With impeccable timing – just before the polls in the US for
President, the House of Representatives and a third of the Senate – Venezuela has gone to the
polls, and incumbent President Hugo Chávez has
emerged victorious with 54.4% of the popular vote, against 44.9% for
challenger Henrique Capriles. The electoral system there has on many occasions been
declared free and fair.
Yep, look out to your right
So it should be no
surprise at all that right-wingers have emerged to denounce the result as
anything but. The reasons for this are many and varied: Augusto Pinochet is
asserted to have stood aside earlier, but he was actually in power for over 16
years, and with no chance for Chileans to vote on the matter. The election is
held to have been fixed, but the only evidence is nudges and winks.
The more moderate
disapproval was shown by the Daily Mail,
which
sniffily observed that Chávez
had in his favour “a legacy of
putting Venezuela's poor first with generous social welfare programs”.
Terrible, eh? And the Mail seems not
to like “preferential oil deals with
allies such as Cuba”, which is their business. The Mail fails to mention the largest oil deal made by Venezuela – with
China.
That, and the drive to make policy independently of
Washington DC, is behind the rampant anti-Chávez sentiment, such as the
Murdoch owned Wall Street Journal,
which calls Chávez a “dictator”, states that the result was
achieved by fraud, and infers that the electoral roll was rigged. And our
friends at the routinely dishonest Commentator
are
also deeply unhappy with the situation.
There, Joel Hirst likens
challenger Capriles to Paul Ryan – “Chavez
is old, overweight and sick; Capriles is 40 years old and a marathon
runner” – and refers to Venezuela’s “destroyed
democracy”. He pretends that Chávez
has lost three of the last four elections, and cites the Heritage Foundation in
his support. Then he, too, makes dictatorship comparisons.
But the US Library of Congress (the paper is also linked
from the CIA World Factbook) states
unequivocally that “Free and fair
elections have been held regularly since 1958”. Former
US President Jimmy Carter has said that “As a matter of fact, of the 92 elections that we've monitored, I
would say that the election process in Venezuela is the best in the world”.
The “we” is the Carter Center.
Turnout in the Venezuelan election was just over 80.4%, with
voter registration running at around 97% of the electorate, figures that put
the USA (and, whisper it quietly, the UK) to shame. The problem for Hugo Chávez is that not doing what Washington wants
you to do is a shortcut to permanent demonisation. Sometimes it is hard to
accept that democracy might not give the result others might want.
Fortunately the USA has got over the kind of
action they took in Chile in 1973.
2 comments:
>But the US Library of Congress (the paper is also linked from the CIA World Factbook) states unequivocally that “Free and fair elections have been held regularly since 1958”.
Not sure if you are spinning or missed a trick there.
That study is from 1990 so says nothing about Chavez elections.
The CIA World Factbook has nothing more recent. Had there been an end to free and fair elections, there certainly would have been.
So it's safe to assume that there has been no change to the situation. Also see Jimmy Carter's comments.
Post a Comment