Venezuela

[Die Neue Zeit]

I'm surprised that not much has been said around here regarding the upcoming referendum on presidential term limits in Venezuela. How are the politics and key political figures (besides Chavez) since the last gubernatorial and mayoral elections?

[Tzonteyotl]

I'm surprised that not much has been said around here regarding the upcoming referendum on presidential term limits in Venezuela. How are the politics and key political figures (besides Chavez) since the last gubernatorial and mayoral elections?

Haven't they (Chavez' buddies in power) lost some ground since then? I think I read that even in some of the poorer districts, they've begun siding against him.

I remember thinking Chavez was a good thing back when he came out. But lately, I think he's rather shady. He just makes me uneasy and this indefinite reelection thing isn't to agreeable to me either. And does it really make sense to try to push through a constitutional change less than 2 years from the last try, which failed? I mean, he's still got time (until 2013) as president, so why not let things cool off a bit more?

[Rousedruminations]

I think Chavez is not a true representative of socialism his grip on power should be expedited and the state or proletariat should govern the country, not other petty political parties..that oppose him

I don't think u could cool things off a bit more now, that would allow more time for people to find more things against him and his policies, and thus a disillusioned understanding of what communism can do for a country.

[Tzonteyotl]

I don't think u could cool things off a bit more now, that would allow more time for people to find more things against him and his policies, and thus a disillusioned understanding of what communism can do for a country.

Well, I wasn't speaking about communism, but about trying to get this particular change (indefinite reelection) passed. I mean, he was just barely defeated on this a year ago and he's already trying again? If the majority voted it down that recently, what makes him think they've changed their minds this quickly? And if the local/regional losses his supporters suffered recently in elections are to be taken as another indicator, what's the logic behind this new attempt to pass the change?

Regardless of whether he succeeds or not and who's in office as president, the working class should always struggle for socialism. I'm not too keen on Chavez any more. The working class can move forward without him (and would have to anyway as no one's immortal).

[Rousedruminations]

Yep i totally agree with you there. I think Chavez has expired and his ability to convince his people of the advantages a socialist outcome or even a communist one is on the brink of disaster, as you said he nearly lost the previous election. He is of course a failure. I think he should replicate himself or equate himself to fidel castro of cuba... right now he is far from that !


"Regardless of whether he succeeds or not and who's in office as president, the working class should always struggle for socialism "

yes of course but a leader is needed to fire up,educate and convince the people of Venezuela that socialism is a struggle for the working class ........ a custodian on imperialist powers trying to dominate and exploit the resources of its own country..

[rararoadrunner]

Comrades:

If you really want to examine the situation in Venezuela, close-up, why not join the forum aporrealos.com, and post on the English-language forum? There, you can read all kinds of authentic, Venezuelan debates on the role of the consejos comunales, comunas, etc. as Venezuelan Soviets (or not); the role of the PSUV as a vanguard workers' party (or not); the relative weights of capitalism vs. socialism in "actually existing Venezuela," the various nationalist, internationalist, Trotskyist, Stalinist, what have you, tendencies within (and without) the PSUV, etc.

In short, you can not only read, but actually participate in the process: your input is needed, because, as some of us have found to our chagrin, there are powerful Stalinist-fascist forces struggling to turn the PSUV, and hence Venezuela, from the path of socialist democracy...and those who fight for socialist democracy in Venezuela need your help to get their authentic word out, develop and temper their ideas in an internationalist context, further the science of socialism in Venezuela:..comrades, you can make a difference here!

I urge you to join me in fighting the good fight (which includes restoring those who have been unjustly expelled from the aporraelos.com foro) in the aporrealos.com forum.

Back to you, comrades!

[Herman]

Well, I wasn't speaking about communism, but about trying to get this particular change (indefinite reelection) passed. I mean, he was just barely defeated on this a year ago and he's already trying again? If the majority voted it down that recently, what makes him think they've changed their minds this quickly?The previous elections you mention were about a constitutional change that didn't just change the term limits, but also plenty of other articles. In that case, Chavez lost not because more people voted against him, but because many of his own party militants didn't vote at all. Abstention is what defeated Chavez last time (and by a very very narrow margin). There are many reasons why this happened, but you can be certain that it's not that "he's lost support".


And if the local/regional losses his supporters suffered recently in elections are to be taken as another indicator, what's the logic behind this new attempt to pass the change?He didn't really suffer losses. The PSUV gained more municipalities than before, but lost two states. However the PSUV continues to hold the majority of the states (and the popular vote).

I can see that in general you're not very well informed or you've been reading anti-chavez sources.


He just makes me uneasy and this indefinite reelection thing isn't to agreeable to me either.Why isn't it agreeable? Indefinite reelection is a very democratic idea. Why shouldn't someone be able to choose the same representative as many times as you want? By limiting terms, you limit the choice of the people. Besides many other countries have indefinite reelections. Just take Mitterrand for example. He's been president of France for I think it was around 14 years.

[Rousedruminations]

We;ll see in the upcoming election its a while away... but i think you maybe wrong Herman, there seems to be a growing dissatisfaction in venz ..

[Tzonteyotl]

The previous elections you mention were about a constitutional change that didn't just change the term limits, but also plenty of other articles. In that case, Chavez lost not because more people voted against him, but because many of his own party militants didn't vote at all. Abstention is what defeated Chavez last time (and by a very very narrow margin). There are many reasons why this happened, but you can be certain that it's not that "he's lost support".

Abstention? Why on earth would "many of his own party militants" abstain? Perhaps he didn't lose due to majority vote against him. But if what you say is true, that's not all that much more optimistic that his own supporters sat out such an important election. Either way, can you provide any links regarding the elections in question?


He didn't really suffer losses. The PSUV gained more municipalities than before, but lost two states. However the PSUV continues to hold the majority of the states (and the popular vote).The articles I've read lately have said that the PSUV still controls the most important bodies of government which the opposition is worried about. Nonetheless, I found it interesting (if true) that Chavez has lost some support among the poor in Caracas. To me, losing any ground with the poor isn't a good thing. But, perhaps the other gains you say occurred can make up for that.


I can see that in general you're not very well informed or you've been reading anti-chavez sources.Admittedly, most of my Venezuela news has been coming from the New York Times lately, and PBS.


Why isn't it agreeable? Indefinite reelection is a very democratic idea. Why shouldn't someone be able to choose the same representative as many times as you want? By limiting terms, you limit the choice of the people. Besides many other countries have indefinite reelections. Just take Mitterrand for example. He's been president of France for I think it was around 14 years.Something about someone wanting to have power his/her whole life just doesn't suit me. A little too arrogant and mischievous for my tastes, but that's just a personal thing. If they want it and vote for its passage, I'm not gonna stop it (not that I could, of course:lol:).

[alhop10]

If Chavez got his constitutional reform through it he would only be bringing Venezuela alongside the practice of most of western europe. True, he's not a socialist in any way most of us would recognise, and there needs to be a venezualan revolution, obviously, but he's way fucking better than anything we've got in power in the UK.

[Charles Xavier]

Viva Chavez 2025!!!!

[Killfacer]

Viva Chavez 2025!!!!

You mean: Viva Chaves 2890. Cybernetic warrior overlord Chavez.

[Die Neue Zeit]

There's one more day to go before the referendum. It's going to be tight.

[el_chavista]

I wouldn't underestimate a mass party like the PSUV. It's an electoral machine that's been idling since the regional elections on last nov23.

My "forecast": Chavez's "Sí" 5 million - rightwing "No" 4 million.

[bailey_187]

I wouldn't underestimate a mass party like the PSUV. It's an electoral machine that's been idling since the regional elections on last nov23.

My "forecast": Chavez's "Sí" 5 million - rightwing "No" 4 million.

What time will the results be coming in?

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Well, I wasn't speaking about communism, but about trying to get this particular change (indefinite reelection) passed. I mean, he was just barely defeated on this a year ago and he's already trying again? If the majority voted it down that recently, what makes him think they've changed their minds this quickly? And if the local/regional losses his supporters suffered recently in elections are to be taken as another indicator, what's the logic behind this new attempt to pass the change?

Regardless of whether he succeeds or not and who's in office as president, the working class should always struggle for socialism. I'm not too keen on Chavez any more. The working class can move forward without him (and would have to anyway as no one's immortal).

Well, in all fairness the previous amendment type included something like a hundred different changes. If this one passed, it would be much narrower of a topic.

[jake williams]

Abstention? Why on earth would "many of his own party militants" abstain? Perhaps he didn't lose due to majority vote against him.
There were active disinformation campaigns to try to stop Chavez voters. The opposition is very well funded (read: USAID, CIA, etc.) and totally unscrupulous.

Whatever you think of Chavez himself, he's certainly a progressive force, especially relative to most of the opposition. And as has been mentioned, all sorts of "Western democracies" don't have term limits.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Despite some ultra-left musings in favour of abstention (such as the ICC's), the "Yes" vote won:

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/090216/world/international_us_venezuela_chavez

[Yazman]

Why are people so paranoid about indefinite reelection? There are plenty of countries that have it. Australia has it. Term limits are stupid as all fuck.

[Die Neue Zeit]

In a system of demarchy (random sortition replacing elections of persons), term limits would indeed be ideal. :)

However, since we are dealing with an electoral framework (the aristocratic method of selection of individuals), I see no problems with having no term limits.

[Guerrilla22]

Well it appears the referendum passed. Chavez supporters have reportedly been wilding out all over the country. I can't wait for the US media to spin this as Chavez "consolidating power" and "tightening his iron grasp of Venezuela." :closedeyes:

[Wanted Man]

Good stuff:


Why The Venezuelan Amendment Campaign Is So Important

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/modules/print/icons/mail_icon.gif (http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/printmail/4196) http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/modules/print/icons/print_icon.gif (http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/print/4196) February 11th 2009, by Diana Raby
Next Sunday, 15 February, Venezuelans vote in a referendum on a proposed Constitutional Amendment that will allow for any candidate to stand for the Presidency, or indeed for any elective office, without restriction on the number of terms they may serve. Only the people's vote will decide whether they are elected and how many terms they serve.

In other words, if President Hugo Chávez, who is already serving his second term under the provisions of the 1999 Constitution, wishes to stand for a third term, he may do so. Equally, the opposition mayor of Greater Caracas, Antonio Ledezma, may stand three or four times if he wants (and if the people vote for him).

This is no different from the practice here in the UK, where Margaret Thatcher won four elections for the Conservatives (although we did not have the privilege of voting for her personally as Prime Minister), and Tony Blair won three times for Labour. It is of course different from the situation in the US, where some sixty years ago a limit of two consecutive terms was introduced for the presidency.

But why is there such a fuss about this proposal in Venezuela? Once again, as so many times before in the last ten years, the media are full of stories about Chávez' dictatorial tendencies or being President for life, and the opposition goes on about "the principle of alternation [alternabilidad]". But they know perfectly well that Chávez will only be re-elected in 2012 if the people vote for him in elections which have been certified time and again as impeccably free and honest, and that the possibility of mid-term recall still exists and will be maintained. And alternation, as the experience here in the UK and in so many "advanced democracies" shows, is all too often a neat device to prevent any real change while giving the appearance of choice with a superficial change of personnel.

The real problem is – and everyone knows this, they just don't want to discuss it – that Chávez represents the continuation of the Bolivarian project, a popular revolution which has transformed Venezuela and inspired similar transformations in several other Latin American countries. And that against Chávez, the opposition will again lose, and lose badly as they have done before.

Hugo Chávez is the people's candidate, and for the foreseeable future will continue to be. No, he is not a dictator, and of course he is not infallible. He himself has often recognised his failings. But he has demonstrated time and again his commitment to serving the people – the poor, the workers, the excluded – of Venezuela, and they have reaffirmed their confidence in him. If he were to go – and thank God, this is not the case – it is to be hoped that the people would find, indeed create (as they did with Chávez) another leader or leaders. But why substitute a leader of proven ability, indeed one who has grown in stature and maturity with every new stage of the revolutionary process?

In these circumstances, those who talk about "Chavismo without Chávez" are either naïve or ill-intentioned. What is at stake in Venezuela is a fundamental clash of class interests, although one which is being played out as far as possible in peaceful and democratic fashion. The campaign for the Constitutional Amendment to abolish term limits is simply the latest battleground in this contest, and as such, a victory for the "Yes" camp on Sunday 15 February is crucial – and let's hope the victory is a decisive one!

Tags: Term Limit Referendum (http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/tag/term-limit-referendum)

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/4196


More Hypocrisy From the New York Times
Venezuela's Term Limits

By GEORGE CICARRIELLO-MAHER

The story is a familiar one. Amid the collapse of two-party dominance, an independent leader rises to power. In an effort to calm frazzled nerves, he insists he will respect the rule of law and the will of the voters by maintaining the peaceful transfer of power at the end of his legally-established term. “There’s no organization that I know that would put somebody in charge for a long period of time,” he insists, “you always want turnover and change.” But in power for nearly eight years, having established a fervent support base and concentrated power in his own hands, our fair leader no longer feels the need to comfort his opponents, and his discourse radicalizes as his view of term limits shifts. Dismissing his opposition as rigid “dogmatists,” the leader now insists on the need to change course flexibly to meet circumstances. True and sustained change, he argues, requires the continuity of his successful leadership.

Unsurprisingly, his opponents fiercely oppose the move as dangerous: “It shows a fundamental contempt for the democratic process,” one maintains, “and it’s changing the rules to benefit yourself directly.” Ironically, it was this very same argument that the leader himself had made five years prior, when vetoing efforts to loosen term limits. Not without controversy, then, was the decision of the region’s largest newspaper--aligned politically with the leader--to wade into these conflictive waters with the following declaration:

The bedrock of… democracy is the voters’ right to choose. Though well intentioned… the term limits law severely limits that right, which is why this page has opposed term limits from the outset… Term limits are seductive, promising relief from mediocre, self-perpetuating incumbents and gridlocked legislatures. They are also profoundly undemocratic, arbitrarily denying voters the ability to choose between good politicians and bad.

While the paper had previously insisted that any change to term limits come through popular referendum, it now reverses this view, taking the position that for reasons of political expediency, a simple vote in the small executive council will do.

Of which banana republic are we speaking, where thinly-veiled authoritarianism threatens democratic checks and balances, and weak-kneed apologists parade about under the banner of free press? Why, the place is none other than New York City, the leader none other than Michael Bloomberg, and the newspaper none other than the New York Times. Patience: we haven’t even gotten to the hypocrisy part yet.

“Hugo Chávez’s Choice”

Term limits have a long history, dating from ancient Greece and Rome and Aristotle’s concept of “ruling and being ruled in turn.” With a trademark selectiveness (see, e.g., Senate Report 104-158), those upholding the sanctity of this standard in U.S. politics do so with no mention of the other elements Aristotle would associate with democracy, most obviously the filling of all positions by random lot (except for generals, or strategoi, who in an intriguing inversion of our own system, were to be elected). And nor is there much mention of those countries in the wealthy world which see no need for such limitations, or those celebrated leaders who have accomplished purportedly historic tasks without such fetters: Tony Blair served for 10 years, Margaret Thatcher for 11. Franklin D. Roosevelt, consistently ranked among the greatest U.S. presidents served for 12, and would have served for 16 had he survived. And this is not to mention the unlimited terms available to U.S. senators and representatives.

In fact, the North American obsession with term limits as political cure-all is a relatively recent phenomenon, dating largely to the 1990s and the cynical populism of House Republicans, who raised the mantle of term limits as a silver bullet against corruption. Some even seem impervious to this fervent faith: most notably, Rep. Jose Serrano (D-N.Y.), who recently proposed lifting presidential term limits in the aftermath of Barack Obama’s election. Obama himself would add, “I’m generally not in favor of term limits… I believe in one form of term limits. They’re called elections.” Given all this, then, we might expect Obama, but also Mayor Bloomberg and the editorial team at the New York Times to wholeheartedly embrace efforts at rolling back such undemocratic limitations worldwide. And who knows? Were it possible to exclude the most popular democratically-elected leader in the Western Hemisphere, they might.

But for anyone familiar with past Times coverage of Venezuela (including the paper’s now-notorious celebration of Chávez’s 2002 overthrow at the hands of an authoritarian group of right-wing leaders), it would be of little surprise to know that the paper breathed a sigh of relief when “Venezuela’s voters wisely blocked his plans for indefinite re-election” in 2007. And facing what the Times incorrectly considered a defeat in recent local elections, the paper’s tone turned simultaneously celebratory and stern:

The lesson from Sunday’s defeat — less than a year after voters rejected his plan for a power-grabbing constitutional reform — is that Venezuelans don’t want to give Mr. Chávez even more power. He should heed the message… He should abandon for good his push to change the Constitution so that he can run for a third term in 2013. Venezuelans deserve the chance to choose a competent government.

But this is where it gets interesting for the elephant in the room named Colombia.

“Mr. Uribe’s Choice”

Now the New York Times has never been bashful about the crush it has on this tale of hypocrisy’s third character: the narco-terrorist president of Colombia, Alvaro Uribe. Uribe is currently engaged in an effort to change the Colombian constitution for a second time to allow his own re-election, doing so not through popular plebiscite, but rather indirect legislative vote. But not that you would know this from reading the press: a recent report by FAIR shows that press coverage of Colombia and Venezuela represent an inverted mirror-image of reality, exaggerating abuses in the latter while downplaying them in the former and condemning re-election in one while ignoring it in the other. And so one might expect the paper to champion the diminutive Colombian strongman’s own efforts to eliminate term limits for himself, doing so, as in New York, through indirect vote in the legislature rather than the popular referendum Chávez has pursued. But rather than take the more openly-hypocritical route of supporting Uribe’s bid for unlimited re-election, the Times has elected a more subtle, if no less hypocritical path.

In parallel editorials published three months apart, we needn’t get past the titles to realize where we’re headed: whereas Chávez is diminutively called by his first name, Uribe is “Mr.” But both men have a choice, according to the Times. For Chávez, who has wrought unprecedented destruction, the broadsheet recommends quitting while he’s ahead, and before the people lose patience with his childish, anti-democratic antics. For Uribe, on the other hand, the suggestion is the same, but for very different reasons: to assume his place in the Pantheon of great Latin Americans “the leader who brought Colombia back from the brink and onto a path toward peace.” Chávez must leave because he is evil; Uribe should choose to do so because he is great.

So let us review, briefly, the record of this harbinger of peace that is “Mr. Uribe”:

* According to a declassified 1991 report by the U.S. government’s Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), Uribe was described as “a close personal friend of Pablo Escobar… dedicated to collaboration with the Medellín cartel a high government levels.”
* His legitimacy is questionable, since in a country as divided as Colombia only 27% of the population voted in the last presidential election (compared to 43% in neighboring Venezuela).
* And even among that limited electorate, the “Para-Politics” scandal made clear that Uribe’s election depended on the violent duress provided by paramilitaries who have admitted to forcing local populations to vote for Uribe. By mid-2008, 62 members of Congress, mostly Uribe allies,were considered official suspects.
* And from the Times glowing review: “After the Supreme Court started investigating dozens of his Congressional allies for alleged ties to right-wing paramilitaries, he accused the court of being politically motivated. He has now proposed reforms that would remove the investigation of members of Congress from the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction.”
* All of this is not even to mention the accusations of bribery in Uribe’s prior effort to change the constitution, or his role in the recent pyramid investment scheme controversy.

But if Colombia’s friendliness toward U.S. interests is enough to explain the inverse correlation between Uribe’s reality and Times coverage, this political alliance falls short of the paper’s endorsing his unlimited re-election, as their political principles might suggest. It seems as though the racist assumptions of who is capable of self-government trumps principles, and for the New York Times institutional flexibility is to be determined more by the division of First versus Third world than the simple Manichaeism of friends versus enemies.

Chávez Poised to Win

If the western and opposition media is to be believed, the idea of lifting term limits in Venezuela has already been defeated in an election, namely the constitutional reform effort that was narrowly voted down in December of 2007. But while the U.S press focused on unlimited re-election as the cause of the loss for the Chavistas in that election, this is simply incorrect. Let this be clear: were the 2007 reform solely about Chávez’s re-election, it would have passed. This much is clear to those on the ground, and attested to by both Chavista and opposition strategy during the election, as the Chavistas sought to associate the reform with Chávez, and the opposition sought to oppose it without seeming “anti-Chavista.” Rather than the question of re-election, what sunk the 2007 constitutional reform effort was its complexity (it contained 69 provisions), poor campaigns (by conservative Chavistas who felt threatened by the changes), clear opposition to some elements (i.e. education, etc), and above all a failure to mobilize or even interest the Chavista base.

As Sunday’s referendum vote approaches, all indications are that it enjoys the support of a clear, and increasing, majority of the Venezuelan electorate. This fact is borne out in recent polling data released in Venezuela by polling firm GIS XXI. According to the polling firm, 52.9% of voters currently support the effort to eliminate presidential term limits, with only 40% opposing. Moreover, when faced with the statement, “If the people support him, President Chávez has the right to run in the elections as many times as he likes,” nearly 70% expressed agreement, and almost 75% characterize the President’s leadership as either “very good” or “good.” The more independent Venezuelan Data Analysis Institute (IVAD) has, surprisingly, given a more significant margin of victory to the “yes” vote, which it estimates at 54.6% versus 45.5% against (the margin separating the two having increased a full 3 points in recent weeks).

Even Datanálisis, a notoriously anti-Chavista polling firm whose director once insisted to the Los Angeles Times that Chávez needs to be assassinated, currently gives the referendum a margin of more than 3 points. While such a margin may seem unsurprising to anyone familiar with the reigning political atmosphere in Venezuela, it comes as somewhat of a surprise from Datanálisis, which just in December had the referendum losing by nearly 15 percentage points. And another opposition pollster, Hinterlaces, shows the election to be a dead heat, but does so only on the basis of misleading, urban-only polling, knowing full well that Chávez regularly outpolls the opposition by more than 20% in rural areas.

But if there is one thing that Chavista and anti-Chavista pollers share, it’s a significant shift in support for the referendum in recent weeks. To fully grasp why this has happened, we need to look more closely at the political dynamics underlying the process, and how these dynamics have come to bear on the impending election.

“Military Targets”

As is by now customary in Venezuelan electoral seasons, the dialectic of conflict and polarization has kicked in full-force, deepening contradictions and clarifying the degree of support that either side can claim. This is a risky business for both sides: heightened tension could well chase away moderate Chavistas, but it can equally well damage the opposition, and if the recent shifts in polling data are of any indication, the effect has been more to Chávez’s benefit. But this was as much through opposition bungling as through Chavista stage-management.

In late January, anti-Chávez students led a march against the referendum effort through the streets of Caracas. While the mayor of western Caracas rejected their request to march on the Supreme Court, since a pro-Chávez march would be gathering there and confrontations would be inevitable, the recently-elected metropolitan mayor Antonio Ledezma, a ferocious anti-Chavista, granted a permit. At points, students hurled bottles and rocks at the police, who responded with tear gas (a scenario repeated in various other cities). When a large truck that had been leading the march was detained by police, however, it was found to contain 100 Molotov cocktails, some fully prepared and ready for deployment.

This certainly won the opposition students no sympathy from undecided voters, the so-called “ni-ni’s” (the neither-nors), notwithstanding their efforts (against all video proof) to claim that the Molotovs had been planted. But such a claim would be readily accepted by their far-right base, and seemingly impermeable to hypocrisy, the opposition students continued their efforts to cultivate their image as victims of a tyrannical government by running a half-page ad in El Nacional showing the fierce repression of students by police, under the slogan: “Punish the Criminals, Don’t Repress Our Children – No to Indefinite Re-election.” The problem? The picture was not even taken in Venezuela, but rather at a 2003 march in Greece. Much like the whisky these opposition students sip at luxurious bars on the weekends, it seems even their own repression is in short supply domestically and must be imported.

But it hasn’t been only the opposition who have sought to heighten tensions in the run-up to the February 15th referendum vote. Radical Chavistas, perhaps knowing that the President has tended to gain more than he has lost as a result of conflicts with the opposition, have also sought to raise the electoral temperature. The revolutionary La Piedrita Collective, whose members told me in a recent interview that such heightened tensions have a purgative effect on the revolutionary process, have recently taken the fight to the opposition, declaring various opposition parties, far-right television station Globovisión, and the Vatican offices to be “military targets,” carrying out tear gas attacks against them. But this was merely a warning, according to an interview given by La Piedrita founder Valentín Santana to the newspaper Quinto Día: up to this point, Santana insists, the violence has come from the opposition, and La Piedrita’s targets are precisely those who “call for war, for hatred, for magnicide.” Repeating what he told me earlier, Santana insists that Chávez is the only thing preventing open conflict in Venezuela, and if the referendum doesn’t pass, “we’re headed for a war.”

Initially, the government’s position was subtle. Without endorsing La Piedrita’s actions, Interior and Justice minister Tarek El-Aissami insisted on shifting the discourse of violence back toward those more deserving of it: the students caught with Molotovs and the opposition press that has been calling for violence against a legitimate government for nearly a decade. However, after Santana’s interview in Quinto Día, in which the leader tacitly threatened the lives of opposition leaders, including media magnate Marcel Granier, Chávez himself stepped into the fray, calling for Santana’s arrest. But the effort to appear presidential by opposing the threats issued by his supporters is a double-edged sword, one which threatens to alienate Chávez’s most fiercely devoted base, and it’s unclear if arresting Santana (if this is even possible given the de facto autonomy enjoyed by La Piedrita, would be at all desirable from a political standpoint).

Puerto Rican Vacation

But in this case the strategy of tension encouraged by both far left and far right would have produced little more than a stalemate on its own, with radicalized bases contemplating one another across a chasm populated by undecideds, were it not for the latest in blunders by the anti-Chavista opposition. Returning from a trip to Puerto Rico, representatives of all major opposition parties alongside Globovisión director Federico Ravell were surprised at the airport by a young reporter, Pedro Carvajalino, from the government-sponsored youth-oriented Ávila-TV. When the journalist accused the opposition leaders of meeting with representatives of the United States’ government, and specifically deemed Ravell a palangrista, or a corrupt journalist, the situation became tense, with Ravell spouting offensive slurs and threatening to punch Carvajalino. Luckily for the Chavistas, Ravell displayed a surprising lack of media saavy for a media magnate, and the whole thing played out in front of the cameras.

Things were not going well for the opposition’s electoral strategy. Carvajalino, it seems, had been leaked an email in which Ravell discusses with opposition political leaders a meeting with U.S. embassy officials in Puerto Rico, insinuating that some $3 million would be provided toward defeating the February 15th referendum. On this basis, those involved were subpoenaed to testify before the state Attorney General, where Ravell insisted that, rather than meeting with U.S. government officials, they had instead met with Chilean strategists involved in the unseating of former dictator Augusto Pinochet. As to why a meeting with Chileans took place on
U.S. soil, Ravell provided the rather unconvincing answer that the Chileans, who had braved the Pinochet dictatorship, were deterred from entering Venezuela by the high crime rates.

This is ertainly not the press the Venezuelan opposition needed in the run-up to next week’s vote. But is it surprising? Not particularly, for those who have unashamedly eaten out of the poisoned hand of the North far too many times without learning their lesson. While financial support from the U.S. is probably tempting for a discredited opposition utterly lacking any mass base, it is still worth wondering if the money is worth the risk it entails when the media hypocrisy is free.

George Ciccariello-Maher is a Ph.D. candidate in political theory at UC Berkeley. He is currently writing a people’s history of the Bolivarian Revolution entitled We Created Him, and can be reached at gjcm(at)berkeley.edu.

http://counterpunch.org/maher02132009.html

[Wanted Man]

In short, you can not only read, but actually participate in the process: your input is needed, because, as some of us have found to our chagrin, there are powerful Stalinist-fascist forces struggling to turn the PSUV, and hence Venezuela, from the path of socialist democracy...
And who might these mythical Stalinist-fascists be? :rolleyes:

[Lynx]

Term limits are not necessary. However, removing "leaders" who have outlived their usefulness, is.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I am indeed in favour of the electoral symbolism associated with this referendum victory, but I do think Mr. Chavez may have already outlived his usefulness since his referendum defeat in 2007.

[Kassad]

Tonight at 9:35 pm in Caracas, the National Electoral Commission (CNE) announced that the amendment lifting the two-term limit for elected officials, won, by a popular vote of 54.36% to 45.63%. With the CNE’s first official announcement by director Tibisay Lucena, 94% of the votes had been counted from the 67.05% of eligible voters who turned out at the polls.

The referendum is a major victory for the revolutionary forces who back President Hugo Chávez, as it gives him the right to run for president for a third term in 2012. It also lifts the two-term restriction for all levels, from municipal to national offices.

By today’s vote, articles 160, 162, 174, 192 and 230 of the Bolivarian Constitution were amended to allow the voters to approve of their representatives for unlimited times.

The rightwing opposition to the revolutionary process, financed by the U.S. government, will undoubtedly protest the outcome, but the people have spoken.



http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=11395&news_iv_ctrl=1261

As far as I'm concerned, the potential failure of Chavez and his decline in popularity that was displayed in the earlier referendum has been completely dismantled and refuted by this recent show of public support. Hugo Chavez is rallying a class conscious workers movement in Venezuela that is an affront to American imperialism. This massive display of public support shows that the socialist reforms in Venezuela still have powerful support from the working masses.

[Charles Xavier]

Good news!

[Yazman]

His popularity must have increased recently.. because from what I can remember, term limit removal was one of the main reasons the constitutional referendum was defeated.

[rararoadrunner]

And who might these mythical Stalinist-fascists be? :rolleyes:

Really depends on who, and where, you ask:

1) On Aporrealos.com foro: I'm not gonna do your homework for you, you'll have to join the foro and figger it out for yourself!

2) On the Venezuelan political scene: let me forward an article from Venezuelanalysis.com translating President Chavez' remarks:

Venezuela’s Chávez Denounces Violence By Militant Government Supporters

February 9th 2009, by James Suggett - Venezuelanalysis.com
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/files/imagecache/medium/files/images/2009/02/Chavez_Petare_ABN-07-02-2009.jpg
Mérida, February 9th 2009 (Venezuelanalysis.com)-- During a television broadcast on Saturday, Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez strongly denounced the violent actions of radical groups who identify themselves as supporters of the Bolivarian Revolution led by Chávez. Chávez called on Attorney General Luisa Ortega Díaz and state security forces to investigate and arrest those who are responsible for the violence.

“I cannot conceive that there are small groups out there that claim to be revolutionaries but take actions that are really against the revolution,” said Chávez to a cheering audience of supporters in the low-income Caracas neighborhood of Petare. “The Venezuelan people want peace.”

Chávez called for the arrest of Valentín Santana, the leader of the Caracas-based group La Piedrita. In a recent interview with the opposition newspaper Quinto Día, Santana said La Piedrita was responsible for a series of recent tear gas attacks against the facilities of political parties, news media, the Catholic Church, and other groups affiliated with the anti-Chávez opposition.

Santana also threatened to kill Marcel Granier, the president of the television news station RCTV, which supported the 2002 coup against Chávez by broadcasting the coup leaders’ propaganda during the two-day event.

“I called the Attorney General… That person should be detained,” Chávez said of Santana. “We cannot allow La Piedrita to become a group of terrorists who go around threatening people.”

State security forces had attempted to detain Santana on a previous occasion, but La Piedrita confronted the forces with arms, impeding the arrest. This time, Chávez said, “I am capable of coming after them myself… Here, there will be peace, not anarchy.”

Chávez also questioned whether La Piedrita’s actions are really meant to defend his government, as the group claims. “I have a firm suspicion that they are counter-revolutionary agents,” said Chávez. “Ask yourselves who benefits from [Santana’s] declarations. The counter-revolution!”

In a communiqué Sunday, La Piedrita rejected Chávez’s statements, declaring, “No court will have the moral authority to judge a revolutionary. To criminalize us is a failed strategy.” La Piedrita also said it had been the victim of violent acts of intimidation Sunday morning by Colombian paramilitaries who operate in Caracas.

On Monday, Chávez compared Santana’s death threats with those made by prominent opposition talk show host Rafael Poleo against Chávez last year. “The extreme Left and the extreme Right are connected,” said the president, adding that both Santana and Poleo should be in jail. “The revolutionary acts with love for human beings and for life, not hate.”

The president of the Interior Policy Commission of the Venezuelan National Assembly (AN), Tulio Jiménez, announced Monday that the commission will investigate the crimes in which La Piedrita and other militant groups are implicated. “These groups should think about how their positions do harm to the [revolutionary] process and the government,” said Jiménez.

Speaking for the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) on Monday afternoon, party leader Vanessa Davies stated, “We endorse President Chávez’s statements about La Piedrita. We think the methods that this organization wants to employ during this political juncture in our country are not revolutionary.”

Chávez, during his announcements Saturday, also criticized Lina Ron, the leader of another militant group called Venezuelan Popular Unity that has participated in attacks on opposition groups. Chávez said he has spoken with Ron many times, and that “she is a good fellow revolutionary.” However, “if she continues like this, she’ll end up alone… if someone gets involved in a revolutionary movement they must be disciplined,” said Chávez.

Chávez accused Ron of helping La Piedrita obtain weapons. “The weapons of this revolution are in the Armed Forces of Venezuela, of which I am the commander in chief, and they cannot be in the hands of anybody else,” said the president.

Finally, the president gave orders to the armed forces not to tolerate the presence of guerrilla groups such as the Bolivarian Liberation Forces, which identifies as pro-Chávez and operates near the border of Colombia.

“Whether they’re guerrillas, pro-guerrillas, anti-guerrillas, paramilitaries, or drug traffickers, they cannot be tolerated!” the president exclaimed. “They kidnap people, kill people, and they have fired shots at our army. They are doing a lot of harm to the revolution.”

Chávez’s statements came one week before a national referendum on a constitutional amendment that will allow Venezuelans to re-elect the president and all other elected officials more than once if it is approved by voters February 15th.


Source URL (retrieved on Feb 18 2009 - 07:01): http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/4187
License: Published under a Creative Commons license (by-nc-nd). See creativecommons.org for more information.

[VukBZ2005]

His popularity must have increased recently.. because from what I can remember, term limit removal was one of the main reasons the constitutional referendum was defeated.

No, it was not the term limits issue that caused the Constitutional Referendum to be defeated; rather, it was (mostly) due to these two factors:

1.) Intentional disinformation from the Capitalist-class dominated Venezuelan media, which helped to cause confusion amongst the majority of those that usually vote for Chavez and Chavez-oriented conceptions or policies;

2.) A horribly conducted campaign by those who are or claimed to be Pro-Chavez, which did not help to resolve the problem of confusion that was developing as a result of the intentional disinformation that was being produced by the Capitalist-class dominated Venezuelan media.