news reports) -- just as 70 percent of Americans were convinced, prior to the Iraq war, that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the massacres of September 11. In that case, the major media didn't even believe the message, but somehow it got across and provided justification for the war.
In the case of Venezuela, the media is more proactive, with lots of grossly exaggerated editorials and op-eds, news articles that sometimes read like editorials, and a general lack of balance in sources and subject matter.
But Venezuela is not Pakistan. In fact, it's not Florida or Ohio either. One reason that Chávez could be confident of the vote count is that Venezuela has a very secure voting system. This is very different from the United States, where millions of citizens cast electronic votes with no paper record. Venezuelan voters mark their choice on a touch-screen machine, which then records the vote and prints out a paper receipt for the voter. The voter then deposits the vote in a ballot box. An extremely large random sample - about 54 percent - of the paper ballots are counted and compared with the electronic tally.
If the two counts match, then that is a pretty solid guarantee against electronic fraud. Any such fraud would have to rig the machines and stuff the ballot boxes to match them - a trick that strains the imagination.
In 2007, Venezuelans once again came in second for all of Latin America in the percentage of citizens who are satisfied or very satisfied with their democracy, according to the prestigious Chilean polling firm Latinobarometro - 59 percent, far above the Latin American average of 37 percent.
It is not only the secure elections that are responsible for this result - it is also that the government has delivered on its promises to share the nation's oil wealth with the poor and the majority. For most people - unlike the pundits here - voting for something and actually getting what you voted for are also an important part of democracy.
The Bush Administration has consistently sought regime change in Venezuela, even before Chávez began regularly denouncing "the Empire." According to the U.S. State Department, Washington funded leaders and organizations involved in the coup which briefly overthrew Chávez's democratically elected government in April 2002. The Washington Post reported this week that the Bush Administration has been funding unnamed student groups, presumably opposition, up to and including this year.
Venezuela must be seen as undemocratic, and Chávez as the aggressor against the United States, in order to justify the Bush Administration's objective of regime change. As in the run-up to the Iraq war, most of the major media are advancing the Administration's goals, regardless of the intentions of individual journalists.
They pointed out that he accepted his defeat without trying any of the Republican strong-arm tactics displayed in Florida in 2000, despite there being a similar razor-thin difference in the vote.
They point out quite appropriately, that many countries, including most notably Great Britain, allow leaders to be elected indefinitely, without being slandered as being de facto dictators for life. Chavez would be president for life only if a majority of Venezuelans voted for him in regular election cycles, within a system that by all accounts appears to be everything that the US election system is not: fair and verifiable.
University students marched in the streets against him? Stop the presses! Anyone who pays any attention to the politics of Venezuela knows full well that the population is far more activist and vocal than the complacent American electorate, and that any referendum or election there brings out huge numbers of people both for and against whatever or whoever is up for the vote. Anyone who says that students marched against him, without mentioning who marched for him, is just practising disinformation.
How long would a television station in the US that continually called for the extra-legal overthrow of the Bush administration last? This is what RCTV did. When Margaret Thatcher decided not to renew the license of Thames Television in 1988 over their broadcast of a documentary on the killing of IRA members, it caused controversy, but no-one could argue that it was not legal. Judgement on legality apparently only comes up in cases where non-US-aligned governments are involved.
Chavez' image problem in the US media is not that he is undemocratic, but that he is democratic in a way that the US has long forgotten how to be. The double standards that are applied to him and other South American leaders who dare to challenge the paradigm of a quiescent populace as seen in the US, is glaring.
worker cooperatives which were seen as an important step in the
direction of what Chavez calls “twenty-first century socialism.” Some
of the cooperatives have consolidated themselves and function as
small enterprises many of them run by the poor. But a large number of
them received generous funding in the form of start-up capital and
then just folded and in some case the money was squandered. I believe
that now the government and Chavez movement will be more inclined to
work to establish mechanisms to ensure that the money is put to good
use.
In short, the emphasis will be more on practical and effective
measures and moving away from rhetoric which doesn’t work out in
practice."
quoted in yesterday's NY Times. According to Ellner:
"I think Chavez’s defeat yesterday will encourage an introspection in
the Chavez movement and a critical debate which is long overdue for
them. Obviously errors were committed, otherwise the dramatic decline
from 63 percent of the vote just 12 months ago in the presidential
elections to 49 percent would be impossible to explain.
What hurt Chavez the most, I believe, is the lack of sufficient
attention to concrete, tangible problems and an overemphasis on lofty
ideals. I’m referring to issues that range from garbage collection
and shortages of staples to corruption.
context, it should not be surprising to learn that Chavez has already
stated he would not change one comma of the reform package. Frankly,
I don't know what to make of that statement. As Kozloff states, he
seems to be his own worst enemy. Well, not quite as bad as the CIA or
the Venezuelan "burgesia", but if this defeat is not enough to create
a context for self-reflection and criticism, then the revolutionary
process in Venezuela will continue to be hampered by the
contradiction between grandiloquent and lofty rhetoric vs. on the
ground reality not quite living up to those ideals, creating a
negative feedback loop of disaffection and further lack of support
from the grassroots.
"Chávez quería evitar que la noticia cayera de golpe, y que los suyos salieran a las calles a volcar su desesperación. No quiero derramamiento de sangre en Venezuela", contó uno de sus ayudantes. La misma fuente anónima señala que el presidente tuvo que reclutar todas sus fuerzas, para resistir el impulso de imponer su proyecto a como diera lugar.
Chávez responsabiliza a sus asesores de la derrota en el referéndum
* Según las filtraciones a la prensa, el líder clamaba 'esto es contrario a la lógica'
Chávez, instantes antes de depositar su voto sobre el referéndum. (Foto: REUTERS)
Ampliar foto
Chávez, instantes antes de depositar su voto sobre el referéndum. (Foto: REUTERS)
Actualizado martes 04/12/2007 15:05 (CET)
Escuchar noticiaImprimirEnviar noticiaDisminuye letraAumenta letra
RAMY WURGAFT
CARACAS.- La serenidad de Hugo Chávez al reconocer su derrota en el referendo del domingo, no fue la actitud que tuvo horas antes, al enterarse de que el veredicto de las urnas le fue adverso.
Mediaba la tarde cuando, con los datos en la mano, el presidente culpó a los responsables de la campaña del 'sí' (a las reformas) de haberle mentido. "Me mintieron, me engañaron", clamó el líder a Diosdado Cabello, uno de sus hombres de confianza.
Chávez culpó al Comando Zamora, encargado de la propaganda electoral, de haberle garantizado el triunfo de su propuesta, al tiempo que los servicios de Inteligencia reportaban un resultado adverso.
Según las filtraciones del entorno presidencial a la prensa, el comandante se mostró incrédulo, y caminaba por la sala exclamando, "no puede ser así. Esto es contrario a lógica".
También se señala que el presidente no quería pronunciarse, hasta que no se escrutara el 100% del voto. Un sector del Ejército le habría presionado para que "enfrentara la realidad", antes de que la gente saliera a las calles a denunciar un fraude.
Chávez convocó a sus asesores más próximos y les pidió, con voz tronante, que le rindieran cuentas. Algunos de estos se atrevieron a insinuar que sí le habían prevenido de un resultado estrecho o incluso de una pequeña ventaja para la oposición, que aprovechando el resultado, ahora busca la unidad. Y que el propio Chávez se fiaba más de su 'ojo clínico', que de los informes que auguraban un triste final para el ambicioso plan de transformar a Venezuela en una utopía socialista.
How dreary. Just as I predicted in yesterday's post immediately below, what passes for an American left just couldn't digest the defeat of Hugo Chavez in his own election.
What part of his defeat is so hard to understand? He wanted to further expand his power, open the door to govern in perpetuity and a majority of voters rejected him. Rejected him, that is, after he shut down the most popular TV network in the country, after his troops have recently been involved in violent clashes with workers, after university students have marched in the streets against him, and as some of the poorest people in Venezuela are currently facing shortages of basic goods.
But wait... Chavez didn't really lose because of any of that. Oh, banish the thought!...
I have served as a voting judge for an election or two now, and don't get what the big issue would be. All you would need is a really big, tamper-proof box or two. All it would do is ensure that IF there is any question about a results, THEN that result can be double-checked independently of the electronic voting tally.
It's not rocket science folks,... and it would get rid of at least the subtle forms of election fraud.