Open Letter to the Journalists Covering the Venezuelan Elections
The decision of four opposition parties in Venezuela to withdraw from elections this weekend raises important questions for the media.
<snip>
Yet much of the international press coverage would convince the general reader, who is not familiar with the details of the situation, that these parties may have a case for their claim that the ballot couldn't be trusted. In this coverage it appears to be a matter of opinion, despite a strong statement to the contrary from the OAS, which is observing the election. (See below). As of this morning, almost none of the English-language press had reported the OAS comments, although they were reported in Spanish-language newspapers such as Clarin in Argentina.
It is clear that the opposition's attempt to discredit these elections will be joined by powerful figures in the United States, including some Members of Congress and - possibly, depending on how the media covers these events - the White House and State Department.
It is worth noting that most of these same opposition parties, and also Súmate (an opposition group that co-ordinated the August 2004 attempt to recall President Chávez), refused to accept the results of that referendum, which they lost by a 59-41 margin. They claimed that a massive electronic fraud had taken place, and even commissioned a statistical analysis by two economists, at Harvard's Kennedy school and MIT, which provided a theory and alleged evidence for this fraud. (See
http://ksghome.harvard.edu/~rhausma/new/blackswan03.pdf ).
The referendum was certified by the OAS and the Carter Center. The electronic voting machines used in that election produced a paper receipt for each vote, which was then deposited in a ballot box. It was thus a simple matter for the election observers (OAS/Carter Center) to audit a sample of the electronic vote and match it to the paper ballots, which they did.
In spite of this, opposition leaders continue to maintain their allegations: "We felt we were victims of fraud" in the referendum, said Henry Ramos, Secretary General of Acción Democrática yesterday (Associated Press), in justifying his party's withdrawal from the election.
The vast majority of the international press (with some exceptions such as the Wall Street Journal editorial board) accepted the certification of the OAS and the Carter Center in the August 2004 referendum, and did not take seriously opposition claims that the ballot was stolen.
The media would do well to treat with similar objectivity this latest attempt to discredit what appears, with OAS support, to be a fair and honest electoral process.
<snip>
http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/12/2/17334/7970
So, is the election a fraud :eek: and if it is, in what way? :dubious:
Henry
Knowing what happened before, the last referendum showed to be a disaster to the opposition, in the sense that showed the opposition resorting to lies and distortions; and even when the referendum showed the real support they had, they tried to manipulate the media outside Venezuela to then justify a violent move against Chavez, last time the Independent in the UK and some other extreme right sites did accept the now confirmed fake exit polling results from the opposition. It now becomes clear that the opposition has little chance of winning now and that they will go all the way with their assumption that the election will be once again a fraud, since the opposition **still claims ** the last referendum results were.
IOW: For the opposition it is better to claim fraud than confirming the real support that they have from the Venezuelan people, my big complaint to the opposition is that they are idiots, running against Chavez with a sensible alternative platform, even in a losing effort will plant the seeds to eventually take over when Chavez is no longer trusted by the people, the solution the opposition is implying with this move is the path of the coup d’état.
Although heavily leaning towards Chavez, http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/ has proven in the past to be more accurate:
After initially maintaining that they would participate on Sunday, PJ have now decided to withdraw. This is a deeply regrettable move. Had they stayed in the contest, they could have demonstrated that they are a legitimate, mature and democratic...
After initially maintaining that they would participate on Sunday, PJ have now decided to withdraw. This is a deeply regrettable move. Had they stayed in the contest, they could have demonstrated that they are a legitimate, mature and democratic organisation that plays by the rules of the game and which is willing to challenge the government from ‘within’ the system. Secondly, they would have provided Venezuelan voters with an anti-government electoral alternative. By pulling out, they have signalled that the government should be opposed from outside of the political system and formal institutions, a dangerous and destabilising strategy that failed when pursued by the opposition during the period 2001 to 2004. Whatever motivations lie behind PJs rapid about turn over recent days, the party has done a tremendous disservice to those Venezuelans looking for peace, stability and a viable electoral alternative to Chavez and the Bolivarian revolution. Borges, Geraldo Blyde and other key PJ figures have squandered an opportunity to present themselves as nation builders, reconcilers and democrats. More significantly, they have thrown away the chance to distance themselves from the deeply unpopular AD and COPEI parties, extremist elements and strategies in the anti-government movement and the Machiavellian manipulations of the US. The only hope is that candidates of the PJ party will demonstrate more maturity, wisdom and democratic conviction than their party leaders, run for office and pursue any complaints of malpractice when the contest is finished.
In an arrant display of rank political opportunism, Venezuela’s faltering middle-class opposition parties have announced that they would boycott the December 4 legislative elections. Far from a principled and high minded move, this tawdry tactic...
Justifying the Unjustified
By choosing this truly undignified and undemocratic tactic, the Venezuelan opposition has only weakened its position in the eyes of the world. Had it participated in the election, and succeeding in documenting fraud (an unlikely scenario), it would have been able to make legitimate claims. But by refusing even symbolic participation, the opposition has chosen to court Washington alone, rather than convince the international community of its democratic bonafides. In fact, the opposition has taken this drastic move because it lacks any hope that it could prevent itself from going down before a chavista landslide victory.
So they got to move the goal posts and now they took the football and go home. Guys, if reliable evidence of a fraud had been produced on the last election and referendum then the world would see this as a justifiable boycott, instead of being dignified loser you are pathetic losers , and the only thing I see the opposition embrace is the way of the gun to get their way. Problem is, the people are armed too, so good luck with that.