[R-G] Venezuela: Reality versus reporting

[Anthony Fenton]

Venezuela: Reality versus reporting
Submitted by World View on Sun, 12/16/2007 - 07:24.
http://www.tcdailyplanet.net/node/8586
Twin Cities Daily Planet

The NY Times is, once again, doing their best to lead the corporate  
media spin campaign in-progress, constructing a consensus on  
Venezuela according to pre-conceived conclusions, and not according  
to the realities on the streets in Venezuela.

The spin - in all corporate media I've read - has been:

1) Chavez tried a slight-of-hand "power grab" (this is repeated over  
and over) via a constitutional reform.

2) Venezuelans, recognizing his authoritarian and dictatorial  
tendencies, rejected his attempts to be Preident for life, voted  
against the proposed changes, demonstrating that the population does  
not support his crazy proposals.

3) Democracy wins, Venezuelans celebrate, and we all live happily  
ever after (unless the villain Chavez tries another trick, he-he-hoo- 
hoo-ha-ha... stay tuned noble democracy-supporters!)

While it makes a nice and tidy story (and short enough to fit into  
articles), this does NOT coincide with reality in Venezuela.

     World Views publishes stories, reflection and analysis with an  
international perspective and a Minnesota connection. This story  
comes to us from Patrick Leet, a Minnesotan currently living in  
Venezuela. He has worked for Witness for Peace and currently serves  
as the Venezuelan correspondent for MIRAc - the Minnesota Immigrants  
Rights Action Coalition.

Why not?

1) It is incredibly simplistic to say this was about a Chavez power- 
grab, as both the process and content of the proposed reform were  
complex. The process itself was a 3-tier process that included an  
initial proposal of 33 articles by Chavez, a "parliamentary in the  
streets" open period of proposals from social organizations and the  
people, and an additional 36 articles added by the National Assembly  
(which included the "street parliamentary" stage).

If this were about an abusive power-grab, Chavez - who holds a  
significant majority in the National Assembly - could have simply  
pushed it through for a vote in the Assembly w/out a popular vote,  
knowing it would be rubber-stamped. Why didn't he just do that?

2) This power-grab President-for-life theory seems the biggest  
concern to the international press. It was of concern to some and  
discussed in Venezuela for sure, but the discussion went much deeper  
(although not nearly deep enough). The final proposal was very  
complex, including:

* Providing a social-security fund for workers in the informal economy.
* Making illegal descrimination based on sexual orientation (as well  
as other things, but this was the most controversial amongst the anti- 
discrimination clauses, given that Chavez has very strong support  
amongst evangelicals, and is himself quite socially conservative on  
several issues.)
* Removing the autonomy of the Central Bank.
* Creating new forms of property, including Collective Property,  
Public Property, Mixed Property, and Social Property (both direct and  
indirect). ...all this in addition to "recognizing and guaranteeing  
Private Property".
* Creating gender parity in state institutions
* Reducing the work day to a maximum 6 hours, the work week to a  
maximum 36 hours
* Creating parity in the voting system in universities (currently a  
professors vote counts for 40 student votes, and university workers  
can't vote. This would change to include students, workers, and  
faculty as equals)
* Altering the character of the army such that it is "popular" and  
"anti-imperialist"
* Lower the voting age from 18 to 16
* Creating new forms of local government, including something like a  
confederation of cities based on the "commune", which would have been  
a constitutionally recognized local entity
* The creation of by-appointment Vice-Presidents who would oversee  
newly designated (rural) areas to ensure they are part of the  
national distribution of resouces, decision-making, etc.

And these are only amongst the most heavily discussed. There were 69  
articles in-all.
Every single one merits much discussion, even if in most cases they  
reflect popular will.

Confusing, right?
Exactly.

THIS is what kept abstention high and lost the vote - confusion - and  
not a rejection of Chavez. This confusion was, of course, fed by a  
reported $8 million in US funding of opposition propaganda and  
student groups that, sadly, had an impact. By the Dec. 2 vote the  
rumors of "if it passes the state will take my house" were  
widespread, and not accidental.

People - many, many people - decided simply not to vote rather than  
betray Chavez and vote their concerns about one or another article,  
even if they support the bulk. Chavez still has a roughly 65%  
approval rating (according to polls conducted over the last week).  
Again, 3 million people (8 million in-all voted Dec. 2nd) who voted  
for Chavez a year ago simply did not vote. Yes, some who have voted  
for Chavez did vote against the proposal, but it is considered a  
relatively small percent of the overall vote, and not the massive  
anti-Chavez upheavel we've been hearing about.

4) In addition, the "President-for-life" claim is worth questioning.  
The proposed article #230 reads in its entirety: "The Presidential  
Period is 7 years. The President of the Republic may be  
reelected." (En espanol: "El periodo presidencial es de siete anos.  
El Presidente o Presidenta de la Republica puede ser reelegido o  
reelegida.")

What this means is that presidential elections would be held every 7  
years, and any opposition group would be able to put the president's  
office up for a recall vote (as determined by anohter article) at the  
mid-way point of every 7 year term. Chavez stays in office if and  
only if he is re-elected every 7 years by direct popular vote.

5) In reality, if this article - eliminating presidential term limits  
- is taken-up by the population and re-submited as a single-issue  
popular referendum (a bottom-up initiative is permitted by the  
Venezuelan constitution) it would likely receive far greater support  
than the reform proposal as a package, and likely pass. Again,  
despite media reports, there is broad support for Chavez as a leader  
amongst a large majority of the population, and most want him to  
continue beyond 2013, despite a minoroty whose voice is amplified  
greatly by international press in the name of "the Venezuelan  
people". The divisions are based largely on class and, like most  
countries, the wealthier classes represent a significant minority.

What many see as most hopeful - and most often ignored by  
international media - is the tremendous bottom-up participation in  
neighborhoods across Venezuela, also challenging media-constructed  
myths. As of a few days ago, people across Venezuela are beginning to  
collect signatures to to re-submit parts of the referendum. This  
would seem to be completely spontaneous and without much organization/ 
coordination, and will likely NOT be a successful electoral strategy  
unless it is better organized, but demonstrates the popular nature  
and bottom-up support of this process. Again, this will of course not  
be reported widely by international press, doing their best to paint  
Venezuela as a dictatorial state.

6) While we may or may not support term limits (many international  
followers have questions about a process so dependent upon one  
person), this is something for the people of Venezuela to determine.  
Unless there are gross violations of Human Rights (such as is the  
case in Colombia, for example), it would seem it is our job to  
support their sovereign decision.

7) Lastly, reports in the international press are absent of any  
context and filled with eurocentric racism and double-standards:

When can we expect outcries about France's political system, where  
there are no term limits and the president alone can dissolve the  
French National Assembly?

When will the NY Times claim "dictatorship" in Italy, where the  
parliament and representatives from regions elect the president (i.e.  
NOT a direct popular vote), and there are no term limits?

When will we gasp out loud and call "crazy" (as Chavez is called) the  
anti-democratic traditions in the UK, where there are no term limits,  
where the prime minister holds office "at Her Majesty's pleasure",  
and where it is custom to kiss the hand of the monarch of the day,  
before being recognized as Prime Minister. Even the opposition is  
referred to as "Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition."

In addition, the claims that abounded of "no election monitors"  
negate the presence of more than 100 organizations and individuals,  
including the NAACP and officials from organizations in multiple  
African countries. It would seem you need to be white and/or linked  
to the OAS (Organization of American States) or the Carter Center to  
be considered a legitimate election monitor.