- Dateline December 3, 2007 -- The corporate media is euphoric
after Venezuelans narrowly defeated Hugo Chavez's constitutional reform
referendum the previous day. The outcome defied pre-election independent
poll predictions and was a cliffhanger to the end.
-
- Near-final results weren't announced until 1:15AM December
3 with about 100,000 votes separating the two sides and a surprising 44%
of eligible voters abstaining. On December 7, Venezuela's National Electoral
Council (CNE) released the final outcome based on 94% of ballots counted.
A total of 69 amendment reforms were voted on in two blocks:
-
- For Block A: No - 50.65%; Si (Yes) - 49.34%;
-
- For Block B: No - 51.01%; Si (yes) - 48.99%.
-
- Below is a sampling of corporate media gloating. They
deserve a bit of slack as they've waited nine years for this moment, and
they may not get another for some time. Venezuelans lost, they won, but
Chavez may be right saying reform lost "por ahora (for now)."
In a post-election comment on Venezuelan state TV channel VTV he added:
Reform is slowed but alive, and "the Venezuelan people have the power
and the right to present a request for constitutional reform before (my)
term (in office) finishes, of which there is still five years."
-
- Under Venezuelan law, the National Assembly (NA) can
pass new socially beneficial or other legislation any time provided it
doesn't conflict with constitutional law. The Constitution can only be
changed by national referenda in one of three ways - if the President,
NA or 15% of registered voters (by petition) request it. The Constitution,
however, prevents the President from seeking the same amendments twice
in the same term, but they can become law through popular initiatives or
a constituent assembly.
-
- In addition, Chavez can use his constitutionally allowed
Enabling Law authority until next summer when it expires. Under it, he
can pass laws by decree in 11 key areas that include the structure of state
organs, election of local officials, the economy, finance and taxes, banking,
transportation, the military and national defense, public safety, and policies
related to energy.
-
- Chavez had this authority two previous times and used
it in 2001 to pass 49 legal changes to make them conform to the Constitution
in areas of land and banking reform and for more equitable revenue-sharing
arrangements with foreign oil companies in joint-state ventures. He wanted
it this time to accelerate democratic change at the grassroots and be able
to transfer power to the people through communal councils. He may also
use it to advance his social and economic model based on equitably distributing
more of the national wealth through investments in health care, education
and social security. If these type reform measures are proposed, he'll
get strong public support for them provided he keeps them simple and explains
them properly and often.
-
- In his post-election comments, Chavez stressed another
reform proposal is coming "next year or in three years. It doesn't
have to be exactly the same. It can be in the same direction, but in a
different form, improved and simplified, because I have to accept that
the reform that we presented was very complex."
-
- The pre-election debate and propaganda assault made it
more complex, and the opposition out-muscled reform supporters. With proper
planning and implementation, that problem is correctable, and in the meantime,
the NA can enact some reforms legislatively and Chavez can do it on his
own by decree. Expect that to happen and for most Venezuelans to support
it enthusiastically.
-
- Already, members of Venezuela's National Indigenous Movement
(MNIV) want constitutional reform reinitiated, intend to mobilize, and
may begin collecting signatures for a petition drive for it. They met to
strategize on December 7 after which MNIV coordinator Facundo Guanipa announced
that Venezuela's small indigenous population near-unanimously supports
Chavez's reforms according to referendum data results.
-
- For now, however, the gloaters have center stage and
aren't quoting OAS Secretary General Jose Miguel Insulza's comment that
"Quite a few myths on the Venezuelan democracy are falling down. It
works like all democracies....I hope the US government can acknowledge,
as all of us, that it was a fair, clean process."
-
- Don't count on it or from the dominant media, and start
off with this writer's favorite press adversary - the Wall Street Journal's
Mary Anastasia O'Grady, this time on a Journal-produced three minute video
available online. She warms up fast with comments like the referendum,
if passed, would have given Chavez "dictatorial power to rule for
life," and Venezuela has a "rigged electoral system." Outrageous
and false on both counts, of course, but this is typical O'Grady ranting.
-
- Further, she claimed near-final tallies were available
around 8:15PM, but the National Electoral Council (CNE) waited until 1:15AM
to report them. In fact, reporting was delayed because the election was
too close to call, and it was agreed in advance not to do it until 90%
of the votes were counted. At that point, the result was announced. One
other O'Grady gem was Chavez came to power in 1999 by "removing"
the "old elite" implying that defeating them decisively and democratically
was improper - vintage O'Grady with more from her ahead assured.
-
- The Journal wasn't through. An online op-ed read: "Venezuelans
Rain on Hugo (and it's) more than a setback for Venezuela's messianic strongman.
It is a victory for the ideal of liberty across Latin America....kudos....to
the people of Venezuela (by preventing Chavez from) impos(ing) what amounted
to a personal coup against that nation's democracy. He tried to bully Venezuelans
into voting for one-man rule and a hard model of socialism. They said no
(and CNE waited until 1:15AM) when it became clear that there was no way
to fudge the results."
-
- According to the Journal, Chavez's package "would
have eviscerated Venezuela's civil liberties (and) end guarantees of private
property." A final jab was in the form of a warning that Chavez still
controls the country's political institutions and "remains a threat
to (the) region. He's in a race against time (to advance his) expansionist
agenda (that) has the potential to undermine Colombia's democracy, and
has already destabilized Bolivia and Ecuador." Phew, and Rupert Murdoch
hasn't yet taken over the paper he bought last summer when he finalized
a deal for Dow Jones & Company.
-
- Enter the New York Times and its man in Caracas, Simon
Romero, whose style outclasses Journal writers but not his substance. His
byline on December 3 read "Venezuela Hands Narrow Defeat to Chavez
Plan" that would have granted him "sweeping new powers. Opposition
leaders were ecstatic," and Zulia State governor and Chavez 2006 presidential
opponent, Manuel Rosales, said "Tonight, Venezuela has won."
His next day report trumpeted the setback saying the "vote sets roadblocks
(and) has given new energy to (the) long-suffering opposition." It's
"an expression of....government mismanagement (and) a warning to Mr.
Chavez that he had finally overreached (in wanting to end presidential)
term limits and greatly (centralize) his power." It's a "sharp
rebuke (from voters to) let Mr. Chavez know (they're reluctant) to follow
him much farther up the path to a socialist future."
-
- Still more from Romero, along with Times op-ed writers,
that "Reflection and Anger (came) After Defeat," and Chavistas
are "being consumed by recrimination and soul-searching" following
voter rejection. "Chavez lash(ed) out at his opponents (and) dismissed
(their victory) with an (unmentioned) obsenity," and "Chavismo"
needs "to embrace a more pluralistic path."
-
- That was a warm-up for op-ed writer Roger Cohen. He chimed
in with a backhanded salute for "the humiliation of a 51 to 49 percent
rejection to end term limits and undermine private property rights."
He stopped short of mentioning most West European and other parliamentary
systems allow unlimited reelections, and the latter accusation if false.
Then Cohen attacks calling Chavez a "strongman....a caudillo....a
menace (and) his 'socialismo' equals 'Hugoismo.' " He aimed to "accumulat(e)
power through threats, slandering opponents as 'traitors,' (and) buying
support with $150 million a day in oil money."
-
- It gets worse: "his crony bankers (are) pocketing
millions by arbitraging the disparity between the official and black-market
(bolivar) rates. Crime and drug-trafficking are thriving." His socialism
is "the Russian (equivalent of) 'Soviets,' (and) I salute the Venezuelan
people" for imposing "The Limits of (a) 21st-Century Revolution."
On December 3, Cohen listed them in eight Venezuelan marketplace and political
rules to show by his logic Chavez "can('t) turn back the clock far
enough to change" them.
-
- The Times wasn't done, and on December 4 it lashed out
editorially with "A Tale of Two Strongmen." The other was Vladimir
Putin after his December 2 parliamentary election victory. According to
The Times, it was a "referendum on himself (in which he) cynically
manipulated a huge victory...." Chavez wasn't as lucky in his "latest
and most outrageous power grab (so there's) hope (Venezuelan) political
competition....will now flourish." The Times concedes he's "still
very powerful," so "The international community will....have
to keep up the pressure on (him because he) hasn't suddenly become a democrat."
-
- The Washington Post had it's post-election say with a
similar slanderous agitprop editorial torrent - that "Mr. Chavez had
proposed to make himself a de facto president for life....Polls before
the vote showed only about a third of Venezuelans favored the amendments
(and) Urban slum dwellers who have supported Mr. Chavez in the past had
good reason for second thoughts: Thanks to his crackpot economic policies....the
outcome will not restore full democracy (because Chavez) still controls
the legislature, courts, national television and the state oil company,
and he retains the authority to rule by decree." False on all counts
except that most democratically elected legislators and Chavez-appointed
judges support Bolivarianism as embedded in the country's Constitution
they're sworn to uphold.
-
- The AP was also hostile calling Chavez "conflict-prone
(with a) larger-than-life personality leav(ing) little room for compromise
(that) ensur(es) more friction (in a) deeply polarized (country)."
But "Sunday's victory has energized the opposition (that can petition)
for a recall referendum once Chavez reaches the midpoint of his six-year
term in December, 2009."
-
- In the West as well, the Los Angeles Times was celebratory
in calling Sunday's defeat "a remarkable indictment of (Chavez's)
agenda." But it headlined: "Chavez isn't finished." Even
in defeat, he'll be "able to pass many of his desired reforms legislatively"
since he controls the NA and Supreme Court. The Times cited "images
of huge (opposition) student marches," but the "biggest factor
(on) Sunday (was) Chavez's own nonsensical economic policies, which have
caused many of his impoverished supporters to wonder if he really knows
what he's doing." They're "like Soviet Russia or modern Cuba
(and) Chavez's socialist ideals are leading Venezuela to a precipice, and
it's the poor who will suffer most if it goes over the edge."
-
- Time magazine wondered "How Will Chavez Handle Defeat?
(and) Why Venezuelans Turned on Chavez." It reported "panic set
in around 7PM Sunday evening," but it wasn't until 1:00AM that "el
comandante" conceded defeat. In the view of Time writer, Jens Erik
Gould, they worried more about a Chavez power grab and ability to seize
private property than the proposed social benefits for the poor and popular
grassroots power they'd get. But while "defeat may....slow the President
down....he and his allies still have wide-reaching powers (so the) battle
is far from over" with no doubt left which side Time backs.
-
- Business Week magazine was vocal about what was "Behind
Chavez's Defeat in Venezuela" in an article full of the usual kinds
of errors, misstatements and pro-business slant. It said "rejection....may
mean more stability for business and the economy" without ever mentioning
business is booming, and the economy is one of the fastest growing ones
in the world under Chavez's "socialist vision."
-
- The article quoted the opposition saying if the referendum
passed "We would have woken up in a dictatorship....a possible victory....undermined
business confidence....defeat calls into question whether Chavez will be
able to deepen his socialist revolution....the majority in Venezuela doesn't
share Chavez's socialist vision....There is growing discontent with Chavez's
leadership." Victory would have let Chavez "seize private property....curb
private ownership....undermine Venezuela's democratic and capitalist foundations,
and allow Chavez to create a state styled on communist Cuba if passed."
-
- Anti-Chavez post-election rants could fill volumes. A
few more follow below:
-
- -- the San Francisco Chronicle lamented that "Chavez
(still) holds all the cards (and) The opposition has yet to find a leader
that can match Chavez's magnetic personality and charisma."
-
- -- Bloomberg.com was also dismayed that one defeat won't
"likely....stop (Chavez's) drive to socialize Venezuela's economy....he
may nationalize industries, seize property and weaken central bank independence."
-
- -- the state-run Voice of America (VOA) trumpeted George
Bush's post-election comment that Chavez's defeat is a "vote for democracy;"
it never mentioned his pre-election rant about Venezuela being undemocratic;
-
- -- CBS News headlined "Chavez's Democratic Authoritarianism
(so) Despite (electoral defeat), Venezuela's President will continue toward
absolute rule;"
-
- -- the Christian Science Monitor said "Venezuela's
Chavez Defiant, Despite Defeat....few believe the results will cause (him)
to alter his course,"
-
- -- the Financial Times in a "Chronicle of a defeat
foretold" sees Chavez's support among the poor eroding as "Venezuelans
are seeing things with greater realism;"
-
- -- the Economist sees his "aura of invincibility....forever
damaged, the battle for succession seems bound to begin soon (and) Survival
strategies no longer....involve unquestioning loyalty to the 'commandante.'
The fighting back is just beginning;"
-
- -- CNN was also at the forefront of what Chavez at a
post-election press conference called its manipulation campaign. He said
Defense Minister Rangel Briceno was "very angry by (CNN's) manipulating
campaign....all over the world," he's preparing to sue the cable network,
and "behind (it) is the evil face of the United States;"
-
- -- the BBC is notorious as a "guardian of power;"
it headlined "White House....welcomes the defeat of Venezuelan President
Hugo Chavez's controversial reform....referendum....(and said) the people
spoke their minds....that bodes well for the country's future and freedom
and liberty....(Venezuelans didn't) want any further erosion in their democracy
and their democratic institutions;" pro-Chavez voices or a clear explanation
of the issues were nowhere in sight pre or post-election;
-
- -- the Chicago Tribune headlined "Chavez chastened,
hardly capitulating (as) political leaders and analysts said it is too
early to say whether the slim defeat....represents just a bump in the road....or
the awakening of a durable and vibrant opposition;" and
-
- -- the London Guardian's Seumas Milne headlined Chavez
was "Down but not out in Caracas" in writing for a paper with
a long history of pro-state support and too little of it for its people.
Milne, on the other hand, struck another note saying Bolivarianism suffered
a setback (but) "it's far from finished (and) Sunday wasn't a crushing
defeat." It also "discredit(ed) the canard that the country is
somehow slipping into authoritarian or even dictatorial rule....The referendum
was a convincing display of democracy in action....The revolutionary process
underway in Venezuela has delivered remarkable social achievements."
Halting or reversing them "would be a loss whose significance would
go far beyond Venezuela's borders (but) Chavez's comments and commitments
(show) there is no mood for turning back."
-
- Chavez is resilient and will rebound from one electoral
setback. Don't ever count him out or underestimate his influence over what
co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, Mark Weisbrot,
says is "A historic transformation....underway in Latin America (following)
more than a quarter century of neoliberal" rule. Long-time Latin American
expert, James Petras, puts it this way: "The referendum and its outcome
(while important today) is merely an episode in the struggle between authoritarian
imperial centered capitalism (Chavez opposes) and democratic workers centered
socialism (it's hoped Bolivarianism will deliver)." The spirit of
democracy thrives in Venezuela, and one electoral setback won't derail
it.
-
- Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at
lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.
-
- Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and
listen to The Steve Lendman News and Information Hour on TheMicroEffect.com
Mondays at noon US central time.
|