Venezuela Elections and Developments

There were elections in Venezuela today, and it looks like Hugo Chavez's 5th Republic Party got a clear majority. Other sympathetic parties claimed the rest of the national legislature.

This sweep basically happened because the opposition boycotted the election. The leaders of this were the traditional ruling parties of Venezuela, notably Accion Democratica and an umbrella group called Democratic Coordinator.

One problem with this strategy is that voting boycotts rarely work. It's perceived that Chavez was going to trounce the opposition parties and that the boycott comes from weakness. This is partly because these same groups complain about the August 2004 referendum on Chavez, which was validated by the Carter Center.

Today's election had low turnout , around 25%, which does weaken it. Off-year congressional elections in the United States have a turnout of around 35%.

Also an oil pipline was blown in Venezuela today, and fringe anti-Chavez types are being blamed for that.

I'd only add that rejectionism isn't going to get the Chavez opposition very far. What if these election results are validated by the OAS, as they most likely will be ?  

links:
US voter turnout
BBC

•  My guess

  and this is based on nothing, really, is that the boycott was a precursor to another coup attempt against Chavez. Hope I'm wrong, but it seems to me that the only thing to be gained by completely pulling out of the government is that you set yourself up in opposition to it in order to oppose through extra-governmental means.

  by incertus on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 04:43:25 AM PDT

  •  except

    It don't think it will work. The days of coups in Latin America are pretty much over, and Chavez has too much support in the country and throughout the region. Also, the US is tied up in the Middle East.

    I don't doubt some factions are thinking about it though.

    by bigbay on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 04:48:24 AM PDT

    •  Never underestimate

      the ability of the US to try something stupid in Latin America. But I hope you're right.

      by incertus on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 04:52:44 AM PDT

    •  Guarimba

      But the guarimba goes on. Oil pipeline case in point probably. The OAS will have to validate it. The complaints against the election system, as I understand them, were not too valid. Just used as an excuse.

      Quick! Cue the "Chavez is a tyrant" comment and the link to Sanchez's Reason article.

      by EMRosa on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 04:57:51 AM PDT

      •  no article just a video

        I hope you understand Spanish (or Norwegian, LOL)

        http://www.albacom.no/...

        This is the kind of thing you would see in Cuba - a country that does not have the enormous windfall of oil prices.

        More than a tyrant, he's crook that has been able to pull the wool over many people's eyes (sounds familiar?)

        In the end, he's the democratically elected president and time will tell what his legacy will be - all I'm saying is don't be blinded by his pretty talk of social equality and instead look to see if he's walking the talk.
         

        by Truza on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 11:34:28 AM PDT

        •  Somehow

          I don't think I'm the one who isn't seeing the whole picture. Have you talked with people in Venezuela? Especially poor people?

          I'm not saying there aren't things to be weary of regarding Chavez, but I would say he's just as democratic, if not more democratic, then President Bush. Same goes for the countries.

          by EMRosa on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 07:15:28 PM PDT

          •  I am Venezuelan

            I guess you haven't read my other comments on Chavez. You will see that I don't come from the "elite" class (I was just lucky to meet and marry an American) Yes I have talked to many fellow Venezuelans from all walks of life - my family is still there and I go often for work - and yes I also agree that Chavez's ideas are very needed in Venezuela.

            What I complain about is the execution of his plans. Outsiders hear him talk and he says the right things, they see very few things he has done and believe the propaganda that says that it is happening across the country.

            The oil money that's coming in the country is not being invested with the long term in mind, there is little investment in infrastruture (school, housing, hospitals, factories, etc). Instead, the little money that makes it to the population is in the form of handouts - needed, yes, but not building for the future, they are just vote buying - I saw this happen with my own eyes when CAP ran for prez during in the 1970's.

            Personally, I think Chavez and Bush are exactly the same - In Venezuela, gov't corruption is rampant, there is torture, the press is prosecuted, the propaganda machine is one of the best - oh and they are both arrogant and selfish. I would like to point out the similarities between the response to Katrina and Chavez' response to the mudd slides in December of 1999 in my hometown, where 20 thousand people are dead/missing. Go see it, it's a ghost town now and those that didn't have a place to go are living among the dust that settled. Ask Chavez why he declined US help from the Army Corp of Eng. to build small bridges that were washed away - they are still not build, BTW, 6 years later. I cry everytime I go and not only for the MANY of my friends who died.

            One final comparison, Chavez is the democratically elected president of Venezuela and international observers say the was no fraud. I would just like to remind you of the role of the SCOTUS on Bush being president.  

            What is a democratic president good for if he's not doing what's needed in the country? Btw, same applies to the previous corrupt politicians that have headed Venezuela.

            BTW, the people in that film are poor people - and like Chavez, you didn't address the issue and changed the subject.

            Chavez has been in power for 7 years and there is still no medicines in hospitals? WTF?

            by Truza on Tue Dec 06, 2005 at 01:26:22 AM PDT

            •  I didn't watch the movie

              I don't speak Spanish fluently and I don't speak Norwegian. What kind of news source was that supposed to be?

              Anyways, you just proved my point. You admitted it yourself. I said that the Venezuelan government is no worse than America's. I never said it was a perfect democracy. So we agree: Chavez is no more bad then Bush. Although I would be interested to see evidence that the Venezuelan government is torturing people...and why it is that you don't think media is welcome there....

              And also, logically, one independent instance is hardly factual information about the entire situation. Sorry to hear about your town. I was sorry to hear about New Orleans right after the hurricane. But I've also heard a lot of people who are happy with the programs when they get there. The subsidized markets etc...

              Honestly, do you think Venezuela is better off now, or before when it was under faux "free trade"? I'd say now. And according to independent polls, Chavez must be doing something right with such a high approval rating. Or are those 70% just tools of his "propaganda"?

              It's hard to address issues when there's so little evidence that they widely exist.

              by EMRosa on Tue Dec 06, 2005 at 07:18:08 AM PDT

              •  And you're now proving my point

                You have not seen the other side. You didn't even watch the movie. Even out of curiosity an person inetesretd in learning, especially after it's been pointed out, would have seen it.

                There are human rights violations and persecution of journalists in Venezuela and have been since Chavez came on board. Google it, you'll see.

                IMO things are much worse, yes, the poor are getting food and supposedly health care, thought the video above contradicts that, (and those are good thinsg, btw) but, in terms of long term growth and investment it's much worse off - corruption is much worse, safety is much, much, much worse.

                I enjoy having this discussion but I expect people to be informed when engaging in them. Nothing turns me off more than people who make assertions about situation when they do not have all the information.  

                by Truza on Tue Dec 06, 2005 at 08:35:13 AM PDT

                •  Assertions?

                  I'm not the one making assertions here. I didn't watch the movie because I couldn't possibly understand it. That doesn't mean I don't want to understand things.  Just "google" it isn't an acceptable answer. From what I know, this alleged intimidation has been brought forth by Reporters Without Borders, and we all know where their money comes from. We also know there wasn't a peep from them in 2002, when independent media outlets were being literally locked up by Carmona. Show me something besides a very questionable Norwegian site.

                  You still haven't answered me about the approval ratings. What do you attribute that to?

                  by EMRosa on Tue Dec 06, 2005 at 05:28:02 PM PDT

                  •  My apologies

                    You did not make any assertions. I lashed out at you individually when I meant to lash out at many people that have opinions on Chavez but have not looked at the other side.

                    I'll answer your question first.... Chavez enjoys 70% approval rating because he's giving food to the population. I have acknowledged that it is valuable and needed. The oil money coming in has always been distributed to the population in the form of a HUGE subsidy - A gallon was 14 cents of a dollar in 2004, current prices are less than 20 cents (apologies for not calculating the current price). Many people in Venezuela and the world argue that it shouldn't be so but I disagree, it's our oil and we should benefit from it - but I digress. Gas prices, however, mean nothing when people are extremely poor. What Chavez has done is taken the oil money and given it to the people - all necessary - but he has done it in the form of handouts, people do not have to work for it. Venezuelans are lazy by nature (you won't believe the flack I get for saying this <grin>), we are always trying to figure out how to get things without working hard for it and trying to figure out how to outsmart the one next to you. When you take all this into consideration, it's not hard to see the why of his approval rate. I am not arguing that he's not a popular president.

                    With all due respect, "google it" is an appropriate response. I don't see the benefit of discussing an issue when one of the parties is not fully informed and I'm not going to do the homework for anyone. I suggest  you check out the sites for Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch (though I realize you don't like them much), SIP (oh, I see you don't like them either) for info on human right abuses, intimidation of the press, torture etc. I also,strongly suggest you try to find a copy of the latest laws passed with regards to the rights of reporters. I'm sorry that the only information you are aware of is from Reporter without Borders. I won't even address the Carmona thing, that was just simply wrong and I believe we agree on that.

                    The Norwegian link I provided you with is for one of the 2 TV stations in Norway - I'm sorry you find it questionable. And on that note, I find questionable your refuting Sanchez' asserions based on Wikipedia. Everyone knows that Wikipedia is not a reliable site but rather a place to start research. Even Wikipedia's creator says you need to double check the info in there. Check out Chavez' official site http://www.misionvenezuela.gov.ve/ and notice same language and same pictures as in Wikipedia. BTW, I'm not backing up anything Sanchez says, I haven't read him.  

                    In Venezuela we say "no hay mas ciego que el que no quiuere ver" - roughly translated as "there is not worse blindman than the one who doesn't want to see"

                    Listen, I don't have a beef with you or anyone else that is pro-Chavez. In fact, I enjoy discussions on the subject - all I expect is that people don't blindly say Viva Chavez, without seeing the other side. Chavez talks a fantastic talk, I wish he would walk it. Chavez has done good things for (some of the) the poor, there is no denying it. But he is an authoritarian autocrat (and I believe he's a tyrant) and the cost to the country is enormous (I mentioned some of these on my posts above).

                    There are, and have been for a long time, many things wrong with Venezuela - Chavez led us to believe, during his first campaign, that he would fix them. Many educated, middle class and "elites", that have been let down by previous political parties, believed him and voted for him. They now see that he really didn't mean to stop corruption, rebuild infraestructure, promote investment (gov't and private). If/when the oil money dries up the poor are SOL and so is the country.

                    The end does not always justify the means.

                    by Truza on Wed Dec 07, 2005 at 07:15:42 AM PDT

•  There goes gas price

  Watch oil price going to stratosphere with oil pipelines start poping up in Venezuela.

  by fugue on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 05:35:44 AM PDT

•  You forgot to mention the WHY

  of the boycott - The opposition believed that the voting machines/process was vulnerable to tampering (sounds familiar?) and didn't prevent the anonimity of the votes, meaning that the CNE (committe for National Elections) would be able to tell who voted for whom. They also claim that ebcause the CNE is controlled by Chavez' people, this record of votes would be propagated throughout the gov't and could put in jeopardy the jobs of those people that are against Chanvez but that, in order to keep their jobs, pretend that they are for him.

  There were a few other minor irregularities during the voting process, such as Chavez and other gov't officials going on TV on "cadena" (obligatory broadcast over TV and Radio of the speeches)

  I don't necessarily agree with the boycott except for it send a message to Chavez. Will he acknowledge it, no, he never does.

  As for the OAS certifying the election, may I remind you of the role of the SCOTUS and the Bush elections?

  I have been called an "elitist" on dKos for expressing my opinions on Chavez but I have come to the conclusion that most posters on this issue only like to see one side of the story
  

  by Truza on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 05:38:07 AM PDT

•  Bravo Chavez!

  Now, let's root for Evo Morales in Bolivia. It's time to free Latin America from American economic domination once and for all.

  by Chris Kulczycki on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 05:39:17 AM PDT

•  It wasn't just the OAS

  There were other observers.

  by melvin on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 08:27:36 AM PDT

  •  This is true

    But I think the main reason it was mentioned was because the OAS is so critical of Chavez and seen as being somewhat in the pockets of American interests.

    by EMRosa on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 07:45:29 PM PDT