Henrique Capriles Radonski – Justice First candidate; center-right; has the advantage of recent campaign-trail experience, since he challenged Chavez for the presidency last October.
This election can be seen as a test of what the people think of Chavez’ “Bolivarian Revolution,” i.e., enough to keep going with it without Chavez himself at the helm, or not?
It can also be seen as a test of Venezuelan democracy. For the past 12 years international observers have been judging Venezuelan elections free and fair, while Chavez’ opponents have been insisting they cannot be free and fair so long as Chavez dominates the media, etc. Do those factors still apply post-Chavez?
Because there’s been so little time intervening, I doubt the Chavistas will lose; they’ve still got a strangehold on power and wealth. But they’re increasingly wrecking the country and losing the ability to finance based on oil, as they’ve utterly boned that resource. Even if prices are going up, they’re not going up fast enough for them. It’s going to take more time, but they’ll lose; the onyl real question is how much damage they do on the way out, and how harsh the replacement government becomes.
When they do leave, I’d take a look at a the possibility of massive prosecutions and asset seizures, as it appears that several high-ranking Chavez allies made massive fortunes.
If anything the Chavistas might get a boost with their hero just passed on-much like LBJ was buoyed by Kennedy’s death but even more so since Chavez’s death is more recent.
Chavez just died and the sympathy vote means that Maduro has no chance of losing, so it’s not a test of anything. We aren’t in the “post-Chavez” period yet.
An interesting point made in an article I read was that if, by some miracle, Capriles were to win, he’d be unable to govern. Chavistas have a firm majority in the National Assembly, and I suspect the Supreme Court would suddenly discover that there are limits on presidential power after all.
It wouldn’t be an unbelievable amount given what he did to the oil industry (turn it into a political slush fund). One of the difficulties is that Chevez seems to have essentially ended the distinction between personal and public funds; he wasn’t spending on himself or leaving it sitting in his bank account - he was pushing public money into his pet political projects and cronies to buy support at home or allies abroad, in a way that functioning democracies (or even the more honest autocracies) don’t. And don’t do because it’s blatantly corrupt.
Unfortunately, Chavez also destroyed the political opposition, eliminated any opponents inside government, and turned all media sources into his slaves. So you’re not going to get any kind of honest accounting. (Which is why I haven’t cited the $2 billion rumor, as it’s a specific that can’t be substantiated.)
I must have missed the part where Obama installed his cronies into the U.S. ofrestry service, ran it into the ground tearing up the land, and used the cash to buy votes.
Hey, waitaminnit, you are assuming the U.S. is a “functioning democracy.” Nevertheless and in any case, “pushing public money into his pet political projects and cronies to buy support at home or allies abroad” is something functioning democracies do all the time, and should.
Well, I suppose that explains your political positions well enough, but we’re not going to agree that corruption, mismanagement, and graft are good or should be policies for any republic.
Previous administrations, however, greedy or venal, had enough concern about the long-term fate of the nation not to wreck its industry, economy, trade, and even democracy. Perhaps these things are just A-OK as long as you them for the poor, and perhaps wrecking the nation is worth it if you can, for a brief time, maybe make the lives of some of the poor a little better. The fact is that the cruellest and most awful tyrants in Venezulean history didn’t do so much damage.
Damn right he should demand a recount. There were rampant reports of thuggery by Chavistas in the run-up to the election. It probably suppressed Capriles’ turnout by several points at least.
But doing anything about that now is a long way beyond re-counting the ballots cast – you might prove this or that incident happened, but you can’t know how many votes it suppressed or whatever. And I’m sure the Venezuelans don’t want a do-over election (assuming the constitution allows for that), not even those on Capriles’ side – they’ve already had two presidential elections in the past eight months, they’re sick of it.
My Venezuelan friends are circulating pictures of the military torching the ballots to prevent a recount on Facebook (similar to but not the same as the ones here).
Due to tests and the Boston bombing I wasn’t able to get to the Venezuela elections until now-but this really is close. I thought the JFK effect would be happening but it looks like Capriles at the least came within a hair of winning (and possibly even won).
No, it isn’t corrupt, and is something functioning democracies do all the time.