Polls show President Chavez with a double-digit lead over the opposition presidential candidate, Henrique Capriles Radonski. Capriles has a better chance of winning against any of Chavez’s potential replacements.
"Questionable"? Anything is questionable. Anyone can ask questions. Unless you have specific allegations–or ‘questions’–to make about election fraud or the extent to which past Venezuelan elections have been ‘free’ or fair, or can cite allegations made by credible third-party sources (international observers from the UN, EU, OAS, or the European Parliament, or from non-profit NGOs like the Carter Center), it would seem that you’re simply trying to undermine the credibility of the democratic process in Venezuela for no good reason. It’s shameless.
> the government’s citizen security policies are aimed at the eventual disarmament of the civilian population
Obviously crime is one of the most important issues in Venezuelan politics right now. And I am of course glad to see that the Chavez government is currently implementing new policies aimed at reducing the high crime rate. But what does this mean for Venezuela’s civilian militias? In 2010, Chavez said that the civilian militias should be issued weapons if the people are truly to be the guardians of liberty in Venezuela. Will that be reversed?
“The brigades have clear instructions to try to find these FARC bandits. And if they do they are going to capture them, and if they resist they will use their weapons,” Santos said. “Those are the instructions that President Chavez gave, to fire on them.”
I’m impressed with how easily Presidents Chavez and Santos got on the same page, responding so quickly to these attacks by working together, coordinating their efforts. Venezuelan and Colombia have put so much effort into forging a strong relationship, it’d be a shame if these hostilites with the FARC were once again to put a strain on it.
President Chavez, who holds a double-digit lead against Capriles Radonski in every poll taken to date, instructed his government to break relations with Israel after the Israeli military killed some 1,500 Palestinians and wounded another 5,000 during its 2009 siege on Gaza [in 2009].
[…] During his 3-day trip to Israel, the opposition’s Ledezma made no mention of Israel’s segregationist policies towards the Palestinians, the widely-condemned but ongoing blockade against those in Gaza, nor did he question the inhuman prison conditions currently under international scrutiny as several Palestinian hunger strikers near death.
There is zero truth to claims that Chavez ‘hates Jews’. Yet, earlier this year, the LA-based Simon Wiesenthal Center and the New York-based Anti-Defamation League inexplicably injected themselves into Venezuelan politics and accused President Chavez of making anti-semitic remarks. The only evidence is a column written by a Chavez supporter and published on the website of a state-run radio station which opposed ‘Zionism’. President Chavez has repeatedly condemned and vowed to punish acts of anti-semitism (this is only mentioned in the last line of the Associated Press article). Venezuela’s Jewish community has defended Chavez against such ridiculous accusations. Forgive me for dropping a list of links, I don’t have any patience for any of this. In 2010, “‘We Respect and Love the Jewish People,’ said Chavez, who added that opponents have falsely painted him as ‘anti-Jewish’”. Also in 2010, Jewish Representatives Meets with Venezuela’s President Chavez:
>During the meeting, Chavez repeated what he has said on previous occasions, especially in response to opposition claims that he is against the Jewish community, “They have tried to wage a little campaign that I’m anti-Jew, an enemy of the Jews… the reality is we respect and care about the Jewish community”.
The revolution that socialists have been waiting for looks exactly like this. It’s a work in progress, and it takes time, it doesn’t just come overnight. I want to see the people who complain about the government do more than simply join the fucking opposition. I realize that not all Chavistas (in the PSUV, etc.) may welcome constructive criticism but fucking make them. It’s your revolution too, in fact, it won’t happen without your participation.
I actually have no clue what the proper way to address crime would be. The government cannot simply send more people to jail, as prisons are already overflowing, and, if it did, it’d be accused of becoming a police state. It’s the same thing if Chavez were to establishe a powerful elite police force, the opposition would say that he is trying to oversee a totalitarian state structure. Are there sensible approaches to the violence that are being ignored?
Trendzetter, you’re right about my basic position. I occasionally submit new articles biased *towards* the opposition because I’m eager to spark discussions about Venezuelan politics (and media coverage of said politics) anyway I can and because I believe in promoting dialogue between the supporters and opponents of President Chavez. But in this case, I’m genuinely confused. I read vivachavez’s comment as being sarcastic. Of course the Chavez government could not have managed to rig all these independent polls! Is there anything about my submission that suggests that this might be the case? I’m not sure if you read the Reuters article I submitted, but it contains very ‘good’ news about Chavez’s re-election prospects. In fact, I’m quite surprised that you hadn’t submitted it first! As a sidenote, have you noticed peoples’ increasing dismissiveness towards from venezuelanalysis.com, the best English-language source for pro-Chavez news? I actually had a falling out with a family friend because he refused to believe anything reported from the site, even when it merely announced the results of objective studies, reports.
You called it a “government sponsored massacre” yet even now you cannot defend that description honestly. If the Tupamaros were involved in the shooting, it still falls short of being a government sponsored massacre. I am not aware of any order that the government had instructed them to shoot peaceful protesters. You are also ignoring the fact that people from both sides of the political divide were killed, and that both sides participated in the shooting. However, CIA documents show that only one group of people had advanced knowledge of what happened that day, and these were the opposition leaders against the Chavez government at that time. These leaders planned to “exploit unrest stemming from opposition demonstrations slated for later this month“; the blood of the dead is on their hands, not the Chavez government, no matter how strongly you may oppose it.
By pretending that “the Chávez government provoked the crisis,” even when you know the truth, you’re literally repeating the same propaganda points issued by Ari Fleischer, spokesperson for the Bush administration. This is a profound betrayal of the Venezuelan people. I see no point in continuing to argue with you. What you said does not amount to a “government sponsored massacre” even if it were true. The coup leaders had advanced knowledge of civil unrest that day (how did they know this?) and, rather than attempt to stop it, proceeded to exploit that violence to attempt a takeover of government–CIA documents prove that. And the Chavez government did not.
I assumed that, as someone who was so worried about losing contact with your parents that day, you would be a little bit more concerned to blame the people who were truly responsible for instigating the violence that day.
I regret that you have held to this wrongful position, because I’ve found the other things you’ve had to say very insightful, and I’m sure that we could have had a very positive, productive exchange about your home country.
I understand the frustration in not having someone address your comments. But ever since I started responding to you, I have had one major complaint. And I believe I deserve to have that answered first. Why did you lie? So far you’ve agreed with me about Carmona, and just about everything I’ve said. So why the fucking lie? I can provide a lengthier response, but where would that get us? I pretty much agree that you have some valid concerns, which is why I didn’t choose to refute them. I just don’t understand why you lied about April 11, 2002. Edit: I’ll address each of those issues individually, if it pleases you. It’ll have to wait. As I’ve suggested, we could see eye-to-eye on a lot of these issues, which is why I’m disappointed that you’ve chosen to lie so brazenly.
Listen, we can debate the small points another time, but I see that you are a reasonable person. So *why* did you feel the need to misrepresent the tragic events of April 11 2002 as a "government sponsored massacre"? Why did you take an event for which the opposition was by far the more responsible party, and blame it on the government instead? The lying seriously undermines your credibility! I am only a ‘supporter of the current system’ because I find myself having to defend what I see as true against the lies being spread about the Chavez government, like this one. If you were instead honest about the facts, and if the facts truly spoke for themselves, we could have seen eye-to-eye on these matters.
Everyone: this is the attitude of the small opposition. He or she has nothing but contempt for the Venezuelan people. If it were up to him or her, they would have no say in who governs them. Because he or she doesn’t like who the people elect, Port-au-prince condemns the whole country. It is shameful!
I’d like to believe you. But Kajarago has 34 karma for contributing just “Chavez is a piece of shit” in reaction to AthosPorthosAramis lying about a “government sponsored massacre” that was actually instigated by the leaders of the political opposition at that time. I’m sorry for being “hostile and extremely accusatory” but I believe that that is the proper response when you catch someone lying about the tragic deaths of 19 peaceful protesters. I had no idea that I’d be better off shouting “so and so is a piece of shit” than citing the New York Times and CIA documents!
I can detail many more atrocities committed by the Chavez government to my family, so I know for a fact that it’s not only “opposition instigation.”
You know “many more atrocities” but when the opportunity comes along to name them in a thread like this, you take an event *perpetrated by the political opposition to Chavez* and blame it on the Chavez government itself? Please detail them. I would find your word more credible if you hadn’t called the events of that tragic day in April 2002 a “government sponsored massacre”, while *excusing* the actual one responsible as just “no saint”. You are disrespecting the individuals who actually did perish that day. For 200 karma points! So name them. Please, name the ‘atrocities’ that the Chavez government has committed to your family. Trust me, as someone very interested in Venezuela, following its news and politics for years, I would like to know. I agree that Venezuela’s problems run deep. But I also agree with the majority of Venezuelans, who are likely to re-elect Chavez this year, that life is improving and that the Chavez government is largely responsible for that.
I disagreed with you earlier (when you called the events of 11 April 2002 a ‘government sponsored massacre’), and I still beg to differ with your bleak outlook about the country’s future (assuming that Chavez survives cancer and the next election). By the way, the majority of Venezuelans also disagree with you–ACCORDING TO GALLUP, VENEZUELA IS THE FIFTH HAPPIEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD. There have been *vast improvements* (that is, relative to the past!) under Chavez that were unthinkable under previous governments! You mention “poverty”, but that’s *been reduced by more than half under Chavez*–’extreme poverty’ has fallen by 72%! He’s lowered unemployment to 7.5% in site of the global financial crisis! Venezuela currently has the lowest percentage of social inequality in Latin America, according to the UN. If you need more examples (sometimes opposition people live in a ‘bubble’, not unlike Republicans who watch Fox News in the U.S.), I haven’t even gotten started; I can go on and on (Yes, I’m aware that crime has gone up, but that’s hardly attributable to Chavez’s government). And how much worse things would be if the old ways were restored! But I do like this line here:
>Chavez is only the tip of the iceberg and a figure head for the marginalization of the country. Chavez is a symptom of a disease, of a mentality.
I admit that’s a lot closer to the truth than lots of people are saying, so I give you credit. The situation in had gotten so bad, the oppression and inequality, that a political figure like Chavez was bound to become embraced by the Venezuelan people. Venezuelan democracy, so stable for years, was on the verge of collapse. In my view, Chavez saved it the only way possible by founding the Bolivarian Republic, and laying it on top of a new constitution and a revived public spirit. OK, I respect what you said in the line quoted above though. Anyway, it’s not often political opponents can be civil. So I thought I’d try.
To be honest (because many aren’t), it’s probably impossible to tell just who started the fight, or who shot first.
Recall that there were two demonstrations that day. The anti-government demonstrators decided to re-route the march so as to confront the pro-government demonstration! Both sides claim that they were there peacefully, and did not want to provoke anyone. It was a tragic mess, involving both sides, but a few conspirators had advanced knowledge that civil unrest would take place, and those were the opposition leaders who had planned the coup!
I have a friend on reddit, Ven28, who belongs to the opposition (and we fight all the time), but even he admits that “as a person who protested that day, I believe we were lied by the media, by the political leaders of that time.”
>The privately owned media sided with the coup leaders and began spewing propaganda; the state run media was mysteriously taken off air and unable to broadcast the truth! Imagine what Chavez government officials and supporters experienced, how they felt as they were shot at, taken prisoner, and forced into hiding (only to return two days later when the Venezuelan people took to the streets and demanded that Chavez return)! So I’m sure they too have very shocking/terrifying/traumatic stories to tell, but are unfortunately underrepresented on reddit.
I do not doubt that you were terrified by the events of April 11, 2002. But I alarmed that you misrepresent those events as “government sponsored massacre”. A total of 19 peaceful protestors died that day, from both sides of the country’s political divide, and both sides were involved in the shooting, after an anti-government march was re-routed so as to confront the pro-government rally in front of the Miraflores, the President’s building.
In 2004, the New York Times uncovered CIA documents showing that the CIA knew that opposition leaders at that time were planning to “*exploit unrest stemming from opposition demonstrations* slated for later this month”. Isn’t it curious that opposition leaders had advanced knowledge of this supposed “government sponsored massacre” and yet did nothing to stop it? Neither the Chavez government, nor the ordinary protestor had such knowledge.
The opposition leaders at the time (right-wing business leaders and military officials) deliberately provoked civil unrest, endangering the lives of thousands of protesters that day, and they did so because they *wanted* to incite a violent government response. Only such an crisis might possibly justify the coup attempt planned for later that day.
I have a friend on reddit, Ven28, who belongs to the opposition (and we fight all the time), but even he admits that “as a person who protested that day, I believe we were lied by the media, by the political leaders of that time.”
The privately owned media sided with the coup leaders and began spewing propaganda; the state run media was mysteriously taken off air and unable to broadcast the truth! Imagine what Chavez government officials and supporters experienced, how they felt as they were shot at, taken prisoner, and forced into hiding (only to return two days later when the Venezuelan people took to the streets and demanded that Chavez return)! So I’m sure they too have very shocking/terrifying/traumatic stories to tell, but are unfortunately underrepresented on reddit.
Editted: I was accused of being “overtly hostile and extremely accusatory” (and I also mistakenly thought that Athos’s parents had been killed in the events) so I re-wrote my basic point to sound less angry.
I am not Venezuelan, but I closely follow the news and politics of the country. I too would be interested in hearing from actual Venezuelans on this matter, but in the meantime, I have some thoughts to share.
The first is that land reforms *really are* needed in Venezuela. Chavez’s critics (mostly outside the country) interpret these reforms as an “assault on private property”, a means of radical provocation. These critics are obviously unaware of the history of the country, and the problems arising from its neglect of agriculture.
Since oil was discovered in Venezuela, agriculture came to a halt. Peasants and laborers fled from the countryside–where two-thirds of the population once lived–to the cities–where today, 90% reside. (5% of landowners now own between 75% to 80% of all private land, most of which has remained idle and unproductive for decades!) Venezuela has had to import roughly 70% of the food it consumes!
Land reform is THE most difficult challenge facing not just Chavez but the Venezuelan people themselves. It should be mentioned that part of the difficulty lies with the fact that the reforms are vehemently opposed by the wealthy landowners. Few people are even aware that *many hundreds of peasants* have been murdered, by hired gunmen and right wing paramilitaries, for attempting to implement these much needed new land reform policies!
Here’s a good article to read. BTW, nothing I said can’t be found in Wikipedia’s “Agriculture in Venezuela” entry.
i agree. the socialists who ‘hate’ Chavez seem to do so because they’ve internalized the anarchist ethos that it is somehow better to avoid the logic of power and instrumentality, rather than to get one’s hands dirty by seizing and putting to work the apparatus of the state. the continued success of the bolivarian revolution, and all the achievements of the Chavez government must be denied because it challenges the so-called ‘wisdom’ of anarchists that calls for ceding the state, a powerful instrument of class struggle, to the control of ruling class elites.
a lot of the opposition he stifled was openly calling for his assassination,
What? Do you have a source for this? Who openly called for Chavez’s assassination, and how were they “stifled”? I may have missed this news story, because I wasn’t aware Chavez has “stifled” “a lot of the opposition”, or even just the worst of them. In fact, those involved in illegal political action often see no consequences at all.
For example, how did the Chavez government deal with the reactionary business leaders and military officials who briefly ousted Chavez from office in the failed coup attempt of 2002? The punishment for treason is execution, right? But Venezuela abolished the death penalty for all crimes (in 1863), and Chavez has made no exception. Pedro Carmona, the apparent leader of the 2002 coup (who dissolved the Venezuelan constitution, suspended the National Assembly, and eliminated other democratic institutions of government, etc.), faced rebellion and conspiracy charges; but rather than face justice, Carmona “escaped house arrest, fled to Colombia, and later surfaced in Miami, Florida”. Venezuela requested that the U.S. extradite him, so far without any result.
It is the Chavez government that has been “stifled” in its pursuit of justice! For example, Danilo Anderson was the state prosecutor who led the investigation of others implicated in the coup attempt; in November 2004, Danilo was assassinated while driving home when two charges of C4 plastic explosives fixed to his car detoned remotely. In a recent comment about political violence in Venezuela, I cited an ICG report showing that “the vast majority of people killed in political violence since 1999 have been Chavez supporters”.
In addition to Danilo Anderson, many hundreds of Venezuelan peasants have been murdered–by gunmen and right wing paramilitaries, hired by the country’s wealthy landowners–for attempting to implement the Chavez government’s new land reform policies, and hundreds more have been threatened with similar violence. Moreover, despite being popularly elected, President Chavez has been under constant threat of assassination by the CIA and others, and miraculously survived a coup attempt in 2002. There have been countless other assassination attempts made against other Chavez-aligned public officials, campesino and trade union leaders, party members, etc, and many of these have been successful. (I’m essentially building on your comment, not arguing or refuting it.)
undemocratic in the stifles political opposition
President Chavez does not “stifle” the political opposition in Venezuela. To “stifle” is to prevent or constrain, to make (one) unable to breathe freely. By this definition, Chavez has done far too little to “stifle” his political opponents, esp. considering that they want to return elite rule to the country! If there is a word to describe these bourgeois opponents, they are surely “unconstrained”. With their enormous wealth and full control over the private media, Venezuelan elites use every resource available to them to undermine the people’s will, and little “prevents” them from conspiring to overthrow the Bolivarian Republic. If these ‘undemocratic’ plots to dispose their elected leader and popular government are thwarted, it is not by Chavez but by el pueblo Bolivariano themselves.
Do you actually want me to go looking for it, expecting along the way that I don’t find it? Are you serious?
Yes. I provided sources to the information I mentioned in my comment! It’s really not so difficult, that is, if what you say is factually correct… (I don’t even know what “paralympics information” you are looking for!)
The article suggests that “now” the government is helping people with disabilities,
You’re obviously reading far too much into the article. Nowhere does it “suggest” anything of the sort! In case I’ve missed it, please show me where the article makes this alleged “suggestion”. BTW, the word “now” is only used once, referring to the age of the Paralympian whose hand was cut off by a machete at 18 (he is “now aged 27”).
Now you’re changing the subject to health care in general. Do you think I still want to debate after you’ve misinterpreted the OP article, denied well-documented facts, and failed to cite evidence for your claims?
Are you honestly suggesting that if we’d had a right wing leader for the past 13 years, our paralympians would not have done so well?
No. I am honestly suggesting that, by insisting that “it’s not Chavez’s socialism, this has always been going on”, your comment overlooked the pretty significant fact that, although Venezuela has “been participating in special olympics for decades… since 1980”, the country’s atheletes have only recently been kicking ass at the Paralympic Games. I was not speculating as to the cause of the better performance, merely noting its existence.
Part of the reasons for our better performance in sports are 1) mass communication (internet) 2) better information 3) more media coverage.
Aren’t all three of those things really the same thing? Are you honestly suggesting that if there were less media coverage, the Paralympians would not be doing as well?
What do you think of the fact that, according to this Reuters article, the “roughly 40-person [Venezuelan Paralympic] team” is grateful to the government of Chavez“, and give him”with pouring unprecedented resources into grassroots sports". (Are you saying this isn’t true, that the resources have always been there?)
Many of the Paralympians live in government-funded housing close to their training grounds in Caracas and receive a gamut of other benefits. The athletics team are guided by husband-and-wife Russian coaches with experience of that country’s famous Soviet-era sports programs.
Are you saying that Paralympians have always enjoyed the benefit of “government-funded housing close to their training grounds”? Have these athletes always been guided and trained by world-class Russian coaches?
Let’s hear what the Paralympians themselves have to say, shall we? >“It’s a change from past governments – if you’d won an international award they would only say ‘well good, that’s your obligation’,” said Juan Valladares, a wheelchair racer who lost movement in his legs to polio when he was a baby.
“But with this government there is so much support, so much incentive. They’ve given us all the resources we need,” he added during a break in early morning training at a bustling stadium in west Caracas also hosting school groups and a soccer team.
Now here’s Reuters:
Often criticized by Western nations on issues of rights and democracy, the Chavez government says its “massification” of sport, to expand participation and improve facilities, is an overlooked achievement during its 13 years in power.
Such is the commitment, said Venezuela’s Paralympic Committee president Ahiquel Hernandez, that the state even paid for Paralympic swimmers to go to Japan for specialty training.
“In Venezuela sports are a constitutional right. Since 1999 we’ve had dignified sports participation for the disabled,” she told Reuters. “For the government it’s an obligation of conscience.”
Yes, that’s right. Sports are a right guaranteed by the 1999 Constitution, article 111! Clearly you’re not giving the Chavez government the credit it deserves.
The “Special Olympics” is not the same as the “Paralympics”. These are “two separate organizations,” although they are similar in that “they both focus on sports for athletes with a disability and are run by international non-profit organizations”. The “Special Olympics” features athletes with intellectual (i.e. learning) disabilities, whereas the “Paralympics Games” is an event for athletes with physical disabilities (i.e. mobility or vision impairment).
Just as Venezuela has been participating in the Special Olympics since 1980; it also has been participating in the “Summer Paralympics” (every for years) since 1984 (except for 1988). See: Venezuela at the Paralympics
However, it is highly significant that *Venezuela was **“never a major medal contender” under previous governments*; but the country”has improved its medal intake over time” ever since President Chavez was elected into office.
Having won no medals in 1984 or 1996, a single bronze in 1992 (Yolmer Urdaneta’s in the men’s discus) and a single bronze also in 2000 (Ricardo Santana’s in the men’s 200m T13 in athletics), it achieved its first silver (Santana in the 100m) and five bronze in 2004. The country’s first -and so far only- Paralympic gold medal was won in 2008 by Naomi Soazo in the women’s up to 63kg in judo. 2008 marked Venezuela’s highest achievement to date, with one gold, four silver, and two bronze.
“Venezuela at the 2000 Summer Paralympics”, “Venezuela at the 2004 Summer Paralympics” and “Venezuela at the 2008 Summer Paralympics” each have their own dedicated articles on Wikipedia, but there’s almost nothing about the country’s participation in years (1984, 1988, 1992, 1996). You call it “propaganda” for Reuters to celebrate the fact that your country is doing incredibly well in the Paralympic Games over the past several years? It is a fact (though you may dispute the cause). Some people would be proud of their country at this moment.
It’s too bad this fact isn’t more appreciated. Those who think elections are too hard are effectively conceding the power of the state to the elites!
I fear that on a quick reading the article seems to support the false narrative that even President Chavez, like all communist atheists, will accept Christ in the end. Sure, there’s also the cynical take that he’s using religion as a political tool. This one may be a bit closer to the truth, but both of these readings are wrong. Chavez has a long cited Jesus as a guiding light for his socialist revolution. But rather than accepting the Jesus of the Catholic Church, Chavez has reinterpreted Jesus as "an authentic communist, anti-imperialist and enemy of the oligarchy". >One must read the real Jesus, not the Jesus of the oligarchy or the Jesus of the elite, the real Jesus: the one who was born there among the poor, who was a poor boy, who grew up among the poor, who stood up to the Roman imperialism of those times, who stood up to the religious elite of those times, who went around encouraging people to love one another. I’m an atheist, yet I have no problem with President Chavez’s alleged religiosity, mostly because it is driving the Catholic Church and its leaders absolutely crazy.