|
December
1st., 2007
The Night Before The Referendum
M
In the
survey war that preceded the referendum, the reports or
presentations of the most renowned enterprises fitted in
with the fact that an important majority rejects the
reform. Although the differences vary, some key meters
don’t. They all show that the more the people know about
the contents of the reform, the more they reject it.
According to Datanalisis’ last report, “from October
through November, the YES vote recoiled from 49.3% to
39.3%, falling about 10 points, while the NO vote raised
from 34.4% in October to 48.8% in November, increasing
by 14 points. The answers “does not know, does not
answer” fell from 16.2% to 11.9%”. For Datanalisis,
“this drastic change of the YES and NO tendencies is a
surprise. However, it is not an isolated change.
It is linked to the other meters, which seem to
correlate to each other.” It points out that the number
of people who define themselves as supporters of the
government decreased from 35% in October to 29% in
November, and those who define themselves as detractors
of the government raised from 18% to 24%, on one hand,
and on the other, that the E strata (traditionally
supporter of the government) has decreased from 62% to
31%.
In the tracking poll that was done in the Metropolitan
District by the Venezuelan Institute of Data Analysis,
late November, the NO reached 51.1% and the YES
decreased to 26.7%. According to the Institute, the vote
intention, which is polarized, could lead to a 60-40
outcome, in favor of the NO. The surveys of both
enterprises forecasted Chavez’s, his candidates’ or his
proposals’ victory in all the preceding electoral
events. Other survey agencies forecasted that a few days
prior to the referendum, the tendencies point out that
the NO will win, and that Chavez harmed the
personalization by identifying the YES vote as a vote of
trust in him. According to Keller’s statistics charts,
the NO is so strong that it reduced the YES supporters
to die-hard Chavez supporters, currently 30%. It is
interesting that during the survey war, the government
side did not publish any surveys; they only repeated the
president’s words: “we’ll thrash them.”
The students called for a manifestation in the Bolivar
Avenue, the public space which is used as a political
thermometer. The regime has stated for years that it is
a territory for the exclusive use of the revolution.
Only the President’s acts are allowed to take place
there. The photos appeared in the covers of the
independent journals of Venezuela and several others
throughout the continent and Europe. By observing them,
it is evident that there were hundreds of thousands of
demonstrators. Commentators affirm that it is one of the
largest people concentrations that have taken place
there. The reasons for the government not to prohibit
this manifestation could be the wrong presumption that
it would be a great opportunity to show the weak support
“Bush’s puppies” have, or the presence of hundreds of
foreign journalists, to whom it is not convenient to
show the authoritarian side. The students have also
managed to involve the non chavista archipelago, which
advocated abstention until not long ago. The leader of
the university students, Jon Goicochea, called for going
to vote “under protest”, because “the referee is not
trusted, there is no equity in the competition, and what
the government proposes is a constitutional fraud.”
THE INTERNATIONAL SCENE
The key in order to define the end of the
struggle between Chavez and Uribe will be determined by
the Venezuelan President’s mood and the results of the
referendum, according to the Cambio de Bogotá
magazine. In Caracas, analysts sustain that Chavez had
reasons for a severe disturbance in his state of mind
when he affirmed: “As long as Uribe is the President of
Colombia, I will not hold any kind of relationship
neither with him nor with the Colombian government.” The
week before, he had two royal reprimands. In Saudi
Arabia, Abdullah reproached him for trying to politicize
the OPEC and in Chile, the King of Spain made him fall
silent when he asked him “why don’t you shut up?” In
Paris he did not bring the proof of life of Ingrid
Betancourt that he had promised to bring. His insults to
Aznar in the Ibero-American Summit led to his rupture
with Zapatero and the freezing of the relations with
Spain. In Chile, president Bachelet publicly expressed
her displeasure with his inherence in the conflict with
Bolivia, the impertinences during the Summit and the
reject to her petition of transmitting the concern of
the Latin Americans for the oil prices to the OPEC. It
is comprehensible that these setbacks have influenced
the furious tone of the president’s words, which is
evident when he declared the freezing of the relations
with Colombia.
Uribe replied with extremely serious statements.
“President Chavez, it is unacceptable to burn down the
continent just like you are doing it. We need mediation,
not terrorism legalizes. Your words, your behavior, make
it seem you are not interested in peace, but in calling
forth the humanitarian agreement to intervene in
Colombia by supporting the FARC.” Uribe also accused
Chavez of wanting to get electoral benefit from the
situation: “I find it very worrying that you, zealous
with your electoral aspirations, are now trying to pull
out the old trick of stimulating hatred in Venezuela
against Colombia and the Colombian government, seeking
support with a message that hurts so much both of our
countries.” According to what Uribe said, Senator Piedad
Cordoba acts as a link with the FARC in order to examine
the possibility of a “transition government.” In the
closing ceremony of his electoral campaign, Chavez
revealed that Ingrid Betancourt’s and other hostages’
proofs of life, which he had requested to Marulanda,
were intercepted by Uribe. The government’s peace
commissioner, Luis Carlos Restrepo, stated that the
letters, videos and photos that were found, date October
23rd and 24th. The French Ministry
of Foreign Affairs considered that Chavez’s mediation
for the liberation of hostages is a matter “of the
past”. In the closing ceremony of his electoral
campaign, Chavez said that Marulanda had sent him the
proof of life and it was seized by Uribe’s intelligence
services, risking the lives of the hostages.
Chavez’s speech, other than the traditional rhetoric
against the US, was aggressive with Colombia and Spain.
Experts say he seeks to agglutinate the support of his
followers towards nationalist radicalism, because the
reform has not generated enthusiasm amongst the
“chavista” electorate. According to BBC World’s
correspondent in Caracas, Chavez intensified his
strategy of transforming the referendum into a
plebiscite about himself. If the relations with Colombia
depend on the president’s mood, Sunday’s consult
–transformed into a plebiscite-, would be a hard blow
against Chavez and could force him to moderate his
bellicose foreign policy, especially with the neighbor
that is currently exporting the vital food products in
order to relieve the shortage, a serious problem that
affects the entire population.
THE LOCAL SCENE
The National Election Council (CNE) prohibited the
publishing of surveys, except for the President, who
assured in the closing ceremony and in several
television programs that the surveys that he consulted
give the YES an advantage of 10 to 15 points. He claimed
to be ready to prevent, at all costs, street
demonstrations which pretend to disregard the results of
the referendum. According to Hinterlaces’ last report,
Chavez’s plebiscite strategy failed. He managed to unite
his most loyal followers, but he could not obtain new
support from his moderate voters. The last tracking
shows results that even with a margin of error place the
NO as victorious. 59% disagree with the reform. 80%
claim they’re willing to vote, 58% would vote against
and 37% for. 76% think they can sympathize with Chavez
and vote against the reform. According to Hinterlaces
“the worst outlook is a triumph of the NO with an
advantage of 7% and the best one is a victory with an
advantage of 16%.” The electorate will participate
massively, but the non chavista sectors have insisted in
the point that the referendum is a constitutional fraud,
and that they’re voting under protest, in reason of the
bias towards the government, the improper use of the
public resources, the vices of the Electoral Registry,
the use of the fingerprint scanners as an intimidation
mechanism against public workers and the lack of trust
on the CNE, an institution in which four out of five of
the main members publicly claim to be involved in the
revolution.
Independent union leaders expressed that in ten out of
the eleven elections Chavez has won “he has recurred to
the most abject expedient to be known, he has
manipulated the people that need revenue, small as it
can be, in order to sustain his or her family.” They add
that over two million employees, workers, hired
personnel and grant holders of the “misiones” are
closely supervised in order to force them to vote for
the regime’s proposal.
The leaders of the NO block study the
possible outlooks after a victory of the NO: 1) Chavez
would like to recognize it but the extremists in his own
party do not allow him to; 2) Chavez loses control of
his followers and they create street riots that make it
impossible for the CNE to recognize the triumph of the
NO; 3) The Army turns against the recognition of the
victory of the NO; 4) Chavez refuses to admit he was
beaten and his radical followers and the Army support
this attitude. The leaders of the NO block assure they
are ready to act in order to face any of these possible
outcomes. During his Bolivar Avenue speech, Chavez
condemned the presence of the international media and
declared the expulsion of the correspondents who had
come to take part in an imperialism operation.
Venezuela Today
estimates that it is the international medias task to
cover for the absence of the European Union and the OAS
observers.
|
