Chavez takes ALL Parliament Seats

[LA GUERRA OLVIDADA]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4496586.stm

Venezueeeeelaaaaa, FUCK YEAH! Comin again to save the motherfuckin day, YEAH!

[Bannockburn]

too fucking sweet!!!

[Amusing Scrotum]

Have you read the article?


Only about 25% of registered voters cast a ballot.

Overwhelming support?


A two-thirds majority in parliament will allow Mr Chavez to remove the current constitutional limit of two presidential terms in office.

Seems like a dictator in the making.

Though this -


The BBC's Greg Morsbach in Caracas says people queued to vote in deprived parts of the city, where support for the president is usually strong.

- is a redeeming feature.
________

Nothing here seems that wonderful, I certainly don't think it's cause to "crack open the champagne."

[Cooler Reds Will Prevail]

I sort of like this, but this is going to play directly into the hands of the CIA. It's going to give them "evidence" of the "lack of democracy" in Venezuela, and pave the road for a mass propaganda campaign against Chavez. Brace yourselves, ladies and gentlemen, it's gonna get ugly.

[Cooler Reds Will Prevail]

I wouldn't look too much into the 25% turnout. Think about it: when you know who's going to win an election because no other parties are going to turn out, do you really feel the need to go out and vote yourself?

Also,

Jorge Rodriguez, president of the National Electoral Council, said the low turnout was caused by "torrential rains that have prevented voters from getting to polling places".

From AlJazeera.net

[Amusing Scrotum]

Also,

Jorge Rodriguez, president of the National Electoral Council, said the low turnout was caused by "torrential rains that have prevented voters from getting to polling places".

From AlJazeera.net

That clarifies the low turnout at least.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by Armchair Socialism+Dec 5 2005, 12:52 AM--> (Armchair Socialism @ Dec 5 2005, 12:52 AM)Have you read the article?


Only about 25% of registered voters cast a ballot.

Overwhelming support?[/b]

Chicorazon already answered this, more or less. But also bear in mind that municipal elections in most European and North American countries don't do much better. The municipal elections in the U.S. last month had an average turnout about the same.

Also, about 10 percent of the country's opposition candidates withdrew from the race on or before Election Day. That would also account for low turnout; most of the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie had no "voice" in the election.


Armchair [email protected] 5 2005, 12:52 AM

A two-thirds majority in parliament will allow Mr Chavez to remove the current constitutional limit of two presidential terms in office.

Seems like a dictator in the making.

A two-thirds majority in any parliamentary/legislative body is usually enough to pass constitutional amendments. Nevertheless, I think the BBC is fearmongering here, precisely to get that visceral reaction you are showing. Also, Chavez has never given any real indication that he is planning to seek a third term.

Miles

[Cooler Reds Will Prevail]

Actually, after the 2004 referendum Chavez said that, with the will of the people, he wanted to be president until 2021. I'm totally down for that :-)

[Amusing Scrotum]

Chicorazon already answered this, more or less. But also bear in mind that municipal elections in most European and North American countries don't do much better. The municipal elections in the U.S. last month had an average turnout about the same.

Is a municipal election the same as a council election? ....because these get 50-60% turnout in the UK.


A two-thirds majority in any parliamentary/legislative body is usually enough to pass constitutional amendments. Nevertheless, I think the BBC is fearmongering here, precisely to get that visceral reaction you are showing. Also, Chavez has never given any real indication that he is planning to seek a third term.

Substitute a few words so it reads -

"A two-thirds majority in [senate] will allow Mr [Bush] to remove the current constitutional limit of two presidential terms in office."

What do you think everyone would make of this? ;)

[LA GUERRA OLVIDADA]

He'll still have to be voted in.. He just wants candidates to be able to run as many times as they want. If the people keep voting him in then what's the problem?

[Maynard]

I sort of like this, but this is going to play directly into the hands of the CIA Well, if 5 of the biggest opposition parties boycott the elections, who else can be expected to win? As it says in the article, Hugo's party won 115 seats out of 167, the rest went to allied parties , I can't see how the result alone is undemocratic, if they faced no opposition, when the opposition excluded themselves



Overwhelming support?
On the face of it, the figures don't look good but when you consider that in the recent referendum there was a turnout of 70% of whom 60% voted for Chavez to stay in power and since all opposition parties were boycotting the elections, then if everyone for voted no on the referendum voted, turnout would only be 42%, added to the fact, that these elections probably didn't seem as important too many people, as well as a lack of opposition making it less appealing to vote and the torrential rains, the turnout doesn't seem incredibly bad.


Also, about 10 percent of the country's opposition candidates withdrew from the race on or before Election Day 10% of the total candidates withdrew, which was about 50% of the candidates of the parties who had pledged to boycott.


"A two-thirds majority in [senate] will allow Mr [Bush] to remove the current constitutional limit of two presidential terms in office. It comes down whether you support the person in question or not, I wouldn't mind Chavez extending beyond two terms because I generally agree with what he's doing and I think nearly everything he has done, has been done in a democratic way. A lot of countries don't have limits on how long their president or Prime Minister can stay in power for and I don't have a real problem with that. I more have a problem with the people who are in positions of power and/or the structures their power is based on.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by Armchair [email protected] 5 2005, 02:09 AM
Substitute a few words so it reads -

"A two-thirds majority in [senate] will allow Mr [Bush] to remove the current constitutional limit of two presidential terms in office."

What do you think everyone would make of this? ;)
In the U.S., you need two-thirds of both houses of Congress, and three-fourths of the state legislatures, to amend the Constitution. If Bush had that kind of support, it may piss a lot of people off, but it would still be legal.

Miles

[Severian]

Originally posted by CommunistLeague+Dec 5 2005, 12:44 AM--> (CommunistLeague @ Dec 5 2005, 12:44 AM) Chicorazon already answered this, more or less. But also bear in mind that municipal elections in most European and North American countries don't do much better. The municipal elections in the U.S. last month had an average turnout about the same. [/b]
These were parliamentary, not municipal elections. A better analogy would be the 2004 congressional elections in the U.S.


Also, about 10 percent of the country's opposition candidates withdrew from the race on or before Election Day. That would also account for low turnout; most of the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie had no "voice" in the election.

Ten percent of the candidates, according to the BBC article. And that probably understates the political importance of the boycott, since all of the 5 main opposition parties pulled out.

Probably people didn't turn out simply because there was little doubt the Chavistas would win, with all major opposition boycotting.

'Course, there was little doubt that the opposition would do very poorly in any case. All opinion polls indicates that...their withdrawal is basically sour grapes, and a declaration of their unwillingness to accept the results of an election they lose.



Armchair [email protected] 5 2005, 12:52 AM
A two-thirds majority in parliament will allow Mr Chavez to remove the current constitutional limit of two presidential terms in office.
Seems like a dictator in the making.

A two-thirds majority in any parliamentary/legislative body is usually enough to pass constitutional amendments. Nevertheless, I think the BBC is fearmongering here, precisely to get that visceral reaction you are showing. Also, Chavez has never given any real indication that he is planning to seek a third term.

CNN says (http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americas/12/05/venezuela.vote.ap/)"A two-thirds majority would allow pro-Chavez lawmakers to amend the constitution, and some lawmakers have said they would consider a reform to extend term limits for all offices, including the president. Chavez said any constitutional changes would have to be considered later, and that the choice would not be up to him."

In any case, there's no reason why more terms shouldn't be allowed. FDR was not a "dictator", and if most people want someone to remain in office, that popular will should be respected.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

This [extention of term limits] would be a step in a possitive direction if goes through.

Consolidating power, setting up more representative workers bodies and arming the workers and other poor would be a step in the right direction.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by LA GUERRA [email protected] 5 2005, 05:15 AM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4496586.stm

Venezueeeeelaaaaa, FUCK YEAH! Comin again to save the motherfuckin day, YEAH!
WTH?!

Those are horrible news.

A turnout of 25% is a tragedy; this is not a tedious council election in a first-world country where all parties stand for the same, or for the same with no cream. This was an election hold in the middle of a political battle that might degenerate into military action too soon.

Imagine a 25% turnout in a Cuban election!

The average Venezolan didn't vote because s/he knew Chávez would win? Nonsense. The rules are those elections would only be valid if 50% of the electorate voted; as it didn't happen, the opposition is in the legal right to call for them being void.

Chávez isn't a socialist; he was hostage to popular movement. But he will now have good reason to believe he was abandoned by the people. If so, he will have to try and find support among other political forces, or conceed that he has been defeated. No good prospectives in any sense.

Luís Henrique

[fpeppett]

A two-thirds majority in parliament will allow Mr Chavez to remove the current constitutional limit of two presidential terms in office.
Seems like a dictator in the making.

Funny that if a capitalist president had been in office for a while in Venezuela and the same principles applied to him, would we be hearing this from the news??? NO.
Sure hes allowed to do it, but we are only hearing about it so much because America are shitting their pants at the support he is getting.

[Cooler Reds Will Prevail]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 07:53 AM

I sort of like this, but this is going to play directly into the hands of the CIA Well, if 5 of the biggest opposition parties boycott the elections, who else can be expected to win? As it says in the article, Hugo's party won 115 seats out of 167, the rest went to allied parties , I can't see how the result alone is undemocratic, if they faced no opposition, when the opposition excluded themselves
Right, and I totally agree with you on that. What I'm saying will be the problem is that because it looks bad on the surface, that's ALL Americans are going to consider. In case you don't live in the US, here's the best way to put it. People have very shallow minds. So when the US news shows the Chavez is a tyrannical dictator with a faux-democratic system, all they have to do is point to the parliament and say "look, his allies won every seat! that's obviously fraud", and the US news will not show WHY that happened. It's lays the groundwork for a propaganda campaign because most Americans don't think. I would've preferred if they had just won the vast majority instead of all of them.

[kingbee]

I wouldn't look too much into the 25% turnout. Think about it: when you know who's going to win an election because no other parties are going to turn out, do you really feel the need to go out and vote yourself?

would you say this for any other country?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Sure hes allowed to do it, but we are only hearing about it so much because America are shitting their pants at the support he is getting.

Right.. you haven't heard to much about Colombia extending the term limits so the US puppet Uribe can run again have you?

[Severian]

Originally posted by Luís [email protected] 5 2005, 11:34 AM
The average Venezolan didn't vote because s/he knew Chávez would win? Nonsense. The rules are those elections would only be valid if 50% of the electorate voted; as it didn't happen, the opposition is in the legal right to call for them being void.
I didn't know that, and it changes a great deal.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by Luís [email protected] 5 2005, 12:34 PM
The rules are those elections would only be valid if 50% of the electorate voted; as it didn't happen, the opposition is in the legal right to call for them being void.

I call BULLSHIT on "Luis Henrique's" assertion.

There is nothing in the Venezuelan Constitution mandating a 50-percent turnout for legality.

This fact is also proven by off-year results going back the last three election cycles. In the last two National Assembly elections held in a year where there was no presidential election, the turnouts were 11 and 17 percents respectively. Under the Fourth (pre-Bolivarian) Republic, such elections often only brought out 8 percent of the voters.

What is different this time around is that the bourgeois opposition did not participate, and are attempting to paint the elections as "undemocratic". Nevertheless, more people voted in this off-year National Assembly election than in the last three.

More people would have voted, but the rains made that difficult in rural areas, and the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie effectively abstained from the process.

Good to know which side you're on, "Luis".

Miles

[Correa]

What say Granma?!

CARACAS (PL)—Parliamentary elections have ended in Venezuela, guaranteeing President Hugo Chávez his 10th electoral victory since 1998 and absolute control of the National Assembly.

http://www.granma.cu/fotos1/diciembre05/normalidad1.jpg
Elections took place completely normally. (ABN)



According to the first information bulletin, the Bloc for Change (Bloque de Cambio), which supports Chávez, won more than two-thirds of the National Assembly seats, and swept to victory in the votes for the Andean and Latin American parliaments.

The elections, which took place in a calm atmosphere, in spite of attempts by the opposition to hold a boycott, ratified the Bloc for Change, which groups together Chávez supporters as the top political force in Venezuela.

Predictions were for the Bloc to win two-thirds of the 167 seats available, but the withdrawal by several opposition parties increased its advantage, guaranteeing the president a complete majority in Parliament.

According to William Lara, spokesman for Chávez’ Fifth Republic Movement, that group won 114 deputies’ seats, in addition to those won by other allied parties.

During the elections, which were preceded by attempts to create chaos such as the sabotage of an oil pipeline and a number of explosions, delegates were also elected to the Andean and Latin American parliaments.

The boycott included the withdrawal of the Democratic Action, COPEI (Social Christian), and Justice First parties, as well as some minor groupings, in what authorities described as an attempt to de-legitimize the electoral process.

Authorities accused the United States of promoting that maneuver, with the participation of that country’s embassy and pressures brought to bear on candidates so that they would withdraw.

The first official report reflected participation by 25 percent of the Venezuelan electorate, for whom the vote is not obligatory, when 79.1 percent of ballots had been counted.

The elections were also hampered by the bad weather in several provinces, where it was necessary to extend the voting hours at the polls by one hour.

In the first report issued shortly after 8 p.m., Jorge Rodríguez, president of the National Electoral Council (CNE), highlighted the peaceful manner, without any violence, in which voting took place.

[metalero]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 07:56 PM

Sure hes allowed to do it, but we are only hearing about it so much because America are shitting their pants at the support he is getting.

Right.. you haven't heard to much about Colombia extending the term limits so the US puppet Uribe can run again have you?
exactly, a law passed by a congress where paramilitaries openly claim they control at least 35% of the seats.

[metalero]

Originally posted by Severian+Dec 5 2005, 08:40 PM--> (Severian @ Dec 5 2005, 08:40 PM)
Luís [email protected] 5 2005, 11:34 AM
The average Venezolan didn't vote because s/he knew Chávez would win? Nonsense. The rules are those elections would only be valid if 50% of the electorate voted; as it didn't happen, the opposition is in the legal right to call for them being void.
I didn't know that, and it changes a great deal. [/b]
don't buy it. There is no legal basis for that claim in Venezuela Constitution.

[Xiao Banfa]

Wasn't the turn out low because of "torrential rains" (acording to the electoral council)? I think Chavez should hold the referendum again.

I don't really know enough but it seems plausible that venezuelans thought; "oh, Chavez will win, whats the point in getting drenched!".

On the other hand- the OAS and the EU have declared the election valid.

[Xiao Banfa]

Communistleague just cleared everything up. People don't get into the National Assembly elections.

FUCK YEAH.

Better start preparing the international brigades.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 11:47 PM

I call BULLSHIT on "Luis Henrique's" assertion.

There is nothing in the Venezuelan Constitution mandating a 50-percent turnout for legality.

This fact is also proven by off-year results going back the last three election cycles. In the last two National Assembly elections held in a year where there was no presidential election, the turnouts were 11 and 17 percents respectively. Under the Fourth (pre-Bolivarian) Republic, such elections often only brought out 8 percent of the voters.
Source?

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by Severian+Dec 6 2005, 06:08 AM--> (Severian @ Dec 6 2005, 06:08 AM)
[email protected] 5 2005, 11:47 PM

I call BULLSHIT on "Luis Henrique's" assertion.

There is nothing in the Venezuelan Constitution mandating a 50-percent turnout for legality.

This fact is also proven by off-year results going back the last three election cycles. In the last two National Assembly elections held in a year where there was no presidential election, the turnouts were 11 and 17 percents respectively. Under the Fourth (pre-Bolivarian) Republic, such elections often only brought out 8 percent of the voters.
Source? [/b]
http://www.cybercircle.org/

You'll find the Constitution and articles related to the election here.

Miles

[Severian]

If there are voter turnout figures buried somewhere in that site, I don't see 'em. Once again you fail to give a verifiable source for your assertions.

I found figures for past voter turnout in Venezuelan parliamentary elections here. (http://www.idea.int/vt/country_view.cfm?CountryCode=VE) Going back to 1958.

The lowest turnout was in 1998, with 56.6% of of registered voters or 42.7% of the voting-age population.

Voter turnout wasn't much higher in the 2000 presidential elections.

I don't see your "11%" or "17%" anywhere. You turned out to be factually challenged last time I asked you for a source, too. It's a serious flaw in somebody who presents himself as the representative of a revolutionary party. The first obligation of a revolutionary is to tell the truth.

****

It's probably up to Luis Henrique to show proof of the election-law provision he describes, since you can't prove a negative (that it doesn't exist anywhere in Venezuela's law code.) He didn't, as it happens, say it was in the constitution.

Politically, it seems clear the voter turnout does have a certain significance. This is what Venezuelan government said before the election, according to the Cuban press agency Prensa Latina:

Venezuela in state of permanent mobilization to fight opposition sabotage

Prensa Latina: The Venezuelan government has set up a state of permanent mobilization to fight opposition-encouraged abstentionism before Sunday's parliamentary elections.

The strategy was agreed midnight at the closing of an extraordinary ministerial meeting that highlighted the need to defend the democratic system from the pposition offensive.

Higher Education Minister Samuel Moncada informed the cabinet session, headed by President Hugo Chavez, to assess the country's political situation and agreed the most important thing for the Venezuelan democracy nowadays is that people go to the polls.

The country is witnessing a crisis by opposition parties and not within the democratic system or National Election Council.

Reducing absence at the polls is imperative, noted Moncada, while encouraging a massive vote.

Speaks for itself, I think.

[celticfire]

Hours before voting began, an oil pipeline in the west of the country was damaged in a blast which officials claimed was a sabotage attack.

I am more concerned about this. I don't know if the U.S. is directly involved, but it seems likely the CIA or another pig program is stirring up shit. They messed with Castro and Allende, and they'll mess with Chavez. :angry:

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by Severian+Dec 6 2005, 08:12 AM--> (Severian @ Dec 6 2005, 08:12 AM)If there are voter turnout figures buried somewhere in that site, I don't see 'em. Once again you fail to give a verifiable source for your assertions.

I found figures for past voter turnout in Venezuelan parliamentary elections here. (http://www.idea.int/vt/country_view.cfm?CountryCode=VE) Going back to 1958.

The lowest turnout was in 1998, with 56.6% of of registered voters or 42.7% of the voting-age population.

Voter turnout wasn't much higher in the 2000 presidential elections.

I don't see your "11%" or "17%" anywhere.[/b]

I wrote my comments while away from my home computer. Here is the proper link and the appropriate passage:


Jesse Chacon, the Minister of the Interior and of Justice, also held a press conference, in which he argued that the last time parliamentary elections were held separately from presidential elections was in 1998. The party Acción Democrática (AD) won that vote, with the support of merely 11.24% of the total population registered to vote. During the 2000 parliamentary elections, Chavez's MVR party received support from 17% of registered voters.

According to Chacon, any result in these elections where the MVR obtains support from more than 11% of those registered to vote would give the MVR greater legitimacy to control the National Assembly than AD had in 1998 and anything greater than 17% would give it greater legitimacy than the last National Assembly had. In accordance with such a calculation, the MVR coalition obtained the support of about 22% of all registered voters during this election (about 3 million votes out of 14 million registered voters).

Education Minister Aristobulo Isturiz explained on TV talk show that this type of calculation is the only calculation that makes sense for establishing a reference point because the several key opposition parties called for a boycott of today's vote. In the course of the day, it was clear that opposition strongholds had extremely low turnout, of perhaps 10% of voters, while pro-Chavez neighborhoods saw much stronger participation.


Source: http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news.php?newsno=1837


[email protected] 6 2005, 08:12 AM
You turned out to be factually challenged last time I asked you for a source, too. It's a serious flaw in somebody who presents himself as the representative of a revolutionary party. The first obligation of a revolutionary is to tell the truth.

I told the truth to the best of my recollection. You, on the other hand, have once again let your intellectual laziness and sectarian ego get in the way. And, as a result, you once again look like the petty-bourgeois charlatan you are.

Severian, both you and your ego can kiss my ass -- one buttcheek for each of you.

Miles

[Simotix]

Only about 25% of registered voters cast a ballot.

Thats not an election, thats a give away.


A two-thirds majority in parliament will allow Mr Chavez to remove the current constitutional limit of two presidential terms in office.

Fair? No. He may be a good leader, but people need variety.


"Venezuela is speaking with its silence," said Julio Borges, a prominent opposition member.

NOT smart. Not doing anything will not help.


The Fifth Republic Movement, Mr Chavez's party, won 114 seats in the 167 single-chamber National Assembly, according

I do, however, see this is fair. I mean they were elected, though it depends on how many percent voted for them.

[Correa]

"Silence is arguement carried out by other means"

-Dr. Ernesto Che Guevara

[HoorayForTheRedBlackandGreen]

"A two-thirds majority in parliament will allow Mr Chavez to remove the current constitutional limit of two presidential terms in office."

WESTERN MEDIA BIAS IF I EVER FUCKING SAW IT

Chavez hasnt' even DONE anything yet and he's already some kind of evil dictator according to the lying bastards in charge of mainstream media.

[Zingu]

Originally posted by HoorayForTheRedBlackandGr[email protected] 7 2005, 03:56 AM
"A two-thirds majority in parliament will allow Mr Chavez to remove the current constitutional limit of two presidential terms in office."

WESTERN MEDIA BIAS IF I EVER FUCKING SAW IT

Chavez hasnt' even DONE anything yet and he's already some kind of evil dictator according to the lying bastards in charge of mainstream media.
Chavez ALREADY rewrote the constituion!

Remember? He established a new Republic! :D

[Simotix]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 03:56 AM
"A two-thirds majority in parliament will allow Mr Chavez to remove the current constitutional limit of two presidential terms in office."

WESTERN MEDIA BIAS IF I EVER FUCKING SAW IT

Chavez hasnt' even DONE anything yet and he's already some kind of evil dictator according to the lying bastards in charge of mainstream media.
I believe they were just stating what could happen.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2005, 08:37 AM
Jesse Chacon, the Minister of the Interior and of Justice, also held a press conference, in which he argued that the last time parliamentary elections were held separately from presidential elections was in 1998. The party Acción Democrática (AD) won that vote, with the support of merely 11.24% of the total population registered to vote. During the 2000 parliamentary elections, Chavez's MVR party received support from 17% of registered voters.

That's not voter turnout, that's the percentage of eligible voters who supported a single party! Apples and oranges.

You originally said "In the last two National Assembly elections held in a year where there was no presidential election, the turnouts were 11 and 17 percents respectively. " And of course the issue under discussion is what turnout is required for the election to be valid.

Your posts could be Chapter 1 in a textbook on "How to Deceive Through Misleading Use of Statistics."

And don't get all huffy. When Luis Henrique made a statement you regarded as factually inaccurate, you didn't say, "I think you may be mistaken there, comrade." You cried "bullshit" and said he'd shown what side he was on...by implication, that of the pro-imperialist opposition.

So why should anyone show you the courtesy you won't show others? That is, think you might be mistaken rather than lying? Especially since you persist despite proof I gave earlier that your statements were untrue.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 05:31 AM
And don't get all huffy. When Luis Henrique made a statement you regarded as factually inaccurate, you didn't say, "I think you may be mistaken there, comrade." You cried "bullshit" and said he'd shown what side he was on...by implication, that of the pro-imperialist opposition.

So why should anyone show you the courtesy you won't show others? That is, think you might be mistaken rather than lying? Especially since you persist despite proof I gave earlier that your statements were untrue.
I repeat:


I told the truth to the best of my recollection. You, on the other hand, have once again let your intellectual laziness and sectarian ego get in the way. And, as a result, you once again look like the petty-bourgeois charlatan you are.

Severian, both you and your ego can kiss my ass -- one buttcheek for each of you.

Miles

[RevolutionarySocialist MadRedDog]

Although the conclusions in the BBC-article are off course mostly bias...there's no getting round the facts:


Only about 25% of registered voters cast a ballot

I don't think this has to mean decreasing support for Chavez, but it is a sign that maybe reforms are going to slow and that the working class and grass roots movements want Chavez to speed up the process.


The BBC's Greg Morsbach in Caracas says people queued to vote in deprived parts of the city, where support for the president is usually strong.

Polling stations in middle class urban areas were almost empty, our correspondent says.

This is offering some explanation: the middle class is always a difficult group to win over, especially since they have no clear class consciousness. For them it can go either way, full capitalist restoration (reaction) or forward to socialism (revolution).

[18tir]

If the opposition doesn't like the results, then they shouldn't have boycotted the election. What do you expect is going to happen when the two major opposition parties pull out. Of course, Chavez's supporters are going to win all the seats. This is the fault of the foolish opposition, not the government. Chavez's enemies are so isolated and pathetic that they don't even try to beat him at the polls (though in a sense, we can't blame them since they've lost every election in the past 7 years). They have to resort to extra-legal means, like the failed 2002 military coup, or the sabatoge campaign of the same year. The U.S. media repeats its usual lies about Chavez being a "dictator." But I shudder to think what would occur if this so-called "democratic" opposition came to power. Maybe a Pinochet-style dictatorship. A reign of death squads against the left. The surrender of Venezuala's sovereignty to American imperialism. The possibilities are very dark indeed.

[Chavista]

MVR did great. If the opposition doesn't like it, they should have gotten off their asses and voted! :lol: Viva Chávez!!

[communist fanatic]

Not to mention that there was a huge rainstorm during election day that kept people away from the polls. Venezuela is in the tropics folks.

[Luís Henrique]

There is nothing in the Venezuelan Constitution mandating a 50-percent turnout for legality.

You are right. Brazilian press did state something by that lines, and if I correctly recall, it was something of concern on the ocasion of the revocatory referendum against Chavez. Also the conservative party, COPEI, is suing demanding the elections to be considered invalid because of the low turnout. But I read the Constitution and the Electoral Law, and none states that a 50% turnout is required.


This fact is also proven by off-year results going back the last three election cycles. In the last two National Assembly elections held in a year where there was no presidential election, the turnouts were 11 and 17 percents respectively. Under the Fourth (pre-Bolivarian) Republic, such elections often only brought out 8 percent of the voters.

You are wrong, as Severian pointed out.


What is different this time around is that the bourgeois opposition did not participate, and are attempting to paint the elections as "undemocratic". Nevertheless, more people voted in this off-year National Assembly election than in the last three.

The difference is, the bourgeois opposition called for abstention - and won. A 75% abstention is what they were praying for. The government called for people to vote and defend the country against imperialist aggression - and lost.

At every Colombian election, FARC calls for abstention. But they never suceeded in a 75% rate. Unhappily.


More people would have voted, but the rains made that difficult in rural areas, and the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie effectively abstained from the process.

I hope it doesn't rain in the day scheduled for revolution!

If the Venezolan government's statistics don't lie (and I don't believe they do), poverty affects over 80% of the Venezolan population. So, even if everybody who is not a pauper in Venezuela was a member of the bourgeoisie or petty-bourgeoisie, the majority of the working class didn't vote, as well.


Good to know which side you're on, "Luis".

Which side am I, Miles?

Why the quotation marks around my name, Miles? Do you have any reason to believe that this is not my name?

Let me say you a final word. Do not be as stupid as to deny yourself the right to make mistakes.

Luís Henrique

[metalero]

Originally posted by Luís [email protected] 12 2005, 12:45 PM

The difference is, the bourgeois opposition called for abstention - and won. A 75% abstention is what they were praying for. The government called for people to vote and defend the country against imperialist aggression - and lost.

At every Colombian election, FARC calls for abstention. But they never suceeded in a 75% rate. Unhappily.


This doesn't mean they won. Many workers were eager to vote (as shown in last 7 elections, including referendum and presidential ones, where political participation has been higher than previous year) but the last-minute pull out of opposition parties clearly showed that bolivarian parties were taking all seats, and this had a psicological effect on the population who gave for sure chavez's victory and thus many didn't vote. Of course, we shouldn't be proud of it, but this may show that a great number of working class elements are more interested in deepening the revolutionary process than merely participating in elections. The effect of the "suicide" carried by the desperate opposition would have been none if we were talking about, let's say Colombia, where a referendum called by Alvaro Uribe two years ago to pass some neoliberal laws was defeated despite the propaganda, and the state terrorism. The mainstream media said nothing about this.
Colombia's Referendum (http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=9&ItemID=4410)