|
Writers Articles And Opinions |
|
|
|
30 September 2010 By Stephen
Lendman
On September 26, Venezuelans
again voted, the Venezuela Solidarity Campaign (VSC -
vicuk.org) saying to elect members to the 165-seat
National Assembly. It happens every five years, and
it's the 16th national election or referendum since
Chavez's 1998 victory, taking office as President for
first time on February 2, 1999.
Bolivarianism is always at stake,
represented by his United Socialist Party of Venezuela
(PSUV). They were pitted against the opposition's
Table for Democratic Unity (MUD), an alliance hoping
to deny Chavez a two-thirds super-majority. It was
PSUV's goal, campaign head Aristobulo Isrutiz saying
pre-election:
"We're not working for a
majority, but for hegemony in the assembly. It would
be a convincing victory to surpass 110 lawmakers."
Post-election, he said, "We put forth two-thirds as a
goal and it was not possible to achieve it. But we are
the majority," though short of a three-fifths one
needed to enact Enabling Laws giving Chavez temporary
decree powers that are limited, not unrestrained.
How it works can be accessed
through the following link:
http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/2008/08/corporate-media-bashes-new-chavez.html
However, organic laws or
amendments pertaining to public powers, constitutional
rights, or a framework for other laws require a
two-thirds majority before the Constitutional Chamber
of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice rules on their
constitutional status. For example, Chavez needs a
super-majority to appoint public officials like
Supreme Court justices and the attorney general.
In contrast, most enabling laws
pertain to economic or fiscal regulation, support and
control of enterprises, natural resources, and
politically related issues, unrelated to foreign
policy. They avoid bureaucratic red tape and
facilitate greater citizen participation, but don't
grant dictatorial powers. They're constitutionally
allowed, run for 18 months, and four previous
presidents had them under the 1961 Constitution.
Venezuelan polls are always
conflicting, varying according to the takers' bias,
yet public opinion suggested a close vote.
The near-final results were good,
but not enough for a super-majority as hoped. Having
sat out the 2005 election, opposition gains were
assured, though Chavez supporters hoped not enough to
restrict PSUV control.
Results were as follows:
With three seats so far
undecided, PSUV won 95 of the 165 legislative
positions, a 58% majority that may increase, what US
Democrats or Republicans call a landslide, aside from
the popular vote little mentioned in presidential
races. Only America's Electoral College one counts, so
it's possible to win popular approval and still lose.
Indigenous Venezuelan communities
always have three assured seats. One went to the
Fundation for Integration and Dignfication, another to
the Autonomous Movement of Zulia, and final one to
CONIVE.
MUD won 62 seats, a 38% minority.
The center-left Fatherland for All Party (PPT) won two
seats. Unofficial popular vote totals suggest it was
split about evenly between PSUV and MUD, but
confirmation will have to await an official National
Electoral Council (CNE) announcement.
PSUV won most seats in 16 of
Venezuela's 23 states, PSUV Vice President Elias Jaua
saying:
"The revolution can count on a
comfortable majority in the National Assembly....Few
governments on our continent can count on such a
comfortable majority of just one party. The opposition
does not have any possibility, with this number of
deputies, of reversing the legislative processes that
have been completed or activating destabilizing
mechanisms such as revoking public powers or
impeaching the president."
Both PSUV and MUD got five posts
in the Latin American Parliament. CONIVE got one.
Despite heavy rain in parts of
the country, turnout was high at 66.45%, below the
expected 70% likely in good weather. Orderly voting
proceeded with no major incidents, besides one voting
center forced to relocate because of rain. It was done
easily and trouble-free.
At a post-election press
conference, PSUV's Isturiz declared a "convincing
victory and majority," pledging new Bolarivarian
reforms. On his Twitter site, Chavez declared a "new
victory for the people," though not what was hoped.
Post-election, supporters were subdued, knowing they
face a hostile parliamentary minority. Chavez,
however, was upbeat, saying:
"Well my dear compatriots, it's
been a great election day and we've obtained a solid
victory; enough to continue deepening the Bolivarian
and Democratic Socialism. We need to continue
strengthening the revolution."
In a Monday night press
conference he added:
PSUV's next initiative will
include "the acceleration of programs of the new
historical, political, social, and technological
project."
So far, even at a time of
recession, Chavez's approval rating remains high at
between 55 - 60% - not shared by the corporate media.
Since first elected, Western
media always treated him harshly, especially in
America, notably (among others) by New York Times
correspondent Simon Romero. Reporting post-election,
he headlined, "Chavez Allies Win Legislative Majority,
but Foes Make Gains," saying:
The result "may open a new phase
of negotiation and debate within Venezuela's political
system, (and) set(s) the stage for a potentially
vibrant challenge by the opposition for the presidency
in 2012," when Chavez's six-year term expires.
Though he admitted his popularity
remains high, Romero accused him and his government of
having "used various methods to weaken opponents,
including purging the Supreme Court of critical
justices and stripping resources from elected
opposition officials at the state and municipal
level."
Both charges are bogus. Chavez,
in fact, reformed the high court by replacing corrupt
judges with honest ones, doing it within the law
democratically.
In the past, Romero equated him
with Libya's Muammar el-Qaddafi, accused him of anti-semitism,
and said Venezuelans elected him "because (they)
wanted a dictatorship." He also slandered him in other
ways, including this time by quoting political analyst
Oscar Schemel, saying he's "supported by an
extraordinary propaganda apparatus never seen before
in Latin America, with the exception of Cuba." An
astonishing misstatement given the dominance of
Venezuela's corporate media, denigrating him far more
harshly than Romero or most other US critics.
Electoral
Stakes According to Latin American Expert James Petras
Petras knows Latin America as
well as anyone, for decades writing honestly and
incisively on the region. In his August 20 article
titled, "Brazil and Venezuela: Two Turning Point
Elections this Fall," he explained the stakes,
saying:
They're "decisive(ly) importan(t)
in (shaping) the direction of economic and foreign
policy for the coming decade." For Venezuela, at a
time of economic recession, at stake is whether voters
will reject "the procedural obstructionism of an
increasingly hardline Right," wanting to roll back
progressive gains.
Given their large numbers, this
year's outcome hung on undecided voter choices, many
among the poor and trade unionists. A decisive PSUV
victory depended on whether "worker managed factory
committees and communal councils" swayed them their
way, despite "disenchantment with some (PSUV)
candidates."
Chavez, said Petras, "is the key
to prospects for progressive social change in Latin
America," Bolivarianism having spearheaded impressive
health, education and other social gains, helping
Venezuela's poor and low income sectors most. For the
first time, they got important benefits, ones they
don't want diluted or lost.
Chavez also opposes US
imperialism and "neoliberal policies of the pro-US
hard Right." In Brazil, Petras explained, "voting is
for the lesser evil." In Venezuela, it was for "the
greater good," not perfect but way better than the
alternative.
Venezuela's "electoral process is
highly polarized along class lines," the poor and
lower class backing PSUV candidates, middle and upper
ones for the opposition.
VSC explained that Assembly
members "have power to pass legislation and also to
block (some of) the president's" initiatives if their
opposition coalition exceeds one-third. The
Constitution's Article 187 also affords other powers,
including:
-- "improving the budget,
-- initiating impeachment
proceedings against most government officials
(including ministers but not the President, only
removed by a national recall referendum)," and
-- appointing electoral,
judicial, and prosecutorial government members.
Last August, Venezuela's National
Electoral Council (CNE) officially opened electoral
campaigning. Since 1999, the CNE conducted a national
information initiative so voters know "every detail of
a key aspect of exerting their (voting) rights...." As
the Bolivarian Constitution's Article 56 mandates:
"All persons have the right to be
registered (to vote) free of charge with the Civil
Registry Office after birth, and to obtain public
documents constituting evidence of the(ir) biological
identity, in accordance with the law." All citizens 18
or older may participate.
Included are eligible citizens
located abroad. Once registered, none may be purged,
obstructed, or prevented from voting or having their
choices counted, unlike under America's corrupted
one-party state two wings system. Controlled by big
money, it's the best "democracy" deep pockets can buy,
subverting populist interests for privileged ones.
In Venezuela, in contrast,
enfranchisement is cherished under a system respected
as the world's fairest. As a result, over 11 million
turned out to elect National Assembly and Latin
American Parliament members. Though voting isn't
mandatory, turnout, under Chavez, has been impressive,
compared to America where half the electorate often
abstains, knowing the futility of changing policy
without a total systemic makeover. No referendum
provision, however, allows it.
Washington
Supports Chavez Opposition
Throughout most of Chavez's
tenure, quasi-government agencies like the National
Endowment for Democracy (NED), Institute Republican
Institute (ISI), USAID, and other US organizations
have funneled millions to Venezuelan opposition
candidates, the 2010 election no exception.
On September 9, Eva Golinger
headlined, "US Interference in Venezuelan Elections,"
saying:
An NED May 2010 report "revealed
that this year alone, international agencies (mostly
US ones) are investing between $40 - 50 million in
anti-Chavez groups in Venezuela." Most went to the
opposition MUD coalition.
"There remains no doubt (that)
the Venezuelan opposition - in all its manifestations
- is (a) product of the US government. US agencies
fund and design their campaigns, train and build their
parties, organize their NGOs, develop their messages,
select their candidates," and funnel them money to
survive.
In contrast, the US Federal
Election Commission's Foreign (FEC) Nationals Brochure
states:
"The (1971) Federal Election
Campaign Act prohibits any foreign national from
contributing, donating or spending funds in connection
with any federal, state, or local election in the
United States, either directly or indirectly. It is
unlawful to help foreign nationals violate that ban or
to solicit, receive or accept contributions or
donations from them. Persons who knowingly and
willfully engage in these activities may be subject to
fines and/or imprisonment."
Foreign nationals are defined as
the following individuals or groups:
-- "Foreign governments;
-- Foreign political parties;
-- Foreign corporations;
-- Foreign associations;
-- Foreign partnerships;
-- Individuals with foreign
citizenship; and
-- Immigrants who do not have a
'green card.' "
A Final
Comment
Venezuelans spoke and sent a
message. Though mixed because of the divergence
between the seat and popular vote totals, it affirmed
approval for Bolivarian social reforms. Without a
super-majority, however, it remains to be seen whether
opposition obstructionism will change the equation
enough to matter, and gain more strength against
Chavez in 2012. Today he'd win easily, for sure also
in 2012 against a hard-right opponent for privilege
over anyone for beneficial social change.
Petras is right. Venezuelans now
and ahead have a choice. They can go back to the bad
old days or "vot(e) for the greater good" and keep
their hard won social gains. Most Americans can't even
imagine them under a government serving everyone, not
just society's privileged the way imperial Washington
does it for corporatists and militarists alone.
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 cutting-edge discussions with distinguished
guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the
Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central
time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs
are archived for easy listening.
http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.
EsinIslam.Com
|
Save
Add Comments To This Story