October 30th., 2006

Chavez And The Technopopulism

ABSTRACT:

• Special correspondent from foreign media agencies start to arrive, so as to observe the Venezuelan Case.

•  The Annual Report on Democratic Development in Latin America once again places Venezuela among the countries with the worst performance

•  The report states that the region tends to be a victim of technopopulism, this is, the return of the populism supported by more sophisticated technological formulas.

•  State media agencies cover Chavez 94% of the time and Rosales 4%.

•  The OAS will send an Observation Mission.

• The regime seeks that opinions be made solely after the proclamation of the winning candidate.

• OAS and European Union reports about Dec.4^th 

•  The report presented to Insulza by the opposing candidate.

•  The majority of the irregularities detected by the OAS on Dec.4^th not only persist, but several of them have worsened.

•  The government’s abuse of power to impose Chavez’s reelection is denounced.

• Lula teaches a lesson of democratic pedagogy.

• Lula and Chavez, different models.

• Chavez stands firm the diplomacy of alignment with the Havana-Damascus-Teheran axis.

•  Chavez calls “lackeys of the Empire” to the countries that voted for Guatemala for the Security Council of the UN.

•  From the Rosales’ Campaign Headquarters, it is assured that according to the tendencies, in November both candidates will be around 40. From August to October, Rosales rose from 9 to 35 and Chavez went down 58 to 49.

Chavez And The Technopopulism

Just a few weeks before Chavez’s reelection attempt, special correspondents from large media agencies are arriving so as to examine the political scenario and broadcast their impressions. Both domestic and foreign magazines and newspapers are publishing experts’ and intellectuals’ opinions on regional matters interested in the Venezuelan Case. Since its academic nature and scientific accuracy, it is worth reading the 2006 Annual Report on Democratic Development in Latin America (www.polilat.com), which places Venezuela, for the fifth consecutive year, among the countries of the region with the worst performance. 31 indicators, grouped in four dimension were considered with scrupulous objectivity: the situation of political rights and civil rights, the lack of security, the political persecution, harassment to dissenting media, arms race, popular militia organized by the government, and control over all the state institutions, which critical point was the method of election of the Supreme Tribunal, an index to measure the autonomy of the State branches. In this last index, Venezuela was given zero out of ten.

Christoph Korneli and Jorge Arias, in the presentation of this report, state that the region tends to be a victim of what the academic sectors have called technopopulism: the use of intensive communication technologies to replace the mechanisms of the formal democracy with the leader’s direct communication with the mass. The novel element is the intensity of the use of media, specially television, and the inequitable competition between the government and other social groups. According to them, the technopopulism establishes two basic interactions with social sectors: a) unlimited confrontation against those opposing or impeding its purposes, and b) a relation of cooperation-subjugation with those adhering or tolerating the regime. Poor people receive handouts in exchange for their unconditional support, and those who cooperate with or support the dominant project, receive privileges and favors from the government. These characteristics correspond exactly with the critics made by Venezuelan intellectuals against the Chavez’s regime.

Recently, Ciudadanía Activa, an independent NGO, prepared a report regarding the coverage of the electoral campaign by several State TV and radio stations. The presence of the President-candidate between August 1^st and October 6^th was 94.68%, while the presence of Manuel Rosales reaches 4.16%. In the qualitative analysis, the report shows that during the news coverage of Rosales’ events, the State TV stations, by means of character generators, express opinions to trivialize or refute the opposing candidate’s statements. The National Electoral Council (CNE), submissive to Chavez, stated that the electoral campaign is adjusted to the limits provided by the laws and its own regulations.

 WILL THERE BE INTERNATIONAL OBSERVATION ON Dec. 3^rd?

Will the OAS be a guest of stone on December 3^rd? Insulza signed with the CNE the observation agreement. The national rules aimed at regulating the International Observation try to limit its scope to vote acts and instruments. Missions may give their opinions solely after the winner proclamation by the CNE. The spokesmen of the CNE alleged that said body cannot allow that the Missions be the electoral protagonists. The reports about last year’s parliamentary elections were a bitter pill to swallow by the government. Both the OAS and the European Union state that the distrust in the electoral body was a determinant factor to the massive abstention (over 80%). These organizations made recommendations to guarantee impartiality and transparency.

They put special emphasis to the fingerprint registration machines, since the conviction prevailing in the collective imagery that these machines are sophisticated devices to breach the secrecy of the vote. The OAS confirmed the uncontrolled use of resources of the State with electoral purposes. The European Union referred to the publication of a database containing the identity data of 12 million citizens, with their political actions and preferences (Programa Maisanta). The European observers warned about the intimidating and coactive effects that Maisanta has on the voters. The situation has not changed. Rosales’ slogan is “Dare to do”. The government’s answer is “Dare and you’ll regret it”.

The indispensable International Observation must adjust to the rules governing it. The OAS, in addition to its own rules, is obliged to comply with the requirements of the Inter-American Democratic Letter. The European Union has its own methodology, adjusted to the Declaration of Principles for International Election Observation, adopted with support of the United Nations in October 2005. The opposing candidate presented a document to Insulza (Oct 25, 2006) “in order to contribute facilitating the understanding of the complex and delicate moment where the electoral campaign is taking place”. He analyzes the presidential election process in the light of the remarks and recommendations contained in the final report of the Observation Mission about the last December’s parliamentary elections, and offers updated information of the situations and facts around the current campaign. “It is deplorable to realize that just 38 days before the elections, the majority of the situations recorded by the Observation Mission-OAS remain the same and practically none of the remarks and recommendations contained in the report have been adopted by the electoral authorities, so the irregularities detected not only persist, but several of them have deepened.”. In the meeting with Insulza, Rosales denounced the government’s abuse of power to impose Chavez’s reelection, the evident advantage in the use of mass media, and the violence used by supporters of the government to sabotage or impede his political events. He pointed out that the insistence of the CNE to maintain the fingerprint registration machines generates in many voters the fear that the secrecy of the vote will be breached, and that the International Observation must pay attention to the risk of intimidation by the military officers intervening in the process (Republic Plan). He stated that an OAS Mission cannot be indifferent to the accusations that during several years the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has been making against the government. In Caracas, a newspaper published on Sunday 29 an Insulza’s statement, where he confirmed that the Mission will observe the process in all its aspects, even in the internal activity of the CNE, and if they defect a fraud, it will be denounced.

MORE THAN ELECTIONS, IT’S A STRUGGLE FOR FREEDOM

Democracy prevailed, said the President of the Electoral Superior Court of Brazil, upon announcing Lula’s victory. Nobody doubts it. The reelection for another 4-year term was the result of clean elections, in two rounds. It was an irrefutable victory, with 60% of the votes. Alckmin, the opposing candidate, approached 40% and immediately recognized the results. In his speech, Lula declared: “We will govern for everybody; this is not my victory, nor the PT’s victory. We have to get together; I’ll talk to the other parties to define the priorities of the new government”. Throughout the two rounds he ratified his commitment with the institutional system, his will to maintain a foreign policy of friendship and non-interference in the internal affairs of foreign countries.

Manuel Rosales’ and his followers’ motto is to rescue democracy. They alleged that Chavez asks for support to govern indefinitely, that his proposal is the creation of a single party to deepen the revolution following the Cuban model, and that after eight years his government has destroyed the indispensable institutions for the existence of a democratic system. Rosales proposed Chavez a nationwide broadcasted debate. The President’s answer was: “There is no candidate measuring up to me, good enough to debate with me”. Chavez has suspended his international tours but he maintains the diplomacy of alignment with the Havana-Damascus-Teheran axis. In the project for obtaining a seat at the Security Council, he insulted more than a hundred countries which voted for Guatemala, calling them “lackeys of the Empire” and treated thoughtlessly countries seeking to have a more cordial relation with him, such as Chile and Uruguay. He has not showed any positive sign to reestablish normal diplomatic relations with Mexico and Peru. He maintains the withdrawal of the ambassador in Israel. Colombia alleges to have evidence that the narco-guerrilla uses the Venezuelan territory. His critics against Bush have originated a harsh conflict with the United States, Venezuela’s main commercial partner.

Rosales is successful in creating the perception that this is not a regular campaign that this is not about merely choosing between two candidates, but two models of country: one based on authoritarianism, leading to totalitarianism, and other one sustained on the democratic values and freedom. Rosales highlights the deficiencies of the Chavez’s administration and make good proposals for a better public administration, supported by his good performance as the Maracaibo’s Mayor and Zulia’s Governor. In a brief campaign, he started at a disadvantageous position and managed to become an actual contender. According to the weekly newspaper Quinto Día, generally well informed, from August Rosales has raised from 9 to 35 points and Chavez has gone down from 58 to 49, which confirms that Rosales goes forward and Chavez goes back. From the Rosales campaign headquarters, it is assured that according to the trends, in November both candidates will be around 40. Hesitant voters will define the elections. If Chavez wins, his speech will not be like Lula’s. If Rosales wins, Venezuela would be accomplishing the exploit of stopping the expansion of the dangerous technopopulism, or the remote-controlled society prophesized a decade ago be Giovanni Sartori in his work “Homo Videns”.