A new assault on Venezuelan democracy?

Venezuela goes to the polls this weekend to vote on a new constitution. Various measures are being proposed; some that would devolve democratic and economic power to local communities, others that would grant more powers to the Presidency.

I have reservations about some elements of the package. For instance, I don't support the move to abolish presidential term limits. Plainly the attempt made by some to portray this as a move to dictatorship is, shall we say, a little shrill. But my personal view is that a liberal democratic constitution is healthier when terms of office at the highest level are limited.

However, to the extent that it devolves power to the Venezuelan people and empowers them politically, socially and economically in their everyday lives - a central theme of the Bolivarian government's reform program of recent years - I think there's much to applaud in the proposals. You can read more about them here.

Above all where Venezuela is concerned, its heartening to see a third world government acting independently of global power, and using its resources and wealth to benefit its people, instead of to enrich international capital and a domestic kleptocrat class as is more usually the case. In recent years the Bolivarian government has cut poverty by a massive 30 per cent, and access to healthcare and education have also increased dramatically. Perhaps most importantly of all, the poor majority of Venezuelan's now have an active stake in their country through grassroots economic, social and political co-operation initiatives that put power firmly into their own hands. And this example has inspired governments and populations across the continent to take major steps to kick Washington (the source of so much torture, impoverishment, brutality and oppression in recent decades) out of their affairs permanently.

Given the 500-year tragedy that in so many ways is the history of Latin America, it would take a hard heart to begrudge the poor majority in Venezuela what they have won for themselves with much effort and perseverence. But of course, there will be winners and losers from a successful move to full Latin American independence. The losers would be the US - the regional hegemon for the past century - and the wealthy elites (domestic and international) that have spent so much of the Colombian era bleeding the continent dry. Those forces have no intention of giving up lightly what they believe is rightfully theirs. That was demonstrated unequivocally in the US-backed coup five years ago when the Venezuelan business elite attempted to overthrow the democratically elected government, only to be thwarted by mass popular opposition. Now, in advance of tomorrow's vote, there is every chance that Venezuelan democracy will come under renewed attack.

An alleged CIA internal memo written last week, which Venezuelan counterintelligence claims to have intercepted, sets out a detailed plan to use the elections to destabilise the country with the eventual goal of overthrowing the government. The alleged plan involves publishing and disseminating fraudulent polls showing that the government is on course for defeat in Sunday's vote, which can then be used as "proof" of electoral fraud when the vote is in fact won, as is far more likely to happen (the government has comfortably won 11 elections in recent years, verified as free and fair by international monitors). Contesting the election results will be the focus of broader manufactured unrest designed to make the country ungovernable and set the stage for a coup.

In a sense, it matters little whether the memo is genuine or not, since it offers no surprises, only a reminder. What it describes is simply standard procedure for US covert actions in Latin America (and elsewhere). Take as an example Nixon's order to make the Chilean economy "sceam" in order to destabilise the elected socialist government and lay the groundwork for the eventual coup that brought the murderous General Pinochet (and Friedman-style neo-liberalism) into power in Santiago. The memo merely reminds anyone who knows a little of the history of US Latin America policy of the sort of black operations they can expect to now be taking place. Indeed, as you'll see below in respect of faked polls, aspects of what is described in the memo have indeed been occuring. Can we be surprised? What reason would we have, after all, to believe that the US would choose this point in history to stop doing what it has always done whenever the weakest in what it describes as its "backyard" have dared to raise their heads?

So that's the context in which I sent the below email to Rory Carroll of the Guardian (whose coverage on Venezuela I've written about previously here). The western media - with a few exceptions - have performed their standard propaganda function where Venezuela is concerned in recent years. For example, by reducing their coverage to hysterical caricatures of the personality of President Chavez instead of reporting the policy substance of the Caracas government's programme. If things do turn nasty in the coming days, the role of the media will be crucial in isolating Caracas on the world stage - portraying the democratically elected President as a "dictator-in-the-making", those working to overthrow democracy as plucky freedom-fighters, and so on. We should be alive to this now, in case the worst happens, and be prepared to politely challenge journalists with the facts wherever necessary. The end of the Bolivarian government and the return of the elites would send millions of people back to the poverty and deprivation that they have only recently begun to escape. To the extent that we can make a small but valuable effort to help prevent that from happening, we should do so.

*************************

email to Rory Carroll - sent 1 December 2007

Hi Rory - hope you're well

I notice that a couple of your recent reports have relied on polls by Datanalisis.

I've just read Luis Vicente Leon of Datanalisis telling Reuters that "The most probable [of tomorrow's constitutional referendum] is that there will be no surprise and Chavez will win 60 percent against 40 percent".

I found this strange because you reported on Thursday 29th that "A survey for Datanalisis, a polling company, said 49% of likely voters would vote no [to the constitution] and 39% would vote yes".

I thought you might be interested in the discrepancy between what Datanalisis staff think is "probable" and what they are presenting as the results of their polls. Are you satisfied that this firm is a reliable, neutral source of statistical data? Are you aware that The LATimes once quoted José Antonio Gil of Datanalysis saying that Chavez "has to be killed"? Are you aware of the recent history in Venezuela of fake polls being used by the opposition?

The opposition's alleged poll lead was central to your story of Thursday 29th ("Chávez forced to battle for long-term future"). Given that Mr Leon has now effectively admitted that the figures you published last week were fraudulent, I was wondering if you would be drawing attention to this in your next report? Please let me know.

Best wishes
David Wearing