Venezuela's Elections: Why They're Not a Game-Changer

[Judi Lynn]

September 30, 2010

Why They're Not a Game-Changer
Venezuela's Elections
By MARK WEISBROT

This week's election for 165 representatives in the National Assembly is significant but unlikely to bring about major change in Venezuela, despite the opposition having done better than expected. As this article goes to press, the pro-government United Socialist Party won 95 seats, with 62 for the opposition Democratic Unity, five for other parties, and the rest still undecided.

As expected, most of the international press and its sources hailed the results as a "major blow" to Chávez, paving the way for his possible removal in the presidential election in 2012. But this is exaggerated.

The vote was widely seen as a referendum on Chávez, and it would indeed be quite an anomaly in the history of electoral politics if the government did not lose some support after a recession last year that continued into at least the first quarter of this year. Chávez's popularity has always gone up and down with the economy, reaching a low during the last recession of 2002-2003, despite the fact that it was caused by an opposition oil strike. His approval rating has fallen from 60 percent in early 2009 to 46 percent last month.

For comparison, President Obama's approval rating has fallen from 68 percent in April of last year to 45 percent this month, and his party is expected to take big losses in the November Congressional elections here, with some pollsters forecasting a loss of the Democratic majority in the House of Representatives. And this is despite the fact that he clearly inherited the country's economic problems from his predecessor.

It is not clear why anyone would expect Venezuela to be exempt from the normal workings of electoral politics. The opposition has most of the income and wealth of the country, and most of the media as well. They have no problem getting their message out, even if the government - mostly through Chávez - also has a big megaphone. Obama also faces a strong right-wing media, with Fox News now one of the most popular sources for coverage of the fall elections, but there is much less of an opposition media in the United States than in Venezuela.

More:
http://www.counterpunch.org/weisbrot09302010.html

[bherrera]

1. Exactly

This is a quote from the article.

"It is not clear why anyone would expect Venezuela to be exempt from the normal workings of electoral politics"

If the gerrymandering had not been so extreme, the Chavez side would not have a majority in the Assembly, because the majority voted against the Chavez party. Because the economy is bad, it is to be expected to have people turn against the government.

What this guy doesn't say is, what is happening to the economy of Venezuela, and what will happen in the future? The economy is not improving very well, inflation is very high, and economic growth continues to be negative. The government fails to provide improvements in other areas, for example crime control. Therefore, this is a clear indication of the failure of governance I have pointed out. This is also pointed out by Heinz Dieterich at the aporrea.org site.

Unfortunately, the government does not seem to understand these basic principles. If they do not make their mission to have good government with good laws, and they follow their own laws very strictly, then they can not be called successful. They will become another example for workers around the world NOT to vote for socialists. And for this they should be criticized.

[bherrera]

2. Interesting Comments by Heinz Dieterich

Dieterich: Venezuela could become unrulable

Heinz Dieterich, creator of the concept that identifies the Venezuelan political process as Socialism for the 21st century, considers himself a friend of president Chavez, and invites him to reflect on his performance as head of state and warns him of the dangers that stalk him.
He identifies to fundamental decisions that, in his opinion, mark the current political moment. The first is the firing, without explanation, of Eduardo Saman, "the only socialist and revolutionary minister that the bolivarian process has had;" and the second, the letter by Herni Falcon to the president and his departure from PSUV towards the PPT. Both facts constitute a turning point in the bolivarian process, whose model is now entering a crisis.

http://www.soviet-empire.com/ussr/viewtopic.php?f=117&t=47793&p=766311