PLANK OCTOBER 5, 2012
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
CARACAS—The presidential election in Venezuela this Sunday really shouldn’t be this close. Counting on his legendary charisma and a dizzying oil boom that has brought nearly $1 trillion into state coffers during his tenure, Hugo Chávez probably thought he could coast to a third six-year term.
But then, reality went off-script. The comfortable poll lead he’d held for most of the year vanished in the last ten days. As the campaign draws to an end, Sunday’s vote is best seen as a toss-up. What happened?
At first blush, it’s mystifying. In an increasingly autocratic petrostate, the advantages of incumbency are so deep, it really ought to be a walk.
Take access to the media. Three minutes per day per broadcast outlet. That’s how much advertising each candidate is allowed in Venezuela in the weeks leading up to a presidential election. That’s six thirty-second spots, no more. To long suffering TV watchers in U.S. battleground states, that must sound like paradise. There’s a catch, though. While each candidate’s campaign is allowed no more than 3-minutes, the government can run as many “institutional” ads as it wants to promote its work. And in Chávez-era Venezuela, such ads are generally indistinguishable from the official campaign ads, down to using designed-to-look-alike logos.
But there’s more. Under decades-old legislation designed to allow the government to communicate during a national emergency, the president is legally empowered to comandeer the airwaves on every TV channel and every radio broadcaster simultaneously, whenever he wants, for as long as he wants. The government doesn’t have to pay for these so-called “cadena” (chain) broadcasts, or even give TV stations any advanced notice that one is coming and, as you probably guessed, cadenas are also often top-heavy with campaign themes. Such cadenas have taken up an average of 30 minutes per day since the official launch of the campaign on July 1.
And that’s not all. In the last six years, the Chávez government has made it an explicit goal to achieve "communication and information hegemony", at once multiplying the number of state-owned media outlets and cracking down on critical broadcasters. Much of the state media is relentlessly propagandistic in the Soviet mold—just hour after hour of government boosterism and harsh, vitriolic attacks on the opposition. The remaining independent broadcasters, by contrast, are largely neutered: stepping on any of several never-clearly-spelled-out red lines can bring on heavy fines, serious harrassment or even a station closure. And so private news broadcasts are as anodyne as public ones are propagandistic.
And yet, ask Venezuela’s elections authorities whether Sunday’s elections are taking place on an even playing field and they’ll smile beatifically and say “of course, each campaign can have 3 minutes of advertising on each broadcast outlet: totally equal!” This kind of barely-believable falsification of democratic normality is a key feature of the Chávez regime. It’s not quite democratic, but it is concerned with being seen as democratic.
That concern does build in a certain space for contestation. It’s space that, however limited, opposition candidate Henrique Capriles has exploited masterfully.
The 40-year old state governor has run a nearly flawless campaign: sidelining the opposition’s reactionary wing in favor of a much more moderate Social Democratic stance. Young, nimble and energetic, Capriles has spoken to working class Venezuelans in less urban parts of the country in their own language—certainly much more so than the more conservative leaders who led the opposition before him. Running on a record of achievement in his home state of Miranda, Capriles has capitalized on people’s growing day-to-day frustration with the dysfunctional chavista state, promising to keep its popular social programs while radically cracking down on the runaway waste, corruption and political sectarianism that hobble every chavista initiative.
It’s been a brilliantly executed campaign against a government that, for all its oil billions, has made one blunder after another on the trail. Chávez legendary common touch has been nowhere in sight. Instead he’s been campaigning on a platform top-heavy with distant abstractions about “building Bolivarian socialism of the 21st century in Venezuela as an alternative to destructive and savage capitalism,” “achieving equilibrium in the universe and guaranteeing planetary peace” and “preserving life on the planet and saving the human species.”
Why a single mom in the barrio dealing with constant power outages and water service interruptions, double-digit inflation and out of control crime is meant to care about universal equilibrium is never quite spelled out. Fourteen years on, he has little to say about “the concerns of people like you,” to use the hoary old polling cliché. Political power has clearly robbed him of his populist touch.
But the bigger problem for Chávez is that, while he remains personally well liked by most Venezuelans and fanatically adored by a not inconsiderable minority, even his most die-hard supporters realize his government stinks.
The government Chávez has built is a monumental fiasco. Corrupt, bureaucratic, opaque and wedded to unworkable ideological certainties, the chavista state is top-heavy with cronies and arbitrageurs who talk about the beauty of socialism all morning and siphon off the profits of crooked deals into off-shore bank accounts all afternoon. Today, it amounts to a sprawling bureaucracy that simply doesn’t have the resources to make good on the ideological checks the president spends his days writing.
The result is a paradox: to many Venezuelans, the emotional bond with the first leader that ever spoke directly to the barrio remains strong. But it coexists with a no-longer-concealed realization that he’s not particularly good at his job.
Worse yet, he may not be around that much longer. An unspecified type of cancer that first struck him in the summer of 2011 recurred earlier this year. The President claims to be cured—but he sure doesn’t look cured. He lumbers around slowly and visibly bloated, reportedly a side-effect of the steroids administered to keep him in fighting shape through the campaign season. The contrast with the nimble Capriles, an amateur marathon runner nicknamed "Skinny", couldn’t be greater.
How sick Chávez may be is impossible to say. But his bout with cancer inevitably put his supporters in mind of his mortality. Chávez has always been more popular than the government he leads, and Venezuelans intuit that the president may not be able to serve out another six year term. When the big guy is not around anymore, what will be left behind are the institutions he has created. As it turns out they, too, are bloated, lumbering beasts, stricken by corruption that’s metastasized out of all control .
In a strange way, Capriles has positioned himself as Chávez’s heir more than his competitor, the one best positioned to straighten out the chavista state and make good on the promise of radical social reform Chávez promised, but that his bloated, corruption-ridden state could never deliver. And that’s why, despite the thousands of hours of chavista propaganda broadcasts, despite the petrobillions spent on populist giveaways, despite all of the crushing advantages of incumbency in an authoritarian petrostate, Henrique Capriles really does have a chance this Sunday.
And that, in itself, is a remarkable achievement.
29 comments
Good riddance to the Dictator. I hope that the United States takes affirmative steps to protect a new Capriles government from its enemies, like all the Cuban and Iranian agents slithering around Venezuela courtesy of the Chavez regim.
- amidut
October 5, 2012 at 4:40pm
here is hoping he lets the election be honest enough.
- blackton
October 5, 2012 at 7:58pm
Is Capriles' nick name "flaco" or "delgado?"
- arnon1
October 5, 2012 at 11:38pm
el flaco
- Francisco Toro
October 6, 2012 at 2:35am
Who will be counting ballots on Sunday, Francisco?
- arnon1
October 6, 2012 at 10:55am
There's an electronic voting system WITH a publicly audited paper-trail. (The voting machine prints out a paper ballot after you cast your electronic vote, and the paper print-outs are hand-counted after the end of voting.) There are opposition witnesses at all tables, and a very well worked out plan to count the ballots. Does that make fraud totally impossible? It doesn't. But it makes it totally impossible to successfully hide the fraud. If the official announcement doesn't match the table-by-table paper trail audits, everybody will know.
- Francisco Toro
October 6, 2012 at 1:20pm
Thanks, it's comforting to know that there ways of keeping Chavez accountable. I was afraid we would get a repetition of the fraud perpetrated in Iran during the last election.
- arnon1
October 6, 2012 at 4:18pm
Francisco, thank you. Is TNR ahead of the CIA and NSA on knowing what is going on in the world? Can we get Venezuela to run our next election? I know Brazil is ahead of us, but Venezuela? Apologies to Venezuela for the smug tone.
- skahn
October 6, 2012 at 9:06pm
So there might be a democratic transition to a more conservative government in Venezuela, Mr Toro? That would deprive you of the chance to blame Chavez for everything that happens in the country, I suppose... but at least you won't have to try and justify the shooting of innocent demonstrators, as you did after the coup d'état in Honduras in 2009.
- SMacEachern2
October 7, 2012 at 4:26pm
SMacEachern2 is having another bad day.
- arnon1
October 7, 2012 at 5:39pm
I'd be surprised if Chavez loses. Dictators don't give up power that easily.
- arnon1
October 7, 2012 at 6:34pm
Here is a mea culpa by Juan Cristobal Nagel who runs the Caracas Chronicles blog (pro-Capriles, anti-Chavez) with Francisco Toro, the author of the above piece. Nagel had repeatedly attacked Datanalisis, the polling organization who predicted--almost spot on--a 10 point win for Chavez and relied instead on Consultores 21's Capriles-friendly polling: "Readers of this blog know that for the past few weeks, we (mostly me, really) have raised serious doubts about Datanálisis’ poll predictions. At the same time, we relied on Consultores 21′s projection that Capriles was ahead. The results were a clear endorsement of Datanálisis, who predicted the outcome pretty nicely, and a serious embarassment to Consultores 21. So in that regard, kudos to Datanálisis and their team. They can be proud, and I apologize for criticizing them. Consultores 21 … your reputation has been irreparably shattered."
- ccarrick@vzavenue.net-old
October 8, 2012 at 3:06am
And of course the election was really fair, wasn't it? Both candidates had equal access to the media, didn't they? Sort of reminds me of Putin's election victories in Russia.
- arnon1
October 8, 2012 at 9:31am
Oh well. Nice try. But that's the damndest thing about successful populism, of course. It tends to be popular. If Chavez wasn't doing stuff that people liked, then even a skewed media landscape and government heavy-breathing could not guarantee victory.
- ironyroad
October 8, 2012 at 10:22am
And another thing: TNR, your coverage of this election was terrible. Employing a writer who comes off as though he were the press secretary for one of the two candidates to provide predictive analysis is not the way to go. If you were so anxious to see Chavez out of Miraflores, you should have commissioned Toro simply to write an opinion piece making the case for Capriles and against Chavez. (Frankly, given Capriles' record, it's not at all clear to me that he would have been more democratically inclined than Chavez in the end. In 2002 while he was mayor of Baruta during the US-backed coup against the Chavez government, his local police took Chavez's Interior Minister, Ramon Rodriguez Chacin, into detention, giving the distinct impression that Capriles backed the anti-democratic coup, though charges to that effect were later dropped as part of general amnesty.) Separate from the pro-Capriles opinion piece should have been a neutral, analytical article that examined the various ongoing polling efforts, the background to the elections, current political situation and any predictive analysis. Instead, what you did was to conflate endorsement with analysis. That's bad journalism.
- ccarrick@vzavenue.net-old
October 8, 2012 at 10:45am
"Chavez, anti-Semitism and today's Venezuelan elections" "The incumbent president of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez can't subsidize his way out of his fight with terminal cancer, but that hasn't stopped him orchestrating anti-Semitic remarks aimed at his opponent, Henrique Capriles." http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/chavez-anti-semitism-and-today-s-venezuelan-elections.premium-1.468637 Most people posting here don't care about this but many a non posting reader does.
- arnon1
October 8, 2012 at 2:52pm
"Chavez, anti-Semitism and today's Venezuelan elections" Well, I'm afraid you've posted it too late to catch many a reader of any kind at this point. But, yes, it's a relevant topic. The problem with the article is that the chaff-to-wheat ration is much too high. Too much peripheral stuff on why Chavez is (was) threatened, too much bio detail on Capriles, too little that cites the specific instances of anti-semitic information dissemination. Would have been better if you had gone through the links and gotten to the heart of the matter. The only anti-semitic specifics that are discussed are in paragraphs five and nine of the article. I traced the reference in paragraph nine ("We Are F--ked if the Jews Come to Power") to a radio or other media entity called Kikiriki (Spanish for Cock-a-doodle-doo) but lost the trail. The citation in paragraph five was linked to another Ha'aretz article ("Jewish Group: Chavez Presidential Rival a Target of Anti-semitism") which cited a February 13, 2012 column by an Adal Hernandez posted on the website of Radio Nacional de Venezuela and which in turn was linked to the website of the ADL. There, finally, was a full translation of the article by Hernandez entitled "The Enemy is Zionism: A Cliff as an Underlying Promise." (Link: http://www.adl.org/main_Anti_Semitism_International/AntiSemitic-Article-Venezuela-021712.htm) The article is quite revealing, not just for its anti-Jewish content, but for other features as well such as its allegation that Capriles was pro-Aryan. Bizarre but illuminating.
- ccarrick@vzavenue.net-old
October 8, 2012 at 7:57pm
"The article is quite revealing, not just for its anti-Jewish content, but for other features as well such as its allegation that Capriles was pro-Aryan. Bizarre but illuminating." Allegations is right. And you believe this article which is part of the government anti Capriles campaign. Interesting how you disbelieve the antisemitism of the Chavez regime but accept that regimes charges without evidence. If not tell me what you mean by "Bizarre but illuminating."
- arnon1
October 9, 2012 at 12:01am
Believing that Chavez would topple, I invested all my money in Venezuelan bolivars. And he won! Thanks a lot, TNR. Fortunately, I only had $3.79 to invest. That bought me 3,178,412 bolivars, and I have now cornered the market.
- skahn
October 9, 2012 at 12:34am
Don't get your panties in a twist, Arnon. The allegation is particularly bizarre (obviously) in that Capriles is assailed both for being Jewish and for supposedly being part of something called Tradicion, Familia y Propriedad, described as an "Aryan" organization. Don't you find that an unusual combination of personal attacks? And, to assuage your fevered imagination, the answer to your last point is that the piece illuminates the mentality of HERNANDEZ (obviously), not that of Capriles.
- ccarrick@vzavenue.net-old
October 9, 2012 at 1:05am
skahn, You're probably on the short list for next Venezuelan Finance Minister.
- ccarrick@vzavenue.net-old
October 9, 2012 at 1:09am
"Don't you find that an unusual combination of personal attacks?" In the imagination of antisemites no anti-Jewish argument is too bizarre for its target audience. Example: a recent comment by some pro=Hamas group claiming that "Zionists" ran the death camps. Just as strange was their assertion that the acronym Nazi comes from the word Zionist. (there is a z in both words after all.) My fevered imagination tells me that if half the members of a community in a given country left as did the Jews in Venezuela it's a sign that they weren't safe there anymore. This is all we need to know about the presence of antisemitism in Chavez' country. http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/88901/the-dispossessed
- arnon1
October 9, 2012 at 11:01am
"Don't you find that an unusual combination of personal attacks?" In the imagination of antisemites no anti-Jewish argument is too bizarre for its target audience. Example: a recent comment by some pro=Hamas group claiming that "Zionists" ran the death camps. Just as strange was their assertion that the acronym Nazi comes from the word Zionist. (there is a z in both words after all.) My fevered imagination tells me that if half the members of a community in a given country left as did the Jews in Venezuela it's a sign that they weren't safe there anymore. This is all we need to know about the presence of antisemitism in Chavez' country. http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/88901/the-dispossessed For an overview: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Venezuela#2009_attack_on_synagogue
- arnon1
October 9, 2012 at 11:03am
Were you trying to link to this?: http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/113289/venezuela-and-its-fleeing-jewish-population "My fevered imagination tells me that if half the members of a community in a given country left as did the Jews in Venezuela it's a sign that they weren't safe there anymore." That's not fevered imagination. That's a reasonable inference. What WAS a function of your fevered imagination was your prior insinuation that I somehow endorsed the Hernandez piece (which I had contributed to the string, substantiating your initial point) or viewed it as providing some insight into Capriles' actions or views.
- ccarrick@vzavenue.net-old
October 9, 2012 at 12:00pm
Try writing more clearly next time, Xenophon.
- arnon1
October 9, 2012 at 12:50pm
Yes, of course, that must be it. You go off half-cocked (as usual) and then try to mask your embarrassment by blaming anyone but yourself.
- ccarrick@vzavenue.net-old
October 9, 2012 at 1:02pm
Really, this is a pretty weak come back, Xenophony. Your: "The article is quite revealing, not just for its anti-Jewish content, but for other features as well such as its allegation that Capriles was pro-Aryan. Bizarre but illuminating." Your reference to "the article is unclear" and your "Bizarre but illuminating" could mean anything.
- arnon1
October 10, 2012 at 4:11pm
In any case, the following is one of the most interesting comments on 'Chavez' "democracy" that I have seen: "Chavez Proves Democracy Isn't Enough" http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/10/chavez-proves-democracy-isnt-enough/263460/ "Illiberal democracy, the third way (you might say) between liberal democracy and outright autocracy, seems to be catching on. Venezuela is the classic case, and it's a study in the dangers of elected dictatorship." I would call it demagogic democracy.
- arnon1
October 10, 2012 at 4:14pm
"Really, this is a pretty weak come back, Xenophony." No--it’s quite accurate. At this point, though, I suppose there really isn’t much else that you COULD say, is there? **** As far as the Atlantic article goes, I don’t think Clive Crook has a clue about Venezuela. He says that “illiberal democracy seems to be catching on.” Where has he been? Is he unfamiliar with the corrupt reign of Carlos Andres Perez, his profligate spending of Venezuelan oil revenues, his willingness to enslave Venezuela to the IMF, his embezzlement, his use of the army in during the Caracazo uprising, killing upwards of 2000. Chavez has never done any of this save his use of oil revenues. Perez, not Chavez, was the embodiment of illiberal democracy. Yet Perez had one signal attribute highly prized by the American nomenklatura: He was submissive. We could count on his doing what we wanted. And this is what Crook's, Toro's, and your is all about. How dare any nation not follow the dictates of the the American Weltreich? Do we whine constantly about our good friends the leaders of Ethiopia, Uganda and Kenya who all hold sham elections (in contradistinction to Venezuela)? No, we are busy trying to cement them in power because they are useful in ravaging Somalia and in carrying out other geopolitical good works. But we can spend all day--and we do--working to undermine an independent government in Caracas for the sole reason that it IS independent. Crook doesn’t care a whit about Chavez’s democratic shortcomings but only about his uppity independence. When pontificating on democracy, does Crook remember to mention our anti-democratic attempt to overthrow Chavez? He accuses Chavez of “very deliberately using polarization to delegitimize his opponents,” omitting any reference to the US-backed coup and the concerted attempt by the corrupt and arrogant Venezuelan kleptocracy to force him from power by bringing the economy to a halt and locking out the workers of PDVSA in 2002-2003. The kleptocracy did nothing BUT try to delegitimize and oust Chavez despite his validated election victory, but Crook can’t be bothered with any of that “old news”. Why doesn't Chavez just allow himself to become another Aristide or Zelaya and passively accept the victory of corrupt cronyism? Is the Chavez government the optimal vehicle for Venezuelan governance? No. But he is certainly not as bad as the “illiberal democrats” who seek his ouster by any means. YOU may have confidence in Capriles, but his behavior during the 2002 coup, as I said in a previous post, gives me no reason to think he isn’t just another would-be kleptocrat and lapdog of the US like Perez. Chavez is at least someone who puts Venezuela first, regardless of how deficient some of his methods are. So, I hope that Venezuela gets to something better than the Chavez government, but it needs to be a Venezuelan process. What Venezuela doesn’t need is the heavy hand of hypocritical Uncle Sam on its windpipe. Clive Crook’s shallow, context-free musings don’t deserve more than 30 seconds of attention.
- ccarrick@vzavenue.net-old
October 10, 2012 at 11:39pm