Conghaileach
23rd December 2002, 21:04
http://www.vheadline.com/0212/14342.asp
Venezuela:
burning down the house
to rid it of its termites
Council on Hemispheric Affairs
1730 M St. NW, Suite 1010
Washington DC 20036
(202) 216-9261
[email protected]
Memorandum to the Press
For Immediate Release December 20, 2002
Venezuela:
Burning Down the House to Rid It of Its Termites
* The country's anti-Chavez forces are not their nation's
loyal opposition, but a group of anti-constitutional
zealots - many of them with tarnished backgrounds and
questionable credentials - who are prepared to risk the
destruction of the country's constitutional system in order
to eliminate a government they happen to despise.
* Venezuela's media doesn't report events, it helps to
create them, with its point of view not limited to the
editorial page, but featured in every column of their
papers, in a shocking abnegation of professional behavior.
* The opposition is aiming for the jugular no matter how
damaging its tactics may be to the country's democratic
fabric and its economic stability.
The end could be near, with the nation's putative democrats
plunging a stake through Democracy's heart
A middle class historically better known for its penchant
for venality than its commitment to democracy, and which for
decades supported the corruptocracies alternately fielded by
unscrupulous Social Democratic and Christian Democratic
leaders, is now staging its fourth general strike, aimed not
so much at reforming the government or manifesting a point
of view, but rather at bringing it down, as it did for two
days last April.
Its latest tactic is to quote a provision in the
constitution that, in fact, was authored by the Chavez
government, allowing Venezuelans not to "recognize any
regime, law or authority that contradicts democratic values,
principles and guarantees or impairs human rights."
But undermining the opposition's case is a reality in which
there have been no human rights violations under Chavez and
that democratic principles have not been "impaired" by the
authorities. Rather, it has been the opposition's
end-justifies-the-means philosophy and its shifting and
soaring appeals and unreasonable, if not totalitarian
demands that the military carry out its "mission" by
overthrowing Chavez, that is threatening the country's
democratic fundamentals.
What's at stake
Unquestionably Chavez has been a controversial, contentious
and confrontational figure, but he has adhered far more
closely to the democratic rules of the game than has the
opposition, and his many failings are more a matter of style
than substance. If he is overthrown in the next few days --
which is not unlikely -- the tragedy will be far greater for
Venezuela's present and future prospects than for Chavez.
For the poor and genuinely patriotic, Chavez will be
remembered as a leader who fought in their name -- not
always wisely, but with the best of intentions -- and not
for personal gain. For the opposition, its anti-Chavez
battering ram has gained its thrust from specious and
mendacious arguments, meretricious and self-serving goals,
as well as through a deceptive interpretation of the
constitution and an entirely fraudulent range of
justifications for its basically self-serving actions.
A close investigation of the stand-off between Chavez and
the opposition would find that it is the latter that is
mainly blocking the negotiations being sponsored by the OAS.
It is also the opposition that is taunting the military to
stage a mutiny.
It is the opposition, through its near-total control of the
Venezuelan media, that is issuing patently false information
and a chronically inflammatory and skewed interpretation of
events. It is the opposition and not the government that is
jeopardizing the lives of Venezuelans by staging frenzied
confrontations with pro-government cadres, and it is the
opposition that is promoting class warfare and hatred
between the poor and rich.
The story behind the story
What the opposition mainly fears is the passage of
legislation that includes putting into effect a land reform
program in which fallow or excessive holdings could be
transferred to small farmers, as well as the enactment of
other pieces of reform-minded measures. As of now, 41% of
the arable land is controlled by less than 5% of the
population and, according to the UN's Economic Commission
for Latin America, Venezuela has one of the highest
concentrations of wealth levels in the region. Its
population demographics establish that of the nation's more
than 23 million people, 80% of them are poor or live below
the poverty line. It is from this stratum that Chavez
obtains his support, and it is this segment of the nation
that will not easily give up on a number of modest reforms
enacted under his presidency, that have brought their
children milk and school lunches, the availability of
micro-credits and use of the military for long overdue civic
action construction programs in urban centers and the
countryside.
The opposition claims that Chavez consorts with terrorists,
meaning that the Venezuelan president (like all of his
predecessors) has met with his colleagues from other
OPEC-member nations to discuss oil cartel pricing and
production norms.
The opposition reiterates the existence of some kind of
Chavez-Castro cabal, but never presents any evidence, nor
specifies charges, or even comes forth with a credible
argument to buttress its pure propaganda.
The opposition talks about the corruption surrounding
Chavez, with such charges being made by some of the most
controversial and tainted figures in the Venezuelan business
community, trade union movement, and the media, none of whom
ever mentioned that most of the nation's stultifying
bureaucracy was hired by pre-Chavez governments, with the
majority of such personnel now siding with the opposition.
If there is to be a solution to Venezuela's present crisis
of governance, it must come as a result of conformity with
the constitution, not one imposed from the street or as a
result of armed confrontation. There are any number of
scenarios that pose a grave danger to Venezuela's organic
institutions, but a solution that doesn't follow a
constitutional script undermines its prospect for peace and
stability and the continuance of the nation's traditional
political civility.
There may be a way out for Venezuelans of goodwill.
The opposition could wait until next August when the very
constitution that the opposition touts for its "impairment"
of democracy clause, also provides for a process that would
allow for the staging of a referendum midway through a
presidential term on whether Chavez should be allowed to
finish his incumbency. The National Assembly could go
through a process that would call for earlier presidential
elections than 2006, or even prior to next August. An
opposition victory could and must come in a lawful manner
and not through political extortion or through manipulating
its minority but powerful financial status and plenary
access to a largely fixed media.
Settling matters by threatening to scorch the country's
economic and political institutions reminds one of what
happened in Chile in 1973. There, an imprudent Christian
Democratic party used the military to rid the country of
President Allende, only to bring on not its own expected
rule, but 17 years of brutal Pinochet repression.
This analysis was prepared by Larry Birns, Director of the
Council on Hemispheric Affairs.
The Council on Hemispheric Affairs, founded in 1975, is an
independent, non-profit, non-partisan, tax-exempt research
and information organization. It has been described on the
Senate floor as being "one of the nation's most respected
bodies of scholars and policy makers."
For more information, please see COHA's web page at
www.coha.org; or contact our Washington offices by phone
(202) 216-9261, fax (202) 223-6035, or email [email protected]
Venezuela:
burning down the house
to rid it of its termites
Council on Hemispheric Affairs
1730 M St. NW, Suite 1010
Washington DC 20036
(202) 216-9261
[email protected]
Memorandum to the Press
For Immediate Release December 20, 2002
Venezuela:
Burning Down the House to Rid It of Its Termites
* The country's anti-Chavez forces are not their nation's
loyal opposition, but a group of anti-constitutional
zealots - many of them with tarnished backgrounds and
questionable credentials - who are prepared to risk the
destruction of the country's constitutional system in order
to eliminate a government they happen to despise.
* Venezuela's media doesn't report events, it helps to
create them, with its point of view not limited to the
editorial page, but featured in every column of their
papers, in a shocking abnegation of professional behavior.
* The opposition is aiming for the jugular no matter how
damaging its tactics may be to the country's democratic
fabric and its economic stability.
The end could be near, with the nation's putative democrats
plunging a stake through Democracy's heart
A middle class historically better known for its penchant
for venality than its commitment to democracy, and which for
decades supported the corruptocracies alternately fielded by
unscrupulous Social Democratic and Christian Democratic
leaders, is now staging its fourth general strike, aimed not
so much at reforming the government or manifesting a point
of view, but rather at bringing it down, as it did for two
days last April.
Its latest tactic is to quote a provision in the
constitution that, in fact, was authored by the Chavez
government, allowing Venezuelans not to "recognize any
regime, law or authority that contradicts democratic values,
principles and guarantees or impairs human rights."
But undermining the opposition's case is a reality in which
there have been no human rights violations under Chavez and
that democratic principles have not been "impaired" by the
authorities. Rather, it has been the opposition's
end-justifies-the-means philosophy and its shifting and
soaring appeals and unreasonable, if not totalitarian
demands that the military carry out its "mission" by
overthrowing Chavez, that is threatening the country's
democratic fundamentals.
What's at stake
Unquestionably Chavez has been a controversial, contentious
and confrontational figure, but he has adhered far more
closely to the democratic rules of the game than has the
opposition, and his many failings are more a matter of style
than substance. If he is overthrown in the next few days --
which is not unlikely -- the tragedy will be far greater for
Venezuela's present and future prospects than for Chavez.
For the poor and genuinely patriotic, Chavez will be
remembered as a leader who fought in their name -- not
always wisely, but with the best of intentions -- and not
for personal gain. For the opposition, its anti-Chavez
battering ram has gained its thrust from specious and
mendacious arguments, meretricious and self-serving goals,
as well as through a deceptive interpretation of the
constitution and an entirely fraudulent range of
justifications for its basically self-serving actions.
A close investigation of the stand-off between Chavez and
the opposition would find that it is the latter that is
mainly blocking the negotiations being sponsored by the OAS.
It is also the opposition that is taunting the military to
stage a mutiny.
It is the opposition, through its near-total control of the
Venezuelan media, that is issuing patently false information
and a chronically inflammatory and skewed interpretation of
events. It is the opposition and not the government that is
jeopardizing the lives of Venezuelans by staging frenzied
confrontations with pro-government cadres, and it is the
opposition that is promoting class warfare and hatred
between the poor and rich.
The story behind the story
What the opposition mainly fears is the passage of
legislation that includes putting into effect a land reform
program in which fallow or excessive holdings could be
transferred to small farmers, as well as the enactment of
other pieces of reform-minded measures. As of now, 41% of
the arable land is controlled by less than 5% of the
population and, according to the UN's Economic Commission
for Latin America, Venezuela has one of the highest
concentrations of wealth levels in the region. Its
population demographics establish that of the nation's more
than 23 million people, 80% of them are poor or live below
the poverty line. It is from this stratum that Chavez
obtains his support, and it is this segment of the nation
that will not easily give up on a number of modest reforms
enacted under his presidency, that have brought their
children milk and school lunches, the availability of
micro-credits and use of the military for long overdue civic
action construction programs in urban centers and the
countryside.
The opposition claims that Chavez consorts with terrorists,
meaning that the Venezuelan president (like all of his
predecessors) has met with his colleagues from other
OPEC-member nations to discuss oil cartel pricing and
production norms.
The opposition reiterates the existence of some kind of
Chavez-Castro cabal, but never presents any evidence, nor
specifies charges, or even comes forth with a credible
argument to buttress its pure propaganda.
The opposition talks about the corruption surrounding
Chavez, with such charges being made by some of the most
controversial and tainted figures in the Venezuelan business
community, trade union movement, and the media, none of whom
ever mentioned that most of the nation's stultifying
bureaucracy was hired by pre-Chavez governments, with the
majority of such personnel now siding with the opposition.
If there is to be a solution to Venezuela's present crisis
of governance, it must come as a result of conformity with
the constitution, not one imposed from the street or as a
result of armed confrontation. There are any number of
scenarios that pose a grave danger to Venezuela's organic
institutions, but a solution that doesn't follow a
constitutional script undermines its prospect for peace and
stability and the continuance of the nation's traditional
political civility.
There may be a way out for Venezuelans of goodwill.
The opposition could wait until next August when the very
constitution that the opposition touts for its "impairment"
of democracy clause, also provides for a process that would
allow for the staging of a referendum midway through a
presidential term on whether Chavez should be allowed to
finish his incumbency. The National Assembly could go
through a process that would call for earlier presidential
elections than 2006, or even prior to next August. An
opposition victory could and must come in a lawful manner
and not through political extortion or through manipulating
its minority but powerful financial status and plenary
access to a largely fixed media.
Settling matters by threatening to scorch the country's
economic and political institutions reminds one of what
happened in Chile in 1973. There, an imprudent Christian
Democratic party used the military to rid the country of
President Allende, only to bring on not its own expected
rule, but 17 years of brutal Pinochet repression.
This analysis was prepared by Larry Birns, Director of the
Council on Hemispheric Affairs.
The Council on Hemispheric Affairs, founded in 1975, is an
independent, non-profit, non-partisan, tax-exempt research
and information organization. It has been described on the
Senate floor as being "one of the nation's most respected
bodies of scholars and policy makers."
For more information, please see COHA's web page at
www.coha.org; or contact our Washington offices by phone
(202) 216-9261, fax (202) 223-6035, or email [email protected]