Newsweek says Chavez referrendum rigged

[Quartz]

He was only stopped by the army. Link. What does this mean for Chavez and Venezuela?

On the one hand, I’m grateful he didn’t get away with it; on the other, I’m worried about a military dictatorship.

[lalenin]

Well, it’s not really Newsweek news, it is an opinion piece in Newsweek by Jorge Castañeda, and the point of the article is that the referendum not only lost, but supossedly lost by a much larger margin, and that Chavez somehow managed to get the results altered to make the loss appear less lopsided.

Having said that, I would be inclined to believe some of the things the article claims, mostly because Chavez is not known for his love of democracy, remember how he first came to prominence? However without anything other than the say so of some people who would benefit from the claim being true, I’d have to be skeptical of the whole thing.

As to what the claims would mean for Chavez and Venezuela? I don’t know, maybe that Chavez is not as fully in control of the military as he would like to be, in which case some sort of purge is likely. And if the military gets wind of the plans before it happens, another likely coup. In other words same old, same old.

[Little_Nemo]

I think it means very little. Chavez is still in office until 2013. If he wants to (and I believe he will) he’ll find some excuse before then to extend his term indefinitely.

[Bryan_Ekers]

Gad, a rigged vote in South America? I’m shocked. Shocked!

Well, not that shocked.

[Mr.Moto]

Watch for lots of generals and colonels to lose their jobs over the next few years.

Next time this happens, the army will go the way Chavez wants it to go.

[Shodan]

I suppose Chavez will have to hire some Dutchman to burn down the Reichstag.

Regards,
Shodan

[smiling_bandit]

@Mr. Moto

Watch for lots of generals and colonels to lose their jobs over the next few years.

Next time this happens, the army will go the way Chavez wants it to go.

I’m not so sure about that. In certain countries, which I believe definitely now includes Venezuela, you don’t mess with the military. If Chavez had that kind of power he probably would have used it already. That he does not probably means he recognizes two things:

1. The military can toss him out on his arse any time it likes.

2. They will not be toyed with.

The last one means that he won’t or can’t fire people. The military probably takes care of its own and won’t let an outsider get rid of anyone.

[BrainGlutton]

@smiling bandit

The last one means that he won’t or can’t fire people. The military probably takes care of its own and won’t let an outsider get rid of anyone.

But Chavez is not a military “outsider.”

[Lemur866]

Well, that’s the trouble with purging the military. It has to be done carefully, or else the generals and colonels will stage a coup before they get purged. But coups only work if the soldiers obey their officers rather than the civilian leaders.

[smiling_bandit]

@BrainGlutton

But Chavez is not a military “outsider.”

Oh? Why not? Assuming the article is true, and Chavez therefore has a reason to purge the military, one must now assume that the military is hostile to him and now looks upon him as an outsider. Long story short: he’s not a general or colonel or whatnot and was not one in the recent past. Any prior military service is irrelevant.

[BrainGlutton]

@smiling bandit

Oh? Why not? Assuming the article is true, and Chavez therefore has a reason to purge the military, one must now assume that the military is hostile to him and now looks upon him as an outsider. Long story short: he’s not a general or colonel or whatnot and was not one in the recent past. Any prior military service is irrelevant.

He had a 17-year military career, which ended with his 1992 coup attempt – but it is significant that he had enough support in the ranks to make a serious attempt, and I’m sure he’s kept up his contacts since then. And he’s been president for seven years now – there must be some officers he has appointed.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Shodan

I suppose Chavez will have to hire some Dutchman to burn down the Reichstag.

Regards,
Shodan

You know who was like Hitler? HITLER was like Hitler!

Chavez is a corrupt jerk from what I can tell, but comparisons between him and Hitler are about as stupid as comparisons between Bush and Hitler.

Daniel

[BrainGlutton]

According to this analysis, the important opposition to the late referendum came from sectors other than the military:

Despite its advocacy of a strong executive, what distinguishes Chavismo is its fragility. As an evolving movement that came to power through the ballot, it had to make significant compromises with entrenched power blocs in the military, the decomposing and discredited political establishment and the civil, educational and foreign-service bureaucracy. Chávez is often presented as if he were omnipotent, when in fact the state he presides over and the political movement he nominally leads is exceptionally weak and fragmented. Many of the most controversial of the defeated reforms were designed to limit abuse and incompetence committed by local party bosses and Chavista officials, including governors and mayors. These included doing away with presidential term limits (while keeping those on other elected offices) and giving the presidency the power to appoint some officials and redefine the political divisions of the nation. They also entailed devolving administrative and budgetary responsibility away from regional and local government officials to communal and workers’ councils, mandating, for example, that “municipalities are obligated to include in their activities the participation of councils of popular power” and that civil society organizations have a say in political and judicial nominations.

Other proposed amendments would have reversed many of the compromises the left wing of Chavismo made with conservatives and moderates in order to ratify the 1999 Constitution, and would have established a wide array of political and economic rights that Chávez couldn’t introduce when he first came to power. The reforms would have lowered the voting age from 18 to 16; prohibited discrimination based on sexual orientation, race or disability; established gender parity in candidacies for elected office; provided social security for workers in the informal economy; guaranteed free university education; shortened the workweek from forty-four to thirty-six hours; and recognized social and collective forms of property (as opposed to the strict definition of private property in the current Constitution).

Aside from the anti-Chávez irreconcilables, who over the last nine years have acted as if they were living through some kind of biblical plague, it seems that a significant amount of opposition to the proposed reforms came from Chavista party and government officials who understood the amendments as an attempt to weaken their private fiefdoms. There are reports that many mayors, for instance, did not mobilize voters as they did for Chávez’s re-election last December. There is also evidence that the opposition, funded by national and international corporations and Washington “democracy promotion” grants, mounted an effective disinformation campaign. In addition to exaggerating the power the reforms would give to the executive branch, rumors spread throughout the country designed to capitalize on common prejudices and fears, that the state, for instance, would do away with all private property, legalize gay marriage and take away the rights of parents over their children.

But it also seems that the reforms, many of them baroquely worded and vague, met a good deal of thoughtful opposition from committed Chavistas who continue to support Chavez–even opposition polls admit that his popularity continues to hover around 60 percent notwithstanding the results of last week’s referendum. (Between his election in 1998 and his re-election in 2006, the number of Venezuelans voting for Chávez doubled, from more than 3.5 million to nearly 7.5 million, from 56 to 63 percent of the electorate.) “I’m celebrating because the ‘no’ won,” said one voter to the New York Times, “but I still have President Chavez.”

[Lemur866]

Boy, aren’t we lucky that we have The Nation to stick up for poor, poor misunderstood Hugo Chavez?

[Sapo]

@Bryan Ekers

Gad, a rigged vote in South America? I’m shocked. Shocked!

Well, not that shocked.

Yeah, south of the parallel 45 N the popular vote means nothing.

[smiling_bandit]

@BrainGlutton

He had a 17-year military career, which ended with his 1992 coup attempt – but it is significant that he had enough support in the ranks to make a serious attempt, and I’m sure he’s kept up his contacts since then. And he’s been president for seven years now – there must be some officers he has appointed.

Thing is, I’m not so sure he has kept up his contacts. Most Latin American militaries lean toward a far-rightist dictatorship if they lean toward anything. They might be willing to tolerate a statist dictator, but possibly not one as moronic and Chavez repeatedly proves himself to be. I don’t see the current love there.

[Sapo]

Chavez has been most gracious in his defeat:

BBC NEWS | Americas | Chavez belittles opposition win

The video is available everywhere for those who speak spanish. Just search for “victoria de mierda”.

A “shit victory” he called it and has reminded the nation that he still has the power to effect all the proposed changes through the “Ley Habilitante” which gives him the power to change the constitution without approval from the electorate or the legislative power.

[BrainGlutton]

@Lemur866

Boy, aren’t we lucky that we have The Nation to stick up for poor, poor misunderstood Hugo Chavez?

A far more reliable source, at any rate, than Jorge Castaneda.

[BrainGlutton]

@Sapo

Chavez has been most gracious in his defeat:

BBC NEWS | Americas | Chavez belittles opposition win
The video is available everywhere for those who speak spanish. Just search for “victoria de mierda”.

A “shit victory” he called it and has reminded the nation that he still has the power to effect all the proposed changes through the “Ley Habilitante” which gives him the power to change the constitution without approval from the electorate or the legislative power.

But, he does not have the authority to change the constitution. The enabling act never extended that far and has expired in any case. He is in a position to push many of the requested changes through the National Assembly, however; not all of them require constitutional amendments.

[Lemur866]

Wait, was that Wikipedia link supposed to make me feel Castaneda was an asshole?

Maybe he is an asshole, but that Wikipedia article certainly doesn’t establish him as an asshole.

What makes you think he’s an asshole (if you do in fact think he’s an asshole)? Remember that articles denouncing him from The Nation and similar ilk are probably not going to be convince me and others like me. Is he seen as a traitor by the hard left because of his book? Or for corruption? Or what, exactly?