By Thor Halvorssen
CARACAS, Venezuela -- An avalanche of media has declared Hugo Chavez's loss of a two-thirds majority significant. It isn't. On Monday, Venezuela's electoral council announced that political opposition groups had won the majority of the votes in the election for the national assembly, Venezuela's legislature. They simultaneously announced that the Chavez party would retain most of the seats. In other words, those who received the most votes get minority representation. This is puzzling.
Already, Chavez's party is underlining that while they don't have a two-thirds majority (the proportion needed to have control) they do have a three-fifths majority and that this is sufficient to pass an "enabling law" granting Chavez the equivalent of dictatorial powers. So here is the scenario: Before the election he ruled with absolute power including the subservience of the judicial and legislative power and control over the means of production. Now, without the legislature, he will simply get them to quickly pass a law making his absolute power official.
The Chavez government manipulates rules, laws, and institutions as it sees fit. This has been the case for several years and will be its lasting legacy. Despite the outgoing national assembly being a lame duck legislature, be prepared to see them pass all sorts of laws despite having no mandate.
Too many ignore or are simply unaware of the reason why Chavez had full control of the legislature in the first place -- in 2005, all opposition parties boycotted the legislative elections because they were protesting the lack of democracy, the manipulation of the electoral system, the systematic violations of human rights, and the use of the state treasury by Chavez for his own party's benefit. Voters rejected the election en masse with only 17 percent of eligible voters turning out. The OAS and the EU released scathing reports on the entire process. The bleak turnout made that assembly legal but illegitimate. That the opposition was not able to turn all of these facts into a victory and force a redo of that election is baffling. Meanwhile, the Chavez spin machine set into action and the world was led to believe that he had such unanimous support that he ended up with the entire legislature.
After that, the opposition parties ended their boycott and got back into politics, admirably using tactics different from those of the president. Despite the government's use of violence, a politicized judiciary, the shutting down of media critical of the president, the misuse of public funds for the president's party, the cult of personality financed by the state, the use of imprisonment to go after political opponents, the presence of a fear-inducing Cuban intelligence apparatus, and the abuse of federal emergency management laws to control the airwaves for several hours a day to spread political propaganda, the democratic elements in Venezuela are to be commended. What they pulled off on Sunday is extraordinary.
I was asked why, if Chavez is such an autocrat, he didn't rig the election outright. The answer is that Chavez has not yet obtained what his government refers to as "communicational hegemony". There is still one television channel left on the air, Globovision, which provides critical news and analysis despite both of its key owners being in forced exile. The two other remaining independent channels were silenced -- one by being shut down and the other by being bribed and blackmailed. Once the government has the monopoly on media, then it will be impossible, as in Cuba, to have any critical or opposing viewpoints. Any election result is then plausible in a scenario of self censorship and fear.
Chavez's poll numbers are down considerably given that issues such as crime -- Venezuela has one of the highest per capita murder rates in the world (worse than Afghanistan or Iraq) -- and inflation -- Venezuela has the worst rate in the hemisphere -- affect everybody. In the face of these domestic failures he was not going to win outright had the elections been free and fair. That said, the game was stacked: the government used an endless supply of state oil funds to compete against political parties lacking state support, and enforced numerous restrictions on political donations to the opposition. In addition, voter intimidation is rife and loyalty oaths are required from government employees. Imagine what the results would have been had there been an equal playing field.
Given that they couldn't do a simple "we got more votes" trick, the electoral council, controlled entirely by Chavez, chose instead to do political alchemy. This means he did rig it! Consider that the opposition obtained 52% of the votes (probably much more had it been a clean fight) yet does not have a majority of the seats. It is political alchemy resulting from politicized redistricting. For instance, in Caracas the opponents of Chavez got 484,844 votes versus 484,103 of the Chavista party. And the ten seats get split: three for the winners and seven for Chavez. I strongly hope those who cried foul during Bush v. Gore will come out swinging against this injustice just four hours south of Palm Beach County.
It is clear that, even with a stacked deck, the numerical majority of Venezuelans are indicating that they want something different. International elites constantly lecture about how Venezuelan elections are a contest of poor versus rich. The truth of the matter is that the Chavez family and those in government are most of "the rich" -- starting with his brothers Adán, Argenis, and Adelis Chavez and longtime government cronies Diosdado Cabello and Jose Vicente Rangel both of whom merit inclusion in the Forbes Billionaires list. Not surprisingly, Venezuela ranks close to the bottom in Transparency International's corruption index -- tied with Angola and the Congo.
To those in the Chavez political machine, the election simply means a change of tactics. To Chavez personally, it is devastating. He has shown that he cannot stand an opposing voice. His word is final. To quote him, speaking in the third person: "He who betrays Chavez dies politically." Chavez is the revolution. He is the voice of the people. He rules, he doesn't govern. A true leadership contest is unthinkable. If you were to drive from the main airport to the city of Caracas you will see dozens of billboards with his image -- all paid for with state funds and all of them inappropriate in a democracy. It is all about him, all the time. Step out of line and you get expropriated, harassed, persecuted, or even prosecuted and thrown in prison.
A rejection of this sort is humiliating for Chavez. It is sure to cause him an existential crisis. It apparently was agonizing enough that he didn't even poke his head out on his "Balcony of the People" to say hello to his dejected supporters and admit the rout. He chose as a substitute his Twitter account from where he fantasized a "solid victory." A few hours later, he called the international press "revolting" and "liars" and was particularly graphic about CNN's coverage of the elections. During the last referendum, which was the last time the opposition won a majority of votes in a national electoral contest, Chavez went on television and called it a "shit victory" and then proceeded to merrily ignore the results of the election.
Chavez cannot declare defeat. He cannot leave power because this would lead to charges of murder, drug-trafficking on a global scale, corruption charges unlike anything seen in the hemisphere's history, and -- most problematic due to the crimes against humanity element -- charges of collaborating with Colombia's FARC terrorists. While in power he will be untouchable but out of power the line of plaintiffs, prosecutors, and critics is long and includes groups as politically diverse as Reporters Without Borders, the Inter-American Court of Justice, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the families of the victims of the April 11th massacre.
Chavez doesn't know what to do. He has two years to figure it out. It is highly unlikely that he will allow a fair electoral contest. He has disqualified Leopoldo Lopez, a candidate that has outpolled him, forced Manuel Rosales, the last candidate that challenged him, into exile, and opened judicial investigations into those on the electoral horizon. Chavez will do everything and anything in the next two years to get another term. But this should be a surprise to no one. He has already said it numerous times: he plans to stay until 2030.
Thor Halvorssen is president of the Human Rights Foundation and founder of the Oslo Freedom Forum. Follow him on Twitter and on Facebook.
This is why "socialism is the fataI conceit".
Strange world we live in.
You've always demonstrated your correct insights on Chavez's Venezuela, but this piece is a masterpiece of bringing all of the abuses to the forefront, for those with eyes to see.
Vía “What’s Next Venezuela?” ---> http://www.facebook.com/WhatsNextVenezuela
D. Hellinger
Thor Halvorssen
What he actually said was that in all first-past-the-post systems with electoral districts, when there are more than two parties running, the results almost always get 'distorted' in the way you are screaming has to be the result of deliberate manipulation.
As someone who has lived his entire life in a country with such a system (Canada) and having seen parties with popular votes in the high 30's get almost no seats, while a party with a few percentage more gets the majority of them, I really wish you would either educate yourself, or, if it is a deliberate tactic based on knowing that most Americans are ignorant of the effects of FPTP when you have more than 2 parties, quit relying on other's ignorance.
Finally, the natural resources of Latin America are beginning to be shared by more Latins instead of "America's chosen few".
If such a law is passed, how it will be justified by the Chavez apologists? Well fear not, I have no doubt they will come up with something.
For all of Chavez's many faults the primary one, in institutional Washington's eyes, appears to be that he's not "our son of a bitch". Washington has aggressively supported the most ruthless of central American despots, has organized countless military coups around the world, has aided in the murder of hundreds of opposition supporters and union leaders. We even actively stood in th way of UN condemnation of "our son of a bitch" Saddam Hussein after he gassed the Kurds in the 1980s.
Sure, criticize Chavez on his many abuses of power. But don't for a minute think that's why Washington is demonizing the man. We've supported worse without blinking. Chavez's primary fault is that he's not in our back pocket.
Depends on who you ask. If you go by the metric of poverty reduction, literacy increase, more participation in local government, reduction of wealth inequality, health care access, etc... Chavez has been VERY good for low-income Venezuelans.
The upper classes aren't happy about having to give up some of their wealth, and rich people are always the loudest crybabies everywhere... so it's usually their point of view we're exposed to.
Also, much of Venezuela's current difficulties can be directly traced to destabilization efforts led by US intelligence agencies (much as Chile was deliberately destabilized in the years before the coup that ousted & murdered Salvadore Allende). I suspect that were it not for meddling by USAID & the CIA, Venezuela would be in much better shape financially.
As far as I know Venezuela is divided between the haves and the have nots. The haves live in the cities and are easily available for journalists etc. They are not happy with Chavez because he has taken from the haves and given it to the have nots. The have nots are not easily available for your average preconceived journalist because they live in the poorer areas.
As for Chavez' democratic credentials, he has been subjected to 11 elections in his twelve year reign. He lost one election on changing of the constitution.
Can he really be as evil as you make him out to be?
ps. after having read your article I think I understand why your human rights group is not accredited in the UN.
I live in Venezuela and this country is no paradise, highest Inflation despite being an oil rich country, highest crime rate than Colombia, Brazil and Haiti together...
Chavez has followers because of his populist discourse, but that isn't working anymore, 11 years of promises with less than acceptable results are getting people, poor and middle class, very disenchanted. Traditionally rich families don't even live en Venezuela anymore, the new riches are the "Bolburgueses", people very near to Chávez.
But I know I can't convince anyone, I can only hope that Chávez will eventually rule the countries of those who praise him so much. Than they will understand what the reality of Venezuela is. But luckily for you, that will not happen.
And Chavez is not taking all that much from the 'haves' to give to the 'have nots' he is more making sure that the 'haves' don't take from the 'have nots' as was their habit of old, and putting the money the government does have into giving the 'have nots' the tools to move into the middle of the spectrum.
Anyway the difference between the have nots and haves appears to be systematic throughout Latin America. The haves have used all manor of methods to keep the status quo. With Chavez they tried a coup and failed. But they still had the private media in their hands.
I hope the income disparity is reduced since it is unhealthy in the long run. Something I think Latin America knows all too well.
It also happens here in Canada, in Britain, indeed, anywhere where you have 'first past the post' elections where more than 2 parties have significant support.
Yes, more voters voted for non-PSOV (the party that Chavez is from) candidates than voted for PSOV candidates, but even more voters voted for non-MUD candidates than voted for MUD candidates, so it should come as no surprise that more PSOV candidates won than MUD candidates. (and it should also not be a surprise that the candidates for those who had not joined the MUD coalition, who had a small proportion of the electoral vote, took a lot fewer seats than the level of support would seem to suggest they should, because that is the nature of the FPTP system.
And the rest of your claims are similarly disengenuous.
Let's go through the numbers again:
Chavez party gets 48% of the votes.
Chavez party gets 60% of the seats
So this seems very fair to you and nothing to worry about. Ok...
But if you read Mr. Halversen article you would see that the gerrymandering that produced the above result (the one that you have no problem with) it is only one of the many abuses that Chavez uses to manipulate elections. Read the article again because it is a pretty good description of what is going on in Venezuela. Most people in the USA or Canada, although perhaps not you, will be outraged if their president engaged in a tenth of the abuses that Chavez commits regularly.
Believe me, everyone in Canada, Britain, Australia, and Norway (Thor has a Norwegian background) is looking at your complaint about how this result is strange and scratching their heads about what you are talking about.
In the US, where the lack of knowledge about any system but their own two party one is profound, this piece might find an audience, but that is it.
Yes, I know that you and Thor, and the American public have been trained to regard Chavez as some sort of despot (and I love how Thor implies that because 'only' 17% of the population took the time to vote for candidates that were faced with nothing but fringe, if any, opposition, that means that the rest opposed them, rather than mention what the public opinion polls showed, which tells a rather different story), and that because of that training, and the lack of knowledge I mentioned, will swallow this meme of a rigged or strange election whole. but that says more about them than it does the Venezuelan system or Chavez.
BTW, every election cycle up here, we also hear the partisans and propagandists for whoever is in opposition screaming about the use of government announcements to campaign for the party in power, the use of government funds to buy votes, manipulation of the budget numbers, etc. And they have just as much of a point (yes, there is some of that, it is human nature) and just as little of a point (it is nowhere near what they are claiming, one cannot be running a government without making a number of announcements and decisions during the months leading up to the vote) as you guys do.