Americans Analyzing Venezuela
Anti-Chávez commentators in the U.S. always have a major problem. On the one hand, you want elections to yield an opposition victory and hope they do, but you can't admit that hoping for a victory actually means you think a victory is possible, which in turn defeats your "dictatorship" meme. From the Heritage Foundation:
If snap presidential elections are held in the coming weeks, they will not necessarily favor the democratic opposition, especially if the Chavistas preserve their unity. While the likely opposition candidate Henrique Capriles, governor of Miranda, appears more popular than either Maduro or Cabello, his ability to deliver an electoral victory is still in doubt. An emotional hangover following Chavez’s death, promises to continue in the fallen leader’s footsteps, and an unfair electoral process might easily give a decisive edge to Chavez’s successor.
This logic sounds suspiciously like Mitt Romney's.
Hilariously, the "unfair electoral process" quote linked to Ray Walser, who predicted Chávez would steal the presidential election.
Back to my point. Americans who hate Chávez are frustrated because he keeps winning election after election that even the opposition concede with grace. The elections must be rigged, but we have no evidence they're rigged, and so we hope to win, but we don't win, so they must be rigged, yet they're not rigged, so we can win, but we don't win...
Winning elections and governing are two different things. In the Venezuelan case, they get conflated. A minority of Venezuelans strongly dislike the way Chávez governs. But as long as the opposition itself believes in the elections, then it is not accurate to call them undemocratic just because the outcome does not go your way.
2 comments:
While the opposition and US have been like rabid dogs in the last couple days, demanding to know the condition of President Chavez and that any transition of power in Venezuela complies with the Constitution (these are the same people who engineered and carried out a coup and other economic actions and have been trying to stop and bring down the revolution from day one, now they care about the Constitution) the Board of the Parliament through social network Twitter announced "The Board advises that the opening meeting of the National Assembly session will be held at 12 noon of the day 1/5 in accordance with the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela " and is scheduled to elect the new Speaker of the National Assembly, one President and two Vice-Presidents and one Secretary and Undersecretary ( not a member of the assembly) as provided by Article 194.
Cort
On January 10, nothing will be dispelled
The former Dean of the Faculty of Juridical and Political Sciences, Central University of Venezuela (UCV), Alberto Arteaga Sánchez, is afraid that "January 10 has been magnified as the magic day where the masses will emerge from uncertainty.
Undoubtedly, we have the right to live without uncertainty. In a democratic society, serious, transcendental affairs such as the health of the Head of State should be addressed with absolute clarity and transparency, without secrecy leading to rumors that just feed citizens' uneasiness."
To the jurist's mind, "The Constitution has clear and not very clear things concerning temporary or absolute absence of the president."
Arteaga thinks that should President Chávez not show up on that day before deputies to be sworn-in, this does not mean the declaration of his absolute absence, nor does it automatically open the doors to a new election.
"The president-elect of the Republic should take office on the tenth (day of January), except for absolute or temporary absence. Therefore, if the inauguration is not feasible, the nature of the failure to appear should be ascertained." "If the absence is classified as absolute, an election should be held within 30 consecutive days.
If the absence is classified as temporary, it should not exceed 90 consecutive days that may be extended for a similar, 90-day term, in accordance with the regular scheme on absence."
Greg, please stop conflating and confusing voting and citizen meddling in the affairs of governance with "democracy".
If God had intended that poor people have a say in directing their collective destiny, he would have put a ballot in their hands at birth--or, more accurately, at the moment of conception.
He didn't. God chose to have these rabble obey and be slaves to their betters. I believe it--so that settles this issue.
Let them eat the arepas we so generously bestow upon them. Let them watch futbol or tele-novellas and keep their silence.
Or...we will bring them to the stadium for religious instruction.
Where is our Bolivarian Pinochet?!
Post a Comment