Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter said at the Carter Center this past September:
“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.”
even though he controlled the outcome via ballot fraud.
There is no evidence Chavez “controlled the outcome via ballot fraud”. And no one, aside from you and a few other wingnuts on reddit, is even claiming this. In conceding defeat, Capriles himself recognized Chavez’s legitimate victory. Moreover, the opposition would not now be campaigning so hard ahead of the upcoming regional elections, if they thought the vote was rigged.
Venezuela’s elections under President Chavez have been declared free and fair by international bodies such as the EU, the Organization of American States (OAS) and the Carter Center. In fact, Jimmy Carter, who has monitored 92 elections around the world, in September announced: “I would say that the election process in Venezuela is the best in the world.”
>Also, how long as Hugo Chavez been running Venezuela?
President Chavez was [first elected in 1998](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuelan_presidential_election,_1998). [In 2000, he was elected again](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuelan_presidential_election,_2000) under a new Venezuelan constitution. He survived [a recall referendum in 2004](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuelan_recall_referendum,_2004), [won re-election in 2006](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuelan_presidential_election,_2006), and was elected to his third six-year term in [October 2012](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuelan_presidential_election,_2012). In sum, Hugo Chavez has been President of Venezuela for 14 years.
>Just because Raul took over from Fidel, that hardly seems like a real turn over. Quibbles.
The last time I checked, my brother and I were two separate individuals, despite having the same last name. (Or do you regard George W. Bush’s presidency as a mere extension of his father, George H. W. Bush’s?)
It could be that there is little difference in the leadership of one President and that of his or her successor. But, even if that were true in a particular case, you would be measuring “length of a regime”, or “length of a government”, not the “length of tenure per leader”, which is what this graph is representing.
BTW, there are huge differences between Cuba under Raul Castro’s leadership and Cuba under his brother, Fidel’s. Search google to research some of the Post-Fidel reforms.
>if you just make up the results afterward.
If anyone is ‘making things up’, it is you! Venezuela’s elections under the Chavez government have been declared free and fair by international bodies such as the EU, the OAS and the Carter Center. In fact, Jimmy Carter, who has monitored 92 elections around the world, in September announced: “I would say that [the election process in Venezuela is the best in the world](http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/7315).”
Ugh. DavidByron is right about Venezuela’s elections. It’s not just his opinion. This is what former U.S. President Jimmy Carter said at the Carter Center this last September:
“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.”
Chavez won the last presidential election (in 2006) with a 26% lead over the opposition candidate. With a little over a month to go, the AFP reported last week that “Most polls give Chavez leads of up to 35 percent to win the election.” I’m looking forward to seeing whether Chavez will defeat this year’s opposition candidate by an even wider margin! ’
I define him as non democratic.
That’s not true either. Venezuela has had nation-wide elections or referenda nearly every year that Chavez has been President. He and his supporters have won 12 out of 13 of him. Venezuela’s electoral system has received positive ratings from the Carter Center, the Organization of American States (OAS), and the European Union (EU). The country regularly welcome international observers to monitor its elections to ensure they are free and fair.
In his only electoral defeat (the 1 in 13), Chavez conceded his loss and did not challenge the outcome. When the opposition gained (nearly half of all the) seats in the last National Assembly election, he congratulated them.
I won’t even bother to mention the examples of direct, participatory democracy that he has endorsed as a major part of the Bolivarian revolution he champions. As for the charges that he has suppressed political freedom, or freedom of the press, you only need to open a Venezuelan newspaper to realize that there’s little truth to them.
Just because it is not true that "elections are always honest" doesn’t mean that if Chavez wins the next election, that election is not honest. BTW, Venezuela’s [electoral system](http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/1503) receives favorable [evaluations](http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/1533) by numerous reputable international organizations including the [Carter Center](http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/331), the Organization of American States (OAS), and the [European Union (EU)](http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/2243?page=124). Venezuela [welcomes international observers to monitor its elections](http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/oct/12/venezuela-opens-election-to-observers/), something the U.S. never does.
>Chavez may be popular now, but he isn’t always going to be. There is already many people in Venezuela who don’t like him and the number grows every year. For your information the last line of the article submitted above reads "Most polls give Chavez leads of up to 35 percent to win the election." Chavez won his last presidential election by a 26% margin. 35% > 26%. Make of that what you will but it is hardly suggestive of an impending confrontation between a ‘guerilla army’ (which, by the way, probably doesn’t even exist, as this is the first article to ever mention it) and an "oppressive state". Chavez will not be President forever, sure, but if more and more Venezuelans dislike him every year, why wouldn’t they just vote him out of office? I can imagine him stepping down if his cancer returns. There are so many other plausible scenarios whereby Chavez would leave office, a confrontation like the one you imply is so unlikely.
I’m sorry that you can’t cite any historical evidence to support your claim–that removing ‘term limits’ “always ends badly”–but, then again, perhaps you should never have asserted that “Latin America has many historical precedents to show this”! As I explained by reference to an early example of dictatorship in Venezuela’s history, dictators do not typically come to power by winning popular support in free and fair elections; instead, they tend to come to power–against the will of the people–which is why, if elections are not suspended indefinitely under their rule, the vote is almost certainly rigged. So, not only is there no evidence to suggest that the mere existence of presidential term limits could have prevented the rise of dictators (who would ignore them anyway), there is no apparent logical reason why they even should: because how likely is it that a ‘dictator’ could be re-elected for a third consecutive term–by large majorities of the population, in free and fair elections? If President Chavez manages to pull this off, maybe it’s time to consider whether he is not, in fact, a dictator, at all?
I don’t know why your friend thinks Chavez is “on his way out”. There isn’t a shred of evidence to support this. Most opinion polls show Chavez leading the opposition candidate by double-digits. >“His power and influence has been weakening over the last 14 years”. How does one measure “power and influence”, exactly? Yes, the opposition coalition has gained seats in the National Assembly. But Chavez continues to enjoy a 62% approval rating! Since Chavez shares power with the opposition, he cannot be called a tyrant. And the opinion polls suggest the Venezuelan people are about to re-elect him. Yet your friend claims that he’s “about to be ousted for being a tyrant and an embarrassment to the people of Venezuela”. by a coup?
Venezuela has held thirteen nationwide elections or referenda since 1998. President Chavez and his supporters have won twelve of them. He has been and continues to be a hugely popular leader–this is just fact. In 2007, for the first time in nine years, Chavez was handed his first electoral defeat when his constitutional referendum (to amend the 1999 Constitution) was narrowly defeated (50.7% to 49.3%). He conceded the loss. In 2010, the mainstream media published numerous articles reporting the results of surveys and opinion polls showing a small decline in the President’s popularity rating from what it was once (at 70 percent in 2005). Since then, Chavez’s popularity rose back up from 43% in Spring 2010 to 59% in Fall 2011. Most recent polling shows his popularity remains unchanged, at 60%. A few mainstream news outlets have reported this surge. This year’s presidential election will be held on October 7. Most opinion polls show Chavez leading the opposition candidate by double-digits. I agree “you wouldn’t know it…” unless you kept an eye out for this data…. Anyway, I just thought it was worth sharing these numbers….
absolutely. it’s remarkable just how wrong popular misconceptions are.
not only is president chavez not a dictator, he has been a relatively tame political leader, considering how nearly everything he’s done has been ‘by the book’ (in accordance with democratic processes, etc. e.g. he and his supporters have won 12 out of 13 nation-wide elections and referenda since 1998). whereas the opposition has been completely unrestrained in seeking to restore elite control!
after the 2002 coup attempt, in which opposition leaders briefly overthrew the democratically elected government, dissolved the constitution, national assembly, and the supreme court, wouldn’t you expect chavez, once restored to power by the people, would take some vengeance against his enemies?
were there executions of the coup conspirators? no. instead, it was the state prosecutor, danilo anderson, leading the investigation into those who hadn’t fled the country, who got assassinated. car bomb.
but chavez has killed other people, right? nope. capital punishment is not applied in venezuela. it was the FIRST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD to abolish the death penalty for ALL CRIMES.. in 1863! there have been no exceptions.
[RCTV's] “crime” was reporting events from a more or less impartial POV and airing both sides of the event
That is not at all an accurate description of RCTV’s coverage of the 2002 coup attempt. Even the Wikipedia article on RCTV, which you cited above, contradicts your description.
Re: Alleged Impartiality of RCTV
RCTV reported these actions [the illegal coup against a popular, democratically elected government] as a victory for democracy and conducted friendly interviews with leaders of the movement. […]
Footage from the Irish documentary The Revolution Will Not Be Televised appeared to show a coup leader *thanking RCTV* and Venevisión for their assistance, **calling the media “[our] secret weapon”**. […]
RCTV *encouraged pro-coup protests*, *celebrated* when Chávez was temporarily removed from power, and **broadcast false reports that Chávez had renounced his presidency**.[41] […]
Re: “Airing both sides of the event”
Subsequently the new government rapidly unraveled, after Carmona issued a decree that established a transitional government, dissolving the National Assembly and the Supreme Court, and suspending several Chávez appointees. While his own coalition wavered, large sectors of the armed forces moved into the Chávez camp, linked up with a mass popular uprising from the barrios, and restored Chávez to office. RCTV DECLINED TO REPORT ANY OF THESE EVENTS, preferring to broadcast reruns of looney tunes and the film Pretty Woman.
According to the Chicago Tribune, RCTV and other broadcasters supported the failed coup “by directing marchers and then failing to inform the public that the coup had failed”. […]
In addition, when Chávez returned to power, RCTV did not report the news but rather broadcast entertainment programs such as the movie Pretty Woman. […]
This is all on the Wikipedia article you cited as support for your claims.
I don’t consider a democracy a regime in which one of the conditions to get a broadcasting license is supporting the government. The problem was not that RCTV did not ‘support the (Chavez) government’, but that RCTV did not even support democracy, the process or the system by which that government came to be elected by the Venezuelan people!
A democracy, by definition, must allow an opposition to exist.
You must be very uninformed if you think that an opposition is not allowed to exist in Venezuela. The opposition currently holds nearly 40% of the seats in the National Assembly (65 out of 165)! Although he is still lagging behind in the polls, the opposition candidate Capriles believes he can defeat Chavez in this year’s presidential election. The truth is that, when they weren’t conspiring to overthrow democracy, the Venezuelan opposition has participated in every election (there have been many) except for the one they boycotted: if the opposition lacked political power the reason is simply because they have been defeated in free and fair elections.
"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.
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.
If you could show me a transcript or a specific example of something that the President has said that you believe is “very, very wrong”, I would give it serious attention; but as far as I’m concerned, every government in the world engages in ideological proselytism, and the only difference here is that President Chavez is not espousing the virtues of capitalism. This is not an abuse of power because you happen to disagree with his ideology!
With all due respect, I strongly object to the suggestion that the Venezuelan government is somehow infringing on the “freedom of political thought” by allegedly “demoniz[ing] the very act of organizing an opposition”. As you know, President Chavez has defeated the opposition again and again, winning 13 elections in the country over the past ten years; these were elections monitored by international organizations and were determined to be free and fair.
In the last elections for the National Assembly, held in 2010, the opposition parties nearly split the popular vote with the President’s United Socialist Party of Venezuela! Chavez did not object to the outcome, but rather welcomed the new legislators, asking them to “maintain dialogue and respect with the people” despite their disagreements.
But the truth is the opposition has not always accepted to play by democracy’s rules. It is true that the PSUV had previously dominated the National Assembly, but this wasn’t because the government crushed opposition parties, but because those parties foolishly boycotted the 2005 elections! Three years earlier the organized opposition tried to capture political power by staging an illegal coup attempt against Chavez’s democratically elected government!
Why should the President not criticize an opposition that refused to recognize the popularly ratified Constitution, or tried to violently overthrow a democratic government? It’s not as if the Venezuelan government had made ILLEGAL “the act of organizing an opposition”; it simply denounced the ILLEGAL tactics the opposition had organized!
By the way, the private media which you (for some unpersuasive reason) portray as a purveyor of government propaganda actually played a significant role in aiding an illegal coup attempt in 2002. The response on the part of the government was not as harsh one might expect from an allegedly oppressive regime; the government chose not to renew RCTV’s license when it expired and came up for renewal, but the opposition made a fuss anyway!
In sum, Chavez has welcomed the new members of the opposition in the last elections who agreed to play fairly and accept the outcome of the democratic process; there is nothing to suggest otherwise. But he has not, nor should he, tolerate freedom of the people’s enemies to overthrow democratic government and reinstate oligarchic rule!
I am actually afraid for Capriles if he does get elected.
The former ruling elites still behind the opposition have been anxiously waiting for the chance to regain control of the country for the past thirteen years, and they want nothing more than to reverse all developments of Venezuelan society since Chavez was first elected in 1998.
However, after failing every conceivable effort to re-assert control, the opposition has cleverly decided to conceal its reactionary agenda for the time being, and to pursue a wholly cynical strategy to retake power by riding in on the coattails of a promising young ‘left-of-center’ candidate.
They will tolerate his populist campaign promises as long as it secures him a victory in the election; but he’s in for quite a surprise if he thinks those elites backing him will ever allow him to govern in the way he is promising!
If he tries to make good on his promises and follow in the footsteps of his predecessor, they’ll turn on him immediately but unlike Chavez, Capriles will lack the power to stop them, and his rule will be short-lived.
If he swings to the right to please his new masters–as President Carlos Andrés Pérez did in 1989–the people, following precedent, will cry bloody murder and rise up in righteous indignation.