[Journalist and activist of the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) Vanessa Davies spoke with Venezuelanalysis.com about the meaning of the referendum, the next steps and challenges ahead for the PSUV, gender in the Chávez government, the media, and U.S. President Barack Obama.]
“The People Won the Vote, Now The People Must Become the Government”
February 25th 2009, by Vanessa Davies & James Suggett - Venezuelanalysis
Two days after the referendum in which 54.9% of Venezuelans approved a constitutional amendment to lift term limits on elected officials, journalist and activist of the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) Vanessa Davies spoke with Venezuelanalysis.com about the meaning of the referendum, the next steps and challenges ahead for the PSUV, gender in the Chávez government, the media, and U.S. President Barack Obama.
Vanessa Davies, could you please describe your role in the Bolivarian process?
I am a journalist. I worked for many years in a very right-wing newspaper. I have always been an activist of the Left. I have always been connected to the revolution. I do volunteer work in [the Venezuelan state television channel] VTV, and I do volunteer work with other alternative media. I collaborate with everything I can that will support the revolution.
Since the year 2008, I have participated in the national leadership of the PSUV, the United Socialist Party of Venezuela. We campaigned for the regional elections last November. In this campaign, the campaign for the amendment, personally, I dedicated myself to travelling around the country, to campaign face-to-face, and to work with the pro-amendment committee of VTV.
What is the significance of the results of Sunday's vote?
I think they show the revolutionary will of the majority of our people, their will toward transformation. Our oppressed and discriminated people are asserting their role in making the Bolivarian Revolution continue. Also, the majority of the people believes in and vouches for the leadership of Commander Chávez.
I think that when looking at the results we must also see who was defeated. I think the private communications corporations, incorrectly labeled the mass media, were defeated. These corporations act like political parties, and even beyond this, like conspiratorial groups, as in the case of Globovisión. I think they were defeated in the referendum. They had a campaign of lies, of terror. It is a campaign that we've dealt with throughout the Bolivarian Revolution, a campaign of deception, of manipulation of the middle class that has historically been very anti-communist in our country.
(click here to view entire article)
Saturday, 28 February 2009
Saturday, 21 February 2009
Washington's Praise of Poll Suggests Detente with Venezuela
[Praise by the U.S. State Department for Sunday's referendum in Venezuela suggests that President Barack Obama is hoping to ease long-strained relations with President Hugo Chavez, according to US-based Latin America experts.]
Washington's Praise of Poll Suggests Detente with Venezuela
February 17th 2009, by Jim Lobe - IPS
WASHINGTON, Feb 17 (IPS) - Praise by the U.S. State Department for Sunday's referendum in Venezuela suggests that President Barack Obama is hoping to ease long-strained relations with President Hugo Chavez, according to regional experts here.
While State Department spokesman Gordon Duguid Tuesday noted that Washington had received "troubling reports of intimidation," he added that, "for the most part, this was a process that was fully consistent with [the] democratic process."
Asked whether Washington approved of the poll's results - which changes the country's constitution to enable Chavez to run for a third term in 2012 - Duguid said the question "was a matter for the Venezuelan people".
Washington's reaction marked a distinct change in tone from the consistently hostile rhetoric of the administration of President George W. Bush, which had welcomed a coup attempt against Chavez in 2002, and follows a remarkably conciliatory statement by the populist leader on the eve of the referendum, which Chavez won with a solid 54 percent of the vote.
Only last month, Chavez had denounced Obama - even comparing his "stench" to Bush - for publicly admonishing Caracas for its alleged support of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) insurgency. On Saturday, however, he said he was ready to engage in direct talks with the new U.S. president in order to restore better ties.
(click here to view entire article)
Washington's Praise of Poll Suggests Detente with Venezuela
February 17th 2009, by Jim Lobe - IPS
WASHINGTON, Feb 17 (IPS) - Praise by the U.S. State Department for Sunday's referendum in Venezuela suggests that President Barack Obama is hoping to ease long-strained relations with President Hugo Chavez, according to regional experts here.
While State Department spokesman Gordon Duguid Tuesday noted that Washington had received "troubling reports of intimidation," he added that, "for the most part, this was a process that was fully consistent with [the] democratic process."
Asked whether Washington approved of the poll's results - which changes the country's constitution to enable Chavez to run for a third term in 2012 - Duguid said the question "was a matter for the Venezuelan people".
Washington's reaction marked a distinct change in tone from the consistently hostile rhetoric of the administration of President George W. Bush, which had welcomed a coup attempt against Chavez in 2002, and follows a remarkably conciliatory statement by the populist leader on the eve of the referendum, which Chavez won with a solid 54 percent of the vote.
Only last month, Chavez had denounced Obama - even comparing his "stench" to Bush - for publicly admonishing Caracas for its alleged support of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) insurgency. On Saturday, however, he said he was ready to engage in direct talks with the new U.S. president in order to restore better ties.
(click here to view entire article)
Hugo Chávez: Tides of Victory
[The referendum victory of Venezuela's president is founded on an extension of the understanding of democracy that has both national roots and regional parallels.]
Hugo Chávez: Tides of Victory
February 20th 2009, by Julia Buxton - Opendemocracy.net
The Venezuelan electorate is bent on using democratic mechanisms to fuel the demagogic ambitions of its populist president, Hugo Chávez. The voters have backed him and his party in thirteen of the fourteen elections and referendums held in the country since Chávez was inaugurated in February 1999. Now, on 15 February 2009, a majority of them went so far as to grant him his wish of being president for life: for in the referendum on that day 56% voted to lift term-limits on elected officials, thereby eroding a noble Latin American tradition of safeguarding democracy by limiting incumbency.
The distant hope
So argue Hugo Chávez's opponents at home and overseas - particularly in Washington, were the anti-Chávez lobby is striving to maintain the disproportionate influence it had under George W Bush into the Barack Obama administration. After the 15 February referendum, media and academic commentators have painted a frighteningly dystopian vision of Venezuela's political future. It all amounts to significant pressure on the new Democratic administration to follow the Bush policy of isolating and destabilising Chávez.
(click here to view entire article)
Hugo Chávez: Tides of Victory
February 20th 2009, by Julia Buxton - Opendemocracy.net
The Venezuelan electorate is bent on using democratic mechanisms to fuel the demagogic ambitions of its populist president, Hugo Chávez. The voters have backed him and his party in thirteen of the fourteen elections and referendums held in the country since Chávez was inaugurated in February 1999. Now, on 15 February 2009, a majority of them went so far as to grant him his wish of being president for life: for in the referendum on that day 56% voted to lift term-limits on elected officials, thereby eroding a noble Latin American tradition of safeguarding democracy by limiting incumbency.
The distant hope
So argue Hugo Chávez's opponents at home and overseas - particularly in Washington, were the anti-Chávez lobby is striving to maintain the disproportionate influence it had under George W Bush into the Barack Obama administration. After the 15 February referendum, media and academic commentators have painted a frighteningly dystopian vision of Venezuela's political future. It all amounts to significant pressure on the new Democratic administration to follow the Bush policy of isolating and destabilising Chávez.
(click here to view entire article)
Monday, 16 February 2009
Venezuelans Vote to Eliminate Two-Term Limit on All Elected Office 54.4% to 45.6%
[At 9:35pm local time, with 94.2% of voted counted, Venezuela’s National Electoral Council announced that Venezuelans had voted 54.4% to 45.6% in favor of a constitutional amendment to eliminate the two-term limit on all elected office.]
Venezuelans Vote to Eliminate Two-Term Limit on All Elected Office 54.4% to 45.6%
February 15th 2009, by Venezuelanalysis.com
February 15, 2009 (venezuelanalysis.com)— At 9:35pm local time, three and a half hours after polls closed and with 94.2% of voted counted, Venezuela’s National Electoral Council announced that Venezuelans had voted 54.4% to 45.6% in favor of a constitutional amendment to eliminate the two-term limit on all elected office. Chávez supporters celebrated the nearly 9-point victory margin with enthusiasm, as it will allow President Hugo Chávez to run for a third full term in 2012.
(click here to view entire article)
Venezuelans Vote to Eliminate Two-Term Limit on All Elected Office 54.4% to 45.6%
February 15th 2009, by Venezuelanalysis.com
February 15, 2009 (venezuelanalysis.com)— At 9:35pm local time, three and a half hours after polls closed and with 94.2% of voted counted, Venezuela’s National Electoral Council announced that Venezuelans had voted 54.4% to 45.6% in favor of a constitutional amendment to eliminate the two-term limit on all elected office. Chávez supporters celebrated the nearly 9-point victory margin with enthusiasm, as it will allow President Hugo Chávez to run for a third full term in 2012.
(click here to view entire article)
Venezuela's Term Limits
[If there is one thing that Chavista and anti-Chavista pollers share, it's a significant shift in support for the referendum in recent weeks. To fully grasp why this has happened, we need to look more closely at the political dynamics underlying the process, and how these dynamics have come to bear on the impending election.]
Venezuela's Term Limits
February 14th 2009, by George Cicariello-Maher - CounterPunch
The story is a familiar one. Amid the collapse of two-party dominance, an independent leader rises to power. In an effort to calm frazzled nerves, he insists he will respect the rule of law and the will of the voters by maintaining the peaceful transfer of power at the end of his legally-established term. "There's no organization that I know that would put somebody in charge for a long period of time," he insists, "you always want turnover and change." But in power for nearly eight years, having established a fervent support base and concentrated power in his own hands, our fair leader no longer feels the need to comfort his opponents, and his discourse radicalizes as his view of term limits shifts. Dismissing his opposition as rigid "dogmatists," the leader now insists on the need to change course flexibly to meet circumstances. True and sustained change, he argues, requires the continuity of his successful leadership.
Unsurprisingly, his opponents fiercely oppose the move as dangerous: "It shows a fundamental contempt for the democratic process," one maintains, "and it's changing the rules to benefit yourself directly." Ironically, it was this very same argument that the leader himself had made five years prior, when vetoing efforts to loosen term limits. Not without controversy, then, was the decision of the region's largest newspaper--aligned politically with the leader--to wade into these conflictive waters with the following declaration:
The bedrock of... democracy is the voters' right to choose. Though well intentioned... the term limits law severely limits that right, which is why this page has opposed term limits from the outset... Term limits are seductive, promising relief from mediocre, self-perpetuating incumbents and gridlocked legislatures. They are also profoundly undemocratic, arbitrarily denying voters the ability to choose between good politicians and bad.
While the paper had previously insisted that any change to term limits come through popular referendum, it now reverses this view, taking the position that for reasons of political expediency, a simple vote in the small executive council will do.
Of which banana republic are we speaking, where thinly-veiled authoritarianism threatens democratic checks and balances, and weak-kneed apologists parade about under the banner of free press? Why, the place is none other than New York City, the leader none other than Michael Bloomberg, and the newspaper none other than the New York Times. Patience: we haven't even gotten to the hypocrisy part yet.
"Hugo Chávez's Choice"
Term limits have a long history, dating from ancient Greece and Rome and Aristotle's concept of "ruling and being ruled in turn." With a trademark selectiveness (see, e.g., Senate Report 104-158), those upholding the sanctity of this standard in U.S. politics do so with no mention of the other elements Aristotle would associate with democracy, most obviously the filling of all positions by random lot (except for generals, or strategoi, who in an intriguing inversion of our own system, were to be elected). And nor is there much mention of those countries in the wealthy world which see no need for such limitations, or those celebrated leaders who have accomplished purportedly historic tasks without such fetters: Tony Blair served for 10 years, Margaret Thatcher for 11. Franklin D. Roosevelt, consistently ranked among the greatest U.S. presidents served for 12, and would have served for 16 had he survived. And this is not to mention the unlimited terms available to U.S. senators and representatives.
(click here to view entire article)
Venezuela's Term Limits
February 14th 2009, by George Cicariello-Maher - CounterPunch
The story is a familiar one. Amid the collapse of two-party dominance, an independent leader rises to power. In an effort to calm frazzled nerves, he insists he will respect the rule of law and the will of the voters by maintaining the peaceful transfer of power at the end of his legally-established term. "There's no organization that I know that would put somebody in charge for a long period of time," he insists, "you always want turnover and change." But in power for nearly eight years, having established a fervent support base and concentrated power in his own hands, our fair leader no longer feels the need to comfort his opponents, and his discourse radicalizes as his view of term limits shifts. Dismissing his opposition as rigid "dogmatists," the leader now insists on the need to change course flexibly to meet circumstances. True and sustained change, he argues, requires the continuity of his successful leadership.
Unsurprisingly, his opponents fiercely oppose the move as dangerous: "It shows a fundamental contempt for the democratic process," one maintains, "and it's changing the rules to benefit yourself directly." Ironically, it was this very same argument that the leader himself had made five years prior, when vetoing efforts to loosen term limits. Not without controversy, then, was the decision of the region's largest newspaper--aligned politically with the leader--to wade into these conflictive waters with the following declaration:
The bedrock of... democracy is the voters' right to choose. Though well intentioned... the term limits law severely limits that right, which is why this page has opposed term limits from the outset... Term limits are seductive, promising relief from mediocre, self-perpetuating incumbents and gridlocked legislatures. They are also profoundly undemocratic, arbitrarily denying voters the ability to choose between good politicians and bad.
While the paper had previously insisted that any change to term limits come through popular referendum, it now reverses this view, taking the position that for reasons of political expediency, a simple vote in the small executive council will do.
Of which banana republic are we speaking, where thinly-veiled authoritarianism threatens democratic checks and balances, and weak-kneed apologists parade about under the banner of free press? Why, the place is none other than New York City, the leader none other than Michael Bloomberg, and the newspaper none other than the New York Times. Patience: we haven't even gotten to the hypocrisy part yet.
"Hugo Chávez's Choice"
Term limits have a long history, dating from ancient Greece and Rome and Aristotle's concept of "ruling and being ruled in turn." With a trademark selectiveness (see, e.g., Senate Report 104-158), those upholding the sanctity of this standard in U.S. politics do so with no mention of the other elements Aristotle would associate with democracy, most obviously the filling of all positions by random lot (except for generals, or strategoi, who in an intriguing inversion of our own system, were to be elected). And nor is there much mention of those countries in the wealthy world which see no need for such limitations, or those celebrated leaders who have accomplished purportedly historic tasks without such fetters: Tony Blair served for 10 years, Margaret Thatcher for 11. Franklin D. Roosevelt, consistently ranked among the greatest U.S. presidents served for 12, and would have served for 16 had he survived. And this is not to mention the unlimited terms available to U.S. senators and representatives.
(click here to view entire article)
Friday, 13 February 2009
Robbery, Not Anti-Semitism, Motive for Attack on Venezuelan Synagogue
[Following a weeklong investigation of the burglary and vandalizing of a prominent Caracas synagogue, Venezuelan authorities have arrested eleven suspects whose motive appears to have been robbery, Interior and Justice Minister Tarek El-Aissami announced Monday.]
Robbery, Not Anti-Semitism, Motive for Attack on Venezuelan Synagogue
February 10th 2009, by James Suggett - Venezuelanalysis.com
Mérida, February 10th 2009 (Venezuelanalysis.com)-- Following a weeklong investigation of the burglary and vandalizing of a prominent Caracas synagogue, Venezuelan authorities have arrested eleven suspects, including a rabbi’s bodyguard who planned the crime, and a security guard who assisted the break in, Venezuelan Interior and Justice Minister Tarek El-Aissami announced Monday.
The attack on the synagogue occurred in the early morning of January 31st. Burglars tampered with security cameras, stole property, defaced sacred items including the Torah, and spray-painted the walls with anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli phrases.
A confession by security guard Víctor Escalona revealed that a personal struggle over money was the motive of the crime. Edgar Cordero, a Caracas police officer and bodyguard of Rabbi Isaac Cohen had been denied a loan by the rabbi, so he planned to rob money from the synagogue’s coffers, and approached Escalona for assistance, according to investigators from the from Venezuela’s national Criminal, Penal, and Scientific Investigations Unit (CICPC).
El Aissami said anti-Semitism was not the motive, but rather a tactic used for two purposes, “First, to weaken the investigation, and second, to direct the blame toward the national government.”
(click here to view entire article)
Robbery, Not Anti-Semitism, Motive for Attack on Venezuelan Synagogue
February 10th 2009, by James Suggett - Venezuelanalysis.com
Mérida, February 10th 2009 (Venezuelanalysis.com)-- Following a weeklong investigation of the burglary and vandalizing of a prominent Caracas synagogue, Venezuelan authorities have arrested eleven suspects, including a rabbi’s bodyguard who planned the crime, and a security guard who assisted the break in, Venezuelan Interior and Justice Minister Tarek El-Aissami announced Monday.
The attack on the synagogue occurred in the early morning of January 31st. Burglars tampered with security cameras, stole property, defaced sacred items including the Torah, and spray-painted the walls with anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli phrases.
A confession by security guard Víctor Escalona revealed that a personal struggle over money was the motive of the crime. Edgar Cordero, a Caracas police officer and bodyguard of Rabbi Isaac Cohen had been denied a loan by the rabbi, so he planned to rob money from the synagogue’s coffers, and approached Escalona for assistance, according to investigators from the from Venezuela’s national Criminal, Penal, and Scientific Investigations Unit (CICPC).
El Aissami said anti-Semitism was not the motive, but rather a tactic used for two purposes, “First, to weaken the investigation, and second, to direct the blame toward the national government.”
(click here to view entire article)
Why The Venezuelan Amendment Campaign Is So Important
[The real problem is – and everyone knows this, they just don't want to discuss it – that Chávez represents the continuation of the Bolivarian project, a popular revolution which has transformed Venezuela and inspired similar transformations in several other Latin American countries.]
Why The Venezuelan Amendment Campaign Is So Important
February 11th 2009, by Diana Raby
Next Sunday, 15 February, Venezuelans vote in a referendum on a proposed Constitutional Amendment that will allow for any candidate to stand for the Presidency, or indeed for any elective office, without restriction on the number of terms they may serve. Only the people's vote will decide whether they are elected and how many terms they serve.
In other words, if President Hugo Chávez, who is already serving his second term under the provisions of the 1999 Constitution, wishes to stand for a third term, he may do so. Equally, the opposition mayor of Greater Caracas, Antonio Ledezma, may stand three or four times if he wants (and if the people vote for him).
This is no different from the practice here in the UK, where Margaret Thatcher won four elections for the Conservatives (although we did not have the privilege of voting for her personally as Prime Minister), and Tony Blair won three times for Labour. It is of course different from the situation in the US, where some sixty years ago a limit of two consecutive terms was introduced for the presidency.
But why is there such a fuss about this proposal in Venezuela? Once again, as so many times before in the last ten years, the media are full of stories about Chávez' dictatorial tendencies or being President for life, and the opposition goes on about "the principle of alternation [alternabilidad]". But they know perfectly well that Chávez will only be re-elected in 2012 if the people vote for him in elections which have been certified time and again as impeccably free and honest, and that the possibility of mid-term recall still exists and will be maintained. And alternation, as the experience here in the UK and in so many "advanced democracies" shows, is all too often a neat device to prevent any real change while giving the appearance of choice with a superficial change of personnel.
(click here to view entire article)
Why The Venezuelan Amendment Campaign Is So Important
February 11th 2009, by Diana Raby
Next Sunday, 15 February, Venezuelans vote in a referendum on a proposed Constitutional Amendment that will allow for any candidate to stand for the Presidency, or indeed for any elective office, without restriction on the number of terms they may serve. Only the people's vote will decide whether they are elected and how many terms they serve.
In other words, if President Hugo Chávez, who is already serving his second term under the provisions of the 1999 Constitution, wishes to stand for a third term, he may do so. Equally, the opposition mayor of Greater Caracas, Antonio Ledezma, may stand three or four times if he wants (and if the people vote for him).
This is no different from the practice here in the UK, where Margaret Thatcher won four elections for the Conservatives (although we did not have the privilege of voting for her personally as Prime Minister), and Tony Blair won three times for Labour. It is of course different from the situation in the US, where some sixty years ago a limit of two consecutive terms was introduced for the presidency.
But why is there such a fuss about this proposal in Venezuela? Once again, as so many times before in the last ten years, the media are full of stories about Chávez' dictatorial tendencies or being President for life, and the opposition goes on about "the principle of alternation [alternabilidad]". But they know perfectly well that Chávez will only be re-elected in 2012 if the people vote for him in elections which have been certified time and again as impeccably free and honest, and that the possibility of mid-term recall still exists and will be maintained. And alternation, as the experience here in the UK and in so many "advanced democracies" shows, is all too often a neat device to prevent any real change while giving the appearance of choice with a superficial change of personnel.
(click here to view entire article)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
