-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Media: Venezuela - Reality versus Re****ting
Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit
Daily Planet Blog via Venezuelanalysis - Dec 17, 2007
http://www.tcdailyplanet.net/blog-entry/2007/12/16/venezuela-reality-versus-re****ting.html
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/3008
Venezuela: Reality versus re****ting
by Patrick Leet
The NY Times is, once again, doing their best to lead the cor****ate
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 cor****ate media I've read - has been:
1) Chavez tried a sleight-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 sup****t 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-sup****ters!)
While it makes a nice and tidy story (and short enough to fit into
articles), this does NOT coincide with reality in Venezuela.
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 ***ual orientation (as well as
other things, but this was the most controversial amongst the
anti-discrimination clauses, given that Chavez has very strong sup****t
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
re****ted $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 p***** 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 sup****t 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 sup****t than the
reform proposal as a package, and likely pass. Again, despite media
re****ts, there is broad sup****t 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 cl*****
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 sup****t of
this process. Again, this will of course not be re****ted widely by
international press, doing their best to paint Venezuela as a
dictatorial state.
6) While we may or may not sup****t 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 sup****t their
sovereign decision.
7) Lastly, re****ts 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 "dictator****p" 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.
[Patrick Leet is 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. ]
*
=================================================================
NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems
Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us
Our main website: http://www.blythe.org
List Archives: http://blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
Subscribe: http://blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
=================================================================
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (FreeBSD)
iD8DBQFHZuNeiz2i76ou9wQRAnJXAKCreSjQ1H+FBvmYnt8LPWGGQPmM3gCgqEkh
pFtwyoa26xJq/M5Hf/kN0pE=
=CW0J
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
