Saturday, December 01, 2007

Final parting thoughts before the referendum Lots of people visiting the blog hoping to get some news, but there is very little. Chavez had to take advantage of his position and ranted in front of the foreign press his usual stuff, concentrating on CNN being worse than Hitler and going back a little on his threat of nationalizing the Spanish banks by saying that he would do so if the Partido Popular wins next year. In the end he will do what he wants, whenever he wants, so the whole thing is meaningless. Chavez continues to personalize Venezuela’s Foreign Relations the same way his egotistical mind personalizes everything and he refuses to see what a poor job he has done for the people in these now very long years.   As for the outcome, it is hard to predict what will happen. This year is indeed different, as the polling firms do show results, which are not only different, but also fairly consistent among themselves. Last year in the Rosales-Chavez race, there were a few optimistic pollster, but Datanalisis and Seijas were giving Chavez a huge lead all along. Just as a reminder, Datanalisis gave Chavez a 53-26% lead two weeks before the election, Consultores 21 gave Chavez a 58-41% and Hinteraces gave Chavez a 41-35% lead, so that things are indeed different this time.   The problem is what the role of abstention will be and while everyone is focused on the abstention of the No’s and the Ni Ni’s (those that are not pro- either side), I also believe that abstention among Chavistas is going to play a role more significant that many are predicting. Abstention in elections not involving Chavez himself has been high, such as the referendum to approve Chavez’ new Constitution which had 67% abstention and Chávez was in the height of his popularity. Similar levels of abstention in the 60% plus category were seen in the regional elections of 2004. Thus, Chavistas have gone out en force only when Chavez’ name has been directly involved as a candidate or in the recall referendum vote of August 2004.   Two additional factors play a role in the pro-Chavez abstention: One, Podemos is a strong party in many states and this time around they will be driving but the vote against Chavez. Two, many Governors and Mayors see the reform as a threat to their own survival. Clearly this works against Chavez.   But there is also large abstention among Chavez’ opponents who believe that since it is rigged it is not worth going to vote. Moreover, Venezuela’s have never been to truthful about their vote intentions, so that even those that claim they are “likely” to vote are probably not very likely to go. It is shame thing here to say you are not going.   Another positive notes is that both Datanalisis and Seijas have tended to overestimate the Chavez vote and underestimate the opposition vote by some 4% points, so that their recent results may be more positive than some think.   So, to me it is a toss up and I do believe there is fraud so that the No needs to obtain a large victory to show a small one. At this time, unless lines are long and huge tomorrow, my feeling is that the Si edges the No by a small margin, but I am hopeful that people will go massively and vote and we can squeeze by 2 or 3 points, fraud and all. In both cases, it will be a huge defeat for Chavez as he will have a rather weak mandate for his revolution as I discussed earlier this week. I truly do not believe Chavez can obtain a large victory tomorrow, the numbers clearly say that. So, let's hope my worst moment this weekend was going out to lunch and finding out I could not order any alcoholic beverages because of the election. A pity, the food was marvelous as I hope are the results tomorrow. I will be blogging mostly pictures during the day as I have the time. I do have to go and vote! 8:38:11 PM    comment []

Thinking aloud the day before the Venezuelan vote: Baduel’s’ Op-Ed Editorial in the New York Times Today, General Raul Baduel, Chavez’ buddy and former Minister of Defense published an Op-Ed piece in the New York Times, copied below, in which he goes far beyond the criticism of the upcoming referendum and presents a strong and sharp criticism of Chavez and his Government during the last nine years. The piece in fact sounds like something written in any of the opposition blogs and is a devastating criticism of Chavez’ revolution by one of its founders and one of its loyal participants.   The question is why does Baduel have to go today and publish an article in English in such a newspaper the day before the Venezuelan referendum on Constitutional Reform? To me the answer is simply the same as to why Baduel decided to jump ship a month ago and completely distance himself from Chavez.   First of all, while Baduel claims to have been with Chavez through “thick and thin”, this is not precisely the truth. At key moment Baduel played his cards just right in order to survive and proved in two instances to have done precisely that.   The first time, was in 1992 when despite Baduel’s role as a founder of the Bolivarian movement he failed to participate in the bloody coup in February 2002, which failed mainly because Chávez did not achieve his military objective. Baduel was supposed to participate in it and there has never been a clear explanation of why.   The second time was during the events of April 2002, when Baduel did not participate in the group of military that asked Chavez to resign, did not show up at Fuerte Tiuna once Chavez had left and waited until the Carmona Government unraveled to single handedly bring Chavez back to the Presidency. This act, in the end guaranteed that he would end his military career as a three star General and Minister of Defense.   An ambitious man, Baduel seems to once again be playing his cards right. Early in November he saw the weakness in the proposal for Constitutional reform with voters and within the military and saw his opportunity to play a role if the No vote won. Baduel clearly understands that Chávez will not recognize a No victory. Chavez is no democrat and has never been, he has used democratic votes to his personal advantage, no more no less. If the No vote wins, Baduel has played his cards right to be a possible acceptable transition figure should Chavez not recognize the vote and be forced to leave in the upcoming days, weeks or months after Sunday’s referendum. He is an acceptable figure to Chavismo, he has tried to present himself as an alternative to the opposition and now he wants his position to be well known internationally before the events of tomorrow may unravel as a way.   I have no idea whether he is right or will succeed, what I do know is that I don’t like the man. From being military, to his strange beliefs in his past lives, to his silence while he was Minister of Defense, to his ability to survive by walking a very fine gray line, I certainly don’t want to see this man in any position of power in my country. Ever.   But he really does... Why I Parted Ways With Chávez By RAÚL ISAÍAS BADUEL Published: December 1, 2007 Caracas, Venezuela ON Dec. 17, 1982, three of my fellow officers in the Venezuelan Army and I swore our allegiance to the Bolivarian Revolutionary Army 2000. We considered ourselves to be at the birth of a movement that would turn a critical eye on Venezuela’s troubled social and political system — and formulate proposals to improve it. One of the officers with me was Hugo Chávez, the current president of Venezuela, whom I have known since I entered the military academy 35 years ago. Hugo Chávez and I worked together for many years. I supported him through thick and thin, serving as his defense minister. But now, having recently retired, I find myself with the moral and ethical obligation as a citizen to express my opposition to the changes to the Constitution that President Chávez and the National Assembly have presented for approval by the voters tomorrow. The proposal, which would abolish presidential term limits and expand presidential powers, is nothing less than an attempt to establish a socialist state in Venezuela. As our Catholic bishops have already made clear, a socialist state is contrary to the beliefs of Simón Bolívar, the South American liberation hero, and it is also contrary to human nature and the Christian view of society, because it grants the state absolute control over the people it governs. Venezuelan society faces a broad array of problems that have not been addressed in the eight years Mr. Chávez has been in office, even though the present Constitution offers ample room for any decent, honest government to do so. Inflation, threats to personal safety, a scarcity of basic supplies, a housing shortage and dismal education and health care are problems that will not be resolved by approving this so-called reform. How is it that we, the people of Venezuela, have reached such a bizarre crossroads that we now ask ourselves if it is democratic to establish the indefinite re-election of the president, to declare that we are a socialist nation and to thwart civic participation? The answer is that all Venezuelans, from every social stratum, are responsible for the institutional decay that we are witnessing. The elite never understood — and still fail to understand — the need to include, in every sense, the millions who have been kept at the margins of the decision-making process because of their poverty. At the same time, President Chávez led the poor to believe that they are finally being included in a governmental model that will reduce poverty and inequality. In reality, the very opposite is true. In recent years, the country’s traditional political parties have come to see the Venezuelan people as clients who can be bought off. During the economic boom years, ushered in by a sustained increase in oil prices, the parties dispensed favors, subsidies and alms. In the end, they taught the people about rights rather than obligations, thus establishing the myth that Venezuela is a rich country, and that the sole duty of a good government is to distribute its wealth evenly. President Chávez has been buying and selling against this idea, continuing to practice the kind of neopopulism that will reach its limit only when the country receives what economists call an “external shock.” Exorbitant public expenditures, the recurrence of government deficits even at times of record-high oil prices, the extreme vulnerability of foreign investments, exceedingly high import tariffs, and our increased domestic consumption of fuel at laughably low prices are all signs of what lurks on the horizon. It now seems that, even without an appreciable dip in global oil prices, our economy may well come to a crashing halt. When it does, it will bring an end to the populism that the government practices and has tried to export to neighboring countries. Venezuela will thrive only when all its citizens truly have a stake in society. Consolidating more power in the presidency through insidious constitutional reforms will not bring that about. That’s why the Venezuelan people should vote no tomorrow, and prepare to pursue a political culture that will finally be able to steer our beloved nation toward true economic and social progress. 1:56:01 PM    comment []

Revolutionary Last Supper Mural M sends this wonderful picture of a mural in Caracas that is as screwed up as the revolution. You can see Andres Bello, Mao, Chavez, Jesus of course, Che Guevara, Simon Bolivar, Guicaipuro and Lenin. (If you recognize more let me know). Funny that Castro is missing and that Chavez does not occupy Jesus' place. I guess the painter needs more revolutionary education. By the way, Chavez is painted holding the "old" and by now terrible 2000 "blue" Constitution. How passe! 10:02:10 AM    comment []