Both the government and the opposition have much to be proud of and much to be ashamed of from Sunday's election, says Veneconomy. With only the preliminary results to hand, it can be said that everyone who took part in the elections on November 23 has something to celebrate, something to lament, and much to learn.
First of all, the people must be congratulated on their active, civic-minded participation, which reached an historic high for regional elections, 65.45%. But regrettably, the losses suffered by the dissident sectors of Chavismo show, once again, how highly polarized the country is politically.
Acknowledgement goes to the National Electoral Council, which, despite being strongly biased, managed to improve the automated electoral system and make voting relatively transparent and credible. However, the CNE has no reason to be proud of its permissive attitude towards the infringements of the Elections Law by the President and the government side before, during, and after the elections. Nor can it be proud of the fact that, for all its technology and automation, 12 hours after the closing of the last polling station, it has not yet published the second official bulletin.
As for the democratic sector, it can feel satisfied at having won four of the seven states making up the electoral corridor of the country, where 60% of the electorate and 15 million (out of 26 million) of the country’s inhabitants are concentrated. Besides, those whose vision of the country differs from that of Hugo Chávez managed to hold on to Zulia and Nueva Esparta and three of the Caracas Metropolitan Area’s five mayoralties (Chacao, Baruta, and El Hatillo). They also recovered, by a wide margin, the constituencies they lost in 2004 (Miranda, Táchira, and Carabobo State Governments and Maracaibo Mayoralty) and they won the Mayoralty for Greater Caracas and the Mayoralty of Sucre Municipality, both controlled by Chavismo since 1999.
However, the opposition has to lament the loss of Bolívar state, a symbolic constituency given the presence of the basic industries, because they were unable to agree on a candidate for unity. Another constituency that was lost thanks to the opposition’s lack of vision was LibertadorMunicipality, where it would have won with a more politically experienced candidate. For all that, Stalin González should be congratulated on having gained, despite his lack of political savvy, more than 40% of the votes against such a “powerful,” “sharp” contender as Jorge Rodríguez, one of those who, in winning, lost.
The government side also has reason to be satisfied. It managed to hang on to 17 of the 22 state governments and Chávez showed that his coattails still have pulling power, albeit less than before. One of the most remarkable successes was the large number of votes won by Mario Silva, despite divisions in the ranks of Chavismo in Carabobo. However, the government’s triumph was not as great as in the 2004 regional elections, when it won 21 of the 23 state governments and 90% of the mayoralties. It also has cause to lament the losses suffered by Diosdado Cabello, Jesse Chacón, and Aristóbulo Isturiz, three of its highest-profile leaders and representatives of Chavismo.
The challenge ahead is enormous. The sectors of the population that believe in a democratic Venezuela will have to work together and put forward viable proposals for a better country in their regions. The challenge consists of continuing to conquer regional constituencies in 2009 and seats in the National Assembly in 2010.
It is no time for the opposition to sleep on its laurels. Despite his sheep’s clothing, the totalitarian wolf is lying in wait. On the one hand, the country’s prisons still hold Venezuelans because of their political beliefs; and on the other, Chávez will not refrain from enforcing his 26 plus dictatorial laws or desist from his intention to impose a constitutional amendment that will allow him to occupy the presidency indefinitely.
VENECONOMY'S politics are clear, their choice of words confused. In the instances where they would correctly use the word opposition, they instead substitute democracy. Democracy describes the entire process, begun last decade, in which the Venezuelan people have begun to wrest some control from the infinitely corrupt pseudo-democracy and replace them with a republic of democratically chosen representatives, which include the Bolivarian movement as well as the opposition. Perhaps, instead of their confused and inaccurate use of the word democracy, VenEconomy should use the more precise and accurate term neo-liberal or globalist, or the more generic term opposition, any of which would correct their erroneous choice....
ReplyDelete