Author
|
Topic: Venezuela's congressional election Dec. 4
|
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273
|
posted 01 December 2005 08:25 PM
Four opposition parties have dropped out of the race, in the face of certain victory for the Chavistas in the 167-seat National Assembly election this Sunday. The tactic seems designed to save face by avoiding a massacre at the polls, while laying the basis for future attempts to discredit the legitimacy of the election. Their stated reason for withdrawal is an ill-founded fear that the vote will be rigged. Observers from the OAS and the European Union will be monitoring the election. Venezuelan Vice President Jose Vicente Rangel has suggested what many already assume to be the case - that George W. Bush is behind the last-minute maneuvering by the opposition parties. It's an attempt to create an atmosphere of crisis and confusion, in keeping with the policy of the Bush administration to undermine the Bolivarian revolution at every turn. The U.S. denies this, of course. quote: Source Larry Birns, director of the Council on Hemispheric Affairs, a policy group in Washington, said he expects the U.S. to support the boycott in an effort to portray Chavez as an increasingly authoritarian leader. "Washington will use this decision as justification to ratchet up its anti-Chavez campaign," Birns said.Venezuela's opposition parties have been reeling ever since Chavez first won election in 1998 by denouncing traditional politics as corrupt while promising to improve the lot of Venezuela's poor majority. Since then, Chavez has survived a brief coup and a punishing, opposition-led national strike. He easily defeated a recall referendum in 2004 aimed at ending his presidency. Among the groups boycotting Sunday's vote are Democratic Action and the Social Christian Party, or Copei, two centrist parties that once dominated Venezuelan politics but have been largely discredited in recent years.
Meanwhile, other elections are looming in Latin America, and the prospects don't look too good for the US imperial agenda: quote: Polls show that leftist candidates who are critical of U.S. policies have good chances to win presidencies in Bolivia and Mexico. Voters also are poised to elect female presidents in Chile and Peru, which would be a first in both countries. Observers are predicting hard-fought campaigns in which the role of U.S.-supported economic policies will be center stage.
From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Ghost of the Navigator
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11029
|
posted 02 December 2005 03:24 PM
quote: Originally posted by M. Spector: Are you saying there is a move afoot to expel Acción Democrática from the SI? That would be news to me.
No. I'm saying that there damn well should be a movement to expel AD, New Labour, the National Democratic Party of Egypt, Mexico's PRI, the Labour Party of Australia, and other parties that do not share socialist or social democratic values or that are anti-civil libertarian. The Socialist International should only be open to social democrats, democratic socialists, and left-liberals who believe in democratic governance, civil libertarianism,sustainable development, and socioeconomic justice. [ 02 December 2005: Message edited by: Ghost of the Navigator ]
From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Ghost of the Navigator
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11029
|
posted 04 December 2005 12:42 AM
quote: Originally posted by Alan Avans:
A wise position. The SDP is much further to the left than the NDP probably ever will be. For that matter, so are the Christian Democrats.
Sure, the CDU/CSU created a welfare state in the 1950s and 1960s. Nowadays, however, the main distinction between them and the SDP is that the former wants to gut it faster than the latter. (Reminds of the relationship between the Quebec Liberal Party and the Parti Québécois...Former creates welfare state, latter sustains and expands welfare state, both then start gutting at different rates depending on who's in power. :-P Hell, part of the Links Partei's rasion d'être is to provide an alternative to a social democratic party that has disintegrated into a neo-liberal lite party (sadly, its other use as a parking lot for disgruntled East German Stalinists makes it kryptonite in the West) , much as that's more or less the only reason for the UFP to exist as an independent entity rather than as a socialist (Rather than social-democratic or neo-liberal, the current ideologies dominating the PQ right now) wing of the PQ.) For that matter, the only difference between the SDP and New LieBlair is that the former does not want to be a Washington lapdog. That being said, the B.C., SK, and MB wings of the party often try my patience....They seem to share more with the LPC than with the NDP most of the time. [ 04 December 2005: Message edited by: Ghost of the Navigator ]
From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
radiorahim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2777
|
posted 04 December 2005 09:27 PM
History repeats itself...first time as tragedy...second time as farce. In 1984 the pro-US coalition known as the "Coordinadora Democratica" (CD) organized a boycott of the Nicaraguan elections in an effort to discredit the electoral process. Even though foreign observers reported that the electoral process in 1984 was free and fair, the U.S. media reported the opposite. Mind you in the same "neighbourhood", in the same year there was an election in El Salvador. The "main" opponents were the pro-U.S. puppet Jose Napoleon Duarte of the conservative Christian Democratic Party and Roberto D'Aubisson of the fascist death-squad linked ARENA party. If you didn't vote, you were viewed as a guerilla supporter and possibly marked for death. Of course the U.S. media reported that election as being free and fair.
From: a Micro$oft-free computer | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
a lonely worker
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9893
|
posted 05 December 2005 01:06 AM
The latest results show a resounding victory for Chavez, whose supporters are winning 114 out of 167 seats!Chavez allies victorious in Congress vote Best of all the EU and even the OAS have stated the results so far are clean. No wonder the USians tryed to undermine this election. US style democracy = It's only fair if our puppet wins by any means. If only we had a Chavez as PM of Canada!
From: Anywhere that annoys neo-lib tools | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
cjdnorth
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11028
|
posted 08 December 2005 09:50 PM
This post is an email from James Shearer. James is a fellow Canadian Union of Postal Workers activist. Prior to the election we had heard that Venezualan Customs officials had denied entry to a US senator and his entourage. They had left them sitting in their corporate jet on the runway for several hours as the American Embassy tried to get them in. The Venezualans suspected them of bringing money in to finance the Anti-Chavez campaign.James says: Hello everyone, Salut mon Amis, Hola Amigos...greeting from Caracas. It´s been an exciting and eye opening couple of days. I arrived in Caracas on Saturday afternoon and was met at the airport by my friend Yumara. We took off and grabbed a bite to eat and then I called some people that I had been in touch with about being an electoral observer. I spoke to Marta Henecker and Mike Liebowitz and found out that the official observing was being done by groups from the EU, the OAS and other groups. I had been in contact with people leading up to the elections about participating but i found out I was out of the loop this time...oh well...No CUPW observer this time... So the next mourning I woke up early and headed out to check out the polling stations and see if I could informally observe...I ended up in a poor suburb of Caracas hanging out at a voting station with the some soldiers and the Venezuelan election officails who had been posted there....they didnt mind me hanging around asking questions and talking to people. I told them I was from CUPW and wanted to check out the elections first hand...they seemed honored that someone or some group would be that interested in their elections and their country These elections were for the Federal Parliment(167 seats)as well as deputies for the Latin American Parliment(12 seats)and deputies for the Andian Parliment(5 seats)These were not presidential elections. So everyone was wondering if anyone would come out to vote because in the past in Venezuela if the election isn´t presidential no one bothers. The other very interesting fact was that last Thursday or Friday, four of the opposition parties, including the strongest of the opposition parties, Primero Justicia decided to withdraw from participating. All the polls leading up to the election had Chavez´s party the MVR(Movimento Quinta Repùblica) leading and so instead of having to admit defeat these parties withdrew alltogether...well all hell broke loose as you can imagine. The opposition parties of course justified doing this by saying the elections are fixed and that was why they would not participate. That even if they did run somehow ´Elections Venezuela´was going to fix the results. It seems however that what really happened and what is coming out now in the state media is that all of these parties did want to run but the NED (National Endowment for Democracy) and other American government organizations that fund all these parties decided that the best thing was for these parties not to run and so instructions we re given that they not participate or all their funding would be cut off. So aginst their wishes they were forced off the ballot. This, so that hopefully the voter turnout would be dismall and internationally the US (and Canada) could argue that the Chavez parliment has no mandate because only a very small percentage of the people voted for them and that the system is fraudulent and that is why no one voted. So what happened that day...well exactly what everyone thought would happen...It poured with rain, everyone asumed that Chavez´s party would win( the 75% of people who support him and his party), the opposition called for abstencion and so only 25% of the people voted. A disaster...a result that makes it look like no one cares, that they don´t trust the system and that there is no democracy in Venezuela...exactly what the US and others want !! I can tell you that everyone I spoke to who voted thought what the opposition did was disgusting...and everyone I have spoken to since Saturday who didn´t vote thought that what the opposition did was a joke too.....and they did not vote because they knew the Chavez party would win and that is who they wanted to win...support for chavez and his party MVR is 90 % in the area I´m staying in.... So my friends..that´s a quick update ofwhat´s going on... I´ll write up a more extensive report and send you some pictures when I get back tnis weekend.... Peace, Love and Solidarity from Guatire, Venezuela your brother James Shearer
From: Victoria, BC | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Andrew_Jay
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10408
|
posted 08 December 2005 11:06 PM
My professor just got back from there, where he was overseeing some of the monitoring.His reaction was very mixed, but he's pretty pessimistic about the whole thing. While it's great what has been done in terms of infrastructure and social programs, politically it's going down-hill fast. That low voter turnout isn't going to help anyone, as now the state knows exactly who didn't vote in what was essentially a Chavez-only election. Of course it doesn't help that Chavez has also promised to stay in power until the 200th anniversary of the Bolivar revolution, that's what, 2024? The word going around is that Chavez in only leaving office one way - his death, either through an assassination or otherwise. If that happens, it's not going to be good for anyone.
From: Extremism is easy. You go right and meet those coming around from the far left | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273
|
posted 09 December 2005 12:07 AM
quote: Originally posted by cjdnorth: [quoting James Shearer]: It seems however that what really happened and what is coming out now in the state media is that all of these parties did want to run but the NED (National Endowment for Democracy) and other American government organizations that fund all these parties decided that the best thing was for these parties not to run and so instructions were given that they not participate or all their funding would be cut off. So against their wishes they were forced off the ballot. This, so that hopefully the voter turnout would be dismal and internationally the US (and Canada) could argue that the Chavez parliment has no mandate because only a very small percentage of the people voted for them and that the system is fraudulent and that is why no one voted.
This confirms what had been suspected.With Chavez enjoying massive popular support, the US-backed opposition can't hope to effect regime change through electoral means, so on the instructions of their political masters in Washington they try to undermine the electoral process itself. Ironic when you consider how the Bushites point with pride to the questionable electoral processes in Iraq and Afghanistan as proof that the US has brought freedom to those countries. I guess things are different when you don't get to control the outcome of the vote. [ 09 December 2005: Message edited by: M. Spector ]
From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885
|
posted 09 December 2005 09:13 AM
quote: Originally posted by Andrew_Jay: My professor just got back from there, where he was overseeing some of the monitoring.His reaction was very mixed, but he's pretty pessimistic about the whole thing. While it's great what has been done in terms of infrastructure and social programs, politically it's going down-hill fast. That low voter turnout isn't going to help anyone, as now the state knows exactly who didn't vote in what was essentially a Chavez-only election. Of course it doesn't help that Chavez has also promised to stay in power until the 200th anniversary of the Bolivar revolution, that's what, 2024? The word going around is that Chavez in only leaving office one way - his death, either through an assassination or otherwise. If that happens, it's not going to be good for anyone.
Read the post above yours, Andrew. Stop being such a shill.
From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273
|
posted 09 December 2005 07:47 PM
Chavez Wins, Bush Loses (Again)! Now What? By James PetrasThe turnout for the congressional elections without a presidential campaign was 25 per cent....If we compare the voter turnout with the most recent election, which included the opposition (the August 2005 municipal elections), the abstention campaign accounted for only a 6 per cent increase in citizens who chose not to vote (69 per cent to75 per cent). The claim that the low turnout was a result of the US backed opposition's boycott is clearly false. The argument that the level of turnout calls into question the legitimacy of the elections would, if applied to any US "off-year" election, de-legitimize many congressional, municipal and gubernatorial elections. One of the most striking aspects of the election was the highly polarized voter participation: In the elite and upper middle class neighborhoods voter turnout was below 10 per cent, while in the numerous popular neighborhoods the BBC reported lines waiting to cast their ballots. With close to a majority of the poor voting and over 90 per cent voting for Chavez' party, and electing an all Chavez legislature, the way is open for new, more progressive legislation, without the obstructionist tactics of a virulent opposition. This should lead to measures accelerating the expropriation of latifundios (large estates) and of bankrupt and closed factories as well as new large-scale social and infrastructure investments. It is also possible a new constitutional amendment will allow for a third term for President Chavez.... In the recent congressional campaign, polls indicated another massive electoral defeat, Washington pressured its NGO and political clients to withdraw from the ballot and call for an abstention, with the above-mentioned result -- total loss of any institutional sphere of influence, further isolation of its political constituency and the inevitable turn of the business class toward direct negotiations with the Chavez congress-people instead of via the opposition.... With the demise of the traditional parties, political pluralism, debate and political competition will be expressed elsewhere. There are numerous political parties and tendencies who are "pro-Chavez" including a dozen parties, which can be classified as social democratic, social liberal, nationalist and a variety of Marxist groups. Likewise in the agrarian and industrial sectors and within the social movements and trade unions, there are divisions and competition between reformers, centrists and revolutionaries. Within Congress and the ministries these tendencies argue, debate, propose and modify policies. And Chavez himself has a 'reformist' pragmatic and revolutionary side to his discourse and practice. In other words, pluralistic democracy is alive and well.... Washington's support for the self-immolation of the Venezuelan congressional opposition opens the door for greater advances in legislation promoting jobs, public ownership, agrarian reform, progressive labor legislation and the building of bridges toward greater Latin American integration. The loss of US levers of power presents a great opportunity for reformists and revolutionaries to seize the historical moment and demonstrate their capacity not only to defeat the empire but to build an democratic, just and egalitarian socialist society in which the mass of the population is engaged in legislation, not just voting for politicians who may or may not defend their best interests.
From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|