Revolution in Venezuela?

[Stallit 2 de Halfo]

Hi Seabird, welcome to the site ;D

I agree with much of what you have said.

Someone please explain to me how you can have a socialist revolution in a country that you govern? Are you at war with your self?

Im not sure if I understand the question , could you rephrase it (please) ;D.

[Seabird]

Thanks Red Militant, glad to be here! I am wondering how a man that rules a country can create a revolution within the country he governs! Is he revolting against his self?

[Stallit 2 de Halfo]

Thanks Red Militant, glad to be here! I am wondering how a man that rules a country can create a revolution within the country he governs! Is he revolting against his self?

Oh right, I understand. I agree with the point you are making ;D

[RedFlag32]

seabird said:

While I agree that Chavez has done much to help in his country I do not care for his treatment toward his own people. From what I know he is a dictator, ruling with a politically motivated policing service. He says his country is a democratic socialist nation when in reality the people have no say in their own government, they are very poor and must apply for the right to work. He tells you what business you may have and not have. I have a friend that had to apply for the rights to open a cafe and now most of proceeds go to the government for the right to have a business; I call that slave labor. He like most dictators paint a pretty picture for the world to see when in reality the people are ruled by fear and intimidation.

Seabird,Chavez was elected democratically,and even when there was a coup against him the majority of the people poured onto the streets and demanded he be returned and the revolution continue. He is not a dictator.I dont know where you go tthat assumption.

Someone please explain to me how you can have a socialist revolution in a country that you govern? Are you at war with your self?

Socialism is a transitional stage to Communism, revolution takes many many years,what you are seeing in Venezuella is the process of this revolution,he has already ousted the capitalists from power so now the socialist state is trying to push the people towards real workers rule. Some people would disagree with me regarding Chavez's real intention or if it is a real socialist revolution,but to answer yur question,socialism isnt the end objective,its transitional so in that case its perfectly fine to have a socialist leader during a revolution.

[Seabird]

Red Flag,

Gerry Adams was democratically elected also yet you refute him and many state that SF is not republican group, yet republicans voted him in. Here is something for you to ponder. The people poured out into the streets for Saddam and Amin but both were commiting acts of genocide. Ya think it maybe because of intimidation/fear or admiration??

Sunday, April 06, 2003

The last republic? The story's familiar: a small, oil-rich nation, with an anti-American government in a military feud with its neighbors. But it's not Iraq or Iran, or even in the Middle East -- it's Venezuela, reeling from political turmoil and economic chaos. Even as the world's attention is focused on the fighting in Baghdad and the imminent fall of Saddam Hussein, this Latin American nation could become a regional security risk.

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez began his career as a military coup-plotter. In the early 1980s, he and fellow military officers formed a secret society, the Revolutionary Bolivarian Movement (named after Latin American revolutionary Simon Bolivar). In February of 1992, following the implementation of an economic program ordered by the IMF, Chavez led an aborted coup against then-President Carlos Andres Perez and spent two years in jail as a result, though not until after 10,000 soldiers followed his call and scores of lives were lost.

By the lates 1990s, Chavez had transformed himself from a failed conspirator to a mainstream politician, and Venezuela was on the ropes. Both profligate and incompetent -- Venezuela spent more on social programs than any of its neighbors, but its basic living indices, such as infant mortality, were many times that of other nations in the region -- the nation had reached a point where its oil wealth could no longer cover the serious problems at its core.

In 1998, Chavez rose to power on the shoulders of the poor, to whom he promised socialist reforms and an equitable sharing of that nation's oil wealth. He also played on ethnic tensions -- Chavez is, like 80% of the populace, a descendent of Africans and/or South American Indians, while the business and political elite have traditionally been individuals either of European descent or who have been socialized into neoliberalism.

Although many distrusted his revolutionary rhetoric, Chavez garnered widespread support amongst the poor and picked up enough votes from the middle class -- weary of forty years of corruption amongst politicans and the oil oligarchy -- to win by a respectable margin (Chavez garnered the largest minority of the votes, and parties serving as political allies made up the remainder). Massive inflation, widespread poverty and the lowest economic growth rate in South America combined to make for a volatile electoral situation, where the traditional (and American-backed) political parties garnered less than 10% of the votes cast.


THE BOLIVARIAN REVOLUTION
Chavez quickly set about putting his revolutionary plans into action both abroad and at home. He visited with Saddam Hussein and Fidel Castro, and allegedly began providing Colombian rebel forces with munitions. Domestically, the military was purged and became a primary actor for the Chavez regime. The Senate was abolished and the Presidential term of office was extended.

During his tenure, Chavez has become something of a cause celebre amongst the anti-globalization groups on both the left and the right; his political philosophy, a mixture of authoritarianism and populism, manages to strike chords on both ends of the spectrum.

An example of the radicalism of the Chavez faction can be found on the front page of the Chavez-linked Asamblea Popular Revolucion, which "demand that the Pope, religious leaders, Nobel Peace Prize recipients ... [and] human rights advocates ... be transported [se trasladen] to Iraq and serve as human shields" as sign of their commitment to stop "murderous neocolonialism" [el nuevo colonialismo asesino].

At the same time as he uses leftist rhetoric and policies, Chavez extols oligarchic rule by "strongmen [caudillos]" and excoriates the "imported bourgeois model of democracy" that "eliminates our leaders." It's tempting to conclude that Chavez seems to occupy the same niche as the Italian Lega Norda or Slobodan Milosevic -- the paleoconservatives love him for his nationalist and authoritarian roots, and the radical left loves him for standing up to America, neoliberalism and most post-1936 economic theory.

Chavez has three primary enforcers: the military, which took over many domestic duties in the face of Senatorial dissen; the police, who have been used to intimidate dissidents and even kill anti-regime protestors during demonstrations; and the "Bolivarian Circles," neighborhood political organizations that, critics say, have been turned into armed militias equipped by Chavez at government expense.

Because the Venezuelan media is largely anti-Chavez, the regime has begun a crackdown on free expression, using laws that Human Rights Watch characterizes as "prohibiting broadcasts that subvert public order, discredit authorities and institutions, or propagate false or tendentious news ... barring even legitimate criticism of public authorities and institutions [and] conflict[ing] with international norms on freedom of expression." Radical leftists in the United States have defended these laws, saying that Chavez is acting on behalf of the Venezuelan public to "free" the media from its "corporatist" ties.

One year ago, a military and business coup managed to temporarily throw Chavez out of office. Around 600,000 citizens marched in Caracas, demanding the ouster of the regime. But two days later, a counter-revolutionary effort organized by the Bolivarian Circles forced the interim President, Pedro Carmona (head of the business alliance Fedecamera) to step down, and reinstated Chavez.

The coup was foiled, but Chavez's troubles continued: managers and unionized workers at state-run oil company Petroleos de Venezuela S.A. (PdVSA) began a concerted strike to try and force him to step down and call new elections. The strike also failed, but crippled the oil industry, caused over $6 billion dollars (U.S.) in direct damages, and resulted in Chavez firing almost 18,000 workers from PdVSA (roughly 47% of the company's total workforce).

Today, efforts continue to call a national referendum to remove Chavez from power, but he has repeatedly ignored them, despite his own 1996 statement that he intended for Venezuela to have a system of "direct democracy ... where the people retain the right to remove, nominate, sanction and recall their elected delegates and representatives."

Recent opinion polls in Venezuela show that Chavez would lose a recall petition, with 60% of the population expressing support for a recall of the President. A majority of the nation also feels that Chavez has been a "setback" for democratic rule in Venezuela, which has had a stable, if corrupt, democracy for nearly five decades.

There are signs that Chavez, or forces acting on his behalf, are rooting out revolutionary forces. Earlier this year, the bodies of four Chavez opponents, three of whom were from the military, were discovered outside Caracas. A young girl who witnessed the attacks on the four was also shot and left for dead. The U.S. State Department has alleged that 137 extrajudicial murders by the government took place in 2002.


A WORSENING PICTURE
As bad as the situation was in 1998, today Venezuela is in even worse shape, with the always-fragile middle class rapidly vanishing into immiseration. A succession of natural disasters, from torrential rains that forced the relocation of thousands to a severe drought that has caused electricity rationing across the nation, has worsened the situation. (Chavez exacerbated the death toll from mudslides by refusing proffered American aid.)

The overall economic picture is grim: the economy is in a recession, inflation has reached runaway levels, durable goods sales are down by 75% in some sectors, national debt has increased almost fivefold, unemployment is at 18%, and poverty is rampant. Interest rates for private creditors run upwards of 40%, with Central Bank actions having little effect. (The Bank recently rejected an attempt by Chavez to directly set fixed interest rates for private banks.)

Foreign debt payments are a major issue, with the government unable to pay the $5 billion (U.S.) due in 2003. External debt currently stands at $22.4 billion, with another $9 billion in internal debt. The government has been using emergency measures such as debt swaps to try and minimize the short-term fiscal impact, and this week approved a plan to issue further bonds to keep current on their payments. (Chavez caused no small amount of havoc last month when he insisted the government needed to "restructure" its debt, when he actually meant "refinance.")

Although Chavez fell far short of his promises to the poor, he did markedly increase public spending on housing, accounting for a majority of the economic growth during the recent years. Massive apartment blocks -- hastily and shoddily constructed -- are rented to the lower classes at a net loss to the government, but still can't fill the desperate need for shelter. Other social programs have seen cutbacks or even elimination due to the dire economic environment.

Finance officials have begun to talk about expanding taxes on non-petroleum products to reduce the government's fiscal dependence upon oil. Needless to say, this will further depress economic performance and probably create further unrest amongst the middle classes.

Oil revenues are staggering back to pre-strike levels, but PdVSA is rife with allegations of mismanagement: military officers have taken over management slots, Chavez is supplying Cuba with credit rates so favorable as to effectively give them free oil supplies, and, according to some PdVSA employees, curious transactions are made that appear to be money laundering for drug cartels and international terror networks. It may well be that the effective destruction of PdVSA may be the lasting legacy of Chavez, long after institutions have repaired the damage done to Venezuelan democracy.

Other social pressures are beginning to appear: crime rates have soared since Chavez took office (Venezuela is now the 2nd most crime-ridden nation in Latin America), and less than 15% of murders in the nation are prosecuted. Although the faltering economy and political turmoil is certainly partially responsible, it's worth noting that the military has disarmed local police in an attempt to defang anti-Chavez mayors and local political leaders, thus making law enforcement virtually impossible.

Internationally, Colombia has repeatedly accused the Chavez regime of providing narco-rebels with munitions and safe havens across the Colombian border. In recent months, the Venezuelan military has begun cooperating with Colombia on security matters, bombing rebel positions and arresting FARC and NLA members in Venezuela. However, another round of political dislocation could create further problems for neighboring nations as rebels take advantage of Venezuelan inattention.

THE UPSHOT
Venezuela seems poised for a revolutionary implosion. The military seems to be fractured along pro-Chavez and revolutionary lines, while the government itself has been segregated into Chavez and his cronies (who fill the National Assembly) on one side, and the politicians and bureaucrats who oppose him on the other. The same tensions are mirrored on the streets: the Bolivarian Circles intimidate and threaten opponents of the regime, while the middle and upper classes purchase firearms and secure their homes in preparation for the next round of violence.

With the economy continuing to collapse and political tensions rising, it's only a matter of time before another coup attempt shakes the nation. But next time, both sides will be ready, and the toll will be higher.

[RedFlag32]

www.marxist.com/interview-alan-woods-venezuelan-revolution180607.htm


An interview with Alan Woods on the Venezuelan revolution today

By Humania del Sur
Monday, 18 June 2007

John Riddell, in his review of your book "The Venezuelan Revolution, a Marxist perspective", wonders if a small Marxist current like the one you lead can influence the course of events in the world and says that at least you have the merit of going part of the way together with the Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela. How was this possible? How did you manage it? Did they contact you? Tell us how your first meeting with Chavez was and how the relation between the International Marxist tendency, the government of Hugo Chávez and the sectors that support it are developing. Do you really believe you can influence events in Venezuela in some way?

History shows that a small group with clear ideas can play a decisive role in certain historical situations, while a big mass party with incorrect ideas can be transformed in a given moment into a great zero. It is sufficient to recall on the one hand the Bolshevik Party which, at the beginning of 1917 was a small minority in Russia, and on the other hand the collapse of the Social Democratic and Communist parties in Germany in 1933.

It is true that the Corriente Marxista Revolucionaria is as yet very small in Venezuela, but we are very strong in ideas, and that in the last instance is the only guarantee of success. I might add that it was precisely the strength of our ideas that led to my first encounter with President Chávez, who had read my book Reason in Revolt, which he liked and which he has been so kind as to recommend on several occasions.

As to the influence we might have in Venezuela, that depends in part on the work of the Venezuelan Marxists, in part on the experience of the masses. In general the masses do not learn from books but from experience. But in a revolution the masses learn more in one week than in a decade of normal life. Lenin used to say that for the masses an ounce of experience is worth a ton of theory - and he was a great theoretician.

The masses have already learnt many things in this decade of revolution. They know how to distinguish their real friends from their enemies (even when these wear a red shirt). We could put it this way: although the masses may not know exactly what they want, they know full well what they do not want. The development of consciousness continues: the influence of the reformists is declining and that of the most revolutionary wing, together with that of the Marxist tendency that I have the honour of representing is growing.

You have openly expressed your admiration for President Chávez. However, you have said that you consider that the Bolivarian Revolution is "incomplete". What do you mean by this?

The Bolivarian Revolution is a revolution in the sense that Trotsky explained in The History of the Russian Revolution, that is, a situation in which the masses participate actively in politics and try to take their destiny into their own hands and change society from the bottom. But it is unfinished because it has not yet succeeded in expropriating totally the oligarchy and the old state apparatus remains more or less intact. As long as things continue like this, it cannot be said that the revolution is irreversible. President Chávez once compared it to the myth of Sisyphus, who was condemned to roll a heavy boulder to the top of a hill, at which point it always rolled back to the starting-point. The problem is that if this particular rock rolls backwards, it will crush a lot of people.

Trotsky once said: "truth and not lies is the motor-force of history". What, in your opinion, is the truth of the Bolivarian Revolution? And what are the lies? Are we in the presence of a real transformation of Venezuelan reality, heading for socialism of the xxi century or is it all a deception that will end in the consolidation of a new political and economic elite that has nothing in common with revolution or socialism?

The great truth is that in a revolution - that means also the Bolivarian - in the end one class has to win and the other lose, and that throughout history no ruling class has ever surrendered without a pitiless struggle. The great lie consists in empty and vainglorious declarations to the effect that the Bolivarian Revolution "is irreversible" and other such stupid and irresponsible nonsense which merely attempts to deceive the people and lull it to sleep instead of arousing it to struggle against the danger of counter-revolution.

As for the so-called theory of socialism of the XXI century, I think it is an attempt to distort the ideas of President Chávez and to divert the process towards reformism. People like Heinz Dieterich are striving by all means to water down the revolutionary message of the President and fill it with a completely reformist one. They are opposed to nationalisations, they preach reconciliation between the classes, that is, they are trying to teach the tiger to eat lettuce. And they call this nonsense "realism"! I am writing a book against the ideas of Dieterich and the reformists, and I hope to make clear the difference between Marxism - the authentically revolutionary theory - and this caricature.

What other criticisms would you make of the Bolivarian Revolution, apart from the fact that you consider it to be incomplete?

Some time ago Hugo Chávez asked me the same question. I replied in the following way. Your revolution is a real source of inspiration for millions. That is the most important thing. But it does have some weak points, for example, the absence of a clearly defined programme and policy, and the lack of politically educated cadres; in other words, the lack of a revolutionary party, the lack of a revolutionary leadership.

It is true that later there have been attempts to remedy some of these failings. For example, the President has proclaimed the socialist character of the Revolution - something that our Tendency has been advocating from the very beginning. But this idea is meeting with stubborn resistance from the reformists and Stalinists. The battle is not yet won.

What do you think of the criticisms of the Venezuelan opposition that the President has displayed authoritarian attitudes and that his condition as a military man does not favour the democratic rules of play? For example, what is your opinion about his declared intention of remaining in power for an unlimited term and his comments about a "peaceful but not unarmed" revolution? Are socialism and democracy incompatible?

Why should they be? Socialism is democratic or it is nothing! Of course, when I speak of democracy I do not refer to the vulgar caricature of bourgeois democracy - which is only another name for the dictatorship of big Capital. What democracy exists in the USA, where there are supposed to be two parties that, as Gore Vidal explains very well, are really only one party representing different wings of the bourgeoisie. In order to be President of the USA one has to be a millionaire. What kind of a democracy is that?

The protests of the Venezuelan opposition are pure hypocrisy. They have lost the elections and referendums, one after another. They lost again last December when Chávez obtained the biggest majority in the history of Venezuela. And they cannot say that this was a fraud! These elections were the most highly scrutinized in the history of the world! They were all out there in Caracas, searching with a magnifying glass for even the smallest evidence of fraud. If they had found any they would have shouted it from the rooftops. But they did not find anything.

These elections provide a very clear mandate to the Bolivarian government - a mandate for fundamental change in society. That is what the masses are really demanding! Hugo Chávez must carry out the wishes of those who voted for him, the workers and peasants, the poor people and the youth, ignoring completely the howling of the counterrevolutionary opposition, which is nothing but the mouthpiece of the corrupt and reactionary oligarchy and its master in Washington. We must take drastic and urgent measures. It is high time to carry out the expropriation of the oligarchy!

Concerning the question of the media and information in Venezuela, ever since Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías assumed the Presidency of the Republic in December 1998, the government has been reducing the freedom of the press, which is defined as "the guarantee by the government of freedom of expression for citizens and associations, including those dedicated to the collection and broadcasting of information" while strengthening the media owned by the state, which are dedicated to the transmission of programmes of an "ideological" character. Isn't this contrary to human rights? Is socialism against rights?

Come on, now! How can we speak of freedom of the media, of the means of communication, when all these are owned by a handful of rich men like Rupert Murdoch? The so-called freedom of expression in Britain and the USA is a joke in very bad taste!

Of course, socialism must respect human rights. But let us start by defending the rights of the overwhelming majority of the population who, until now, never had any real rights or a voice to express their opinions. What we should do is to nationalise the press, the radio and television, but not leave these things in the hands of the state (we do not want a totalitarian state as in the USSR) but to guarantee access to the media to any party, social or trade union organization according to the number of members, votes in elections, etc. they have. Thus, the PSUV would have several daily papers and more than one TV station, and the owners of RCTV could have a small monthly journal like El Militante which they would be free to sell at the bus stops... That is to say, we would give the bourgeois the same rights they give to us, neither more nor less.

What do you think of the case of Radio Caracas Televisión, a company with more than 50 years of history, which had its licence cancelled by the government in May?

As far as RCTV is concerned, everybody knows that this was a counterrevolutionary ("golpista") station. If I were to criticize the President, I would say he should have acted a lot sooner against this nest of vipers. And he should not only have closed them down but he should have arrested the bosses and put them on trial.

Yet again, the orchestrated campaign over this issue is just plain hypocrisy. I can assure you that if a British TV company had attacked Blair in the same way that this lot did to Chávez, advocating a coup and even the assassination of the head of state, they would be in prison before their feet could touch the ground. No! The problem here is not that we "have gone too far", as Heinz Dieterich and others think, but that we have been too soft. For example, how many of the April 2002 conspirators are behind bars? As far as I know, not one. This would not be the case in the USA, I can assure you!

Many chavistas are sceptical about the President's appeal to form the PSUV, because they fear that it may be an attempt to control and silence internal dissent. What do you think about this? Is a single party an instrument suitable for promoting a "revolution within the revolution" which is what you support?

On the one hand, it is evident that the working class needs a political party and also that the old parties that made up the MVR were very bad, totally taken over by the bureaucracy and the reformists. Therefore, it seems to me that the proclamation of the PSUV could be an important step forward, but only on condition that it is a genuinely revolutionary party, that is, a democratic and class party, controlled by the working class rank and file and not just another bureaucratic apparatus for the careerists and opportunists. Here also the presence of a strong Marxist tendency is absolutely necessary.


Your book on Venezuela has been translated into various languages, including Urdu. This has made Chávez and the Bolivarian Revolution known in countries like India and Pakistan. Do you really think that what is happening in Venezuela is an example for the world? If so, why?

It is true that my book has been a great success because it fills a vacuum. Unfortunately, a great part of the Left internationally has not understood the significance of the Bolivarian Revolution, although this situation is changing rapidly, as people begin to find out what is going on in Venezuela. In all this a very important role has been played, and is still being played, by our international campaign Hands off Venezuela.

Why is the Venezuelan revolution important for the rest of the world? Well, in the first place, all this should not be happening! After the fall of the USSR the bourgeoisie succumbed to a mood of euphoria. They spoke of the end of socialism, the end of communism, of revolution, even the end of history. Now Venezuela has turned all these delusions on their head! The Bolivarian Revolution is like an echo of those famous last words of Galileo: "Eppur si muove!" (And yet, it moves!).

In the last period capitalism has demonstrated that it is incapable of satisfying the most basic necessities of the masses. On all sides we see more hunger, more diseases, more misery, more wars. But there is also an increasing reaction by the people. Classical physics says: every action produces an equal and opposite reaction. That is also true in politics! The mass movement increasingly tends to question the capitalist system - even in the USA. And Venezuela offers a point of reference for these movements. That is why the imperialists are hell-bent on destroying the Bolivarian Revolution at all costs, because it gives an example to millions of exploited and oppressed people in America and further afield.

In Venezuela there is a class struggle that has an increasingly sharp and ferocious character. We still do not know how it will end. But we do know on what side of the barricades we are! With the workers and peasants and against the bourgeois, bankers and landowners! With the revolutionary youth and the vanguard that wants to carry the revolution forward, striking hard blows against the counter-revolutionaries, and against the timid reformists and cowardly and treacherous bureaucrats!

If anyone had any doubt about whether we should support the Bolivarian Revolution, it is only necessary to see the attitude of US imperialism, which does not conceal its plans to overthrow Chávez and is backing the counter-revolution. This detail is sufficient to convince anyone of the necessity to rally to the defence of the Bolivarian Revolution. But in order to defend it seriously, it is absolutely necessary to go further, liquidating the economic power of the oligarchy. It is not sufficient to talk about socialism; it is necessary to make it a reality! And this can only be done when the working class takes power into its hands.

Once the working class takes power into its hands, the Bolivarian Revolution will lose its ambiguous and indecisive character and will acquire an irresistible strength, passing beyond the narrow national frontiers and transforming itself rapidly into a continental revolutionary movement. The conditions are more than ripe for this! Today there is not a single stable bourgeois regime in all Latin America - from Tierra del Fuego to the Rio Grande. The great vision of the Libertador, Simon Bolivar, of the revolutionary unification of Latin America, would be feasible for the first time. But it would only be possible in a Socialist Federation of Latin America, which in turn would be the first step towards world socialism.
London, 6 June, 2007

[Note: to be published shortly in Revista Humania del Sur, Revista de Estudios Latinoamericanos Africanos y Asiáticos de la Facultad de Humanidades y Educación de la Universidad de Los Andes, Mérida - Venezuela, www.saber.ula.ve/humaniadelsur/]

[RedFlag32]

www.isreview.org/issues/54/venezuela.shtml

[dangeresque]

news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071122/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/venezuela_constitution

I don't know about a complex analysis of the situation... but I know it's sweet to enjoy how much this pisses off the rich university kids

[RedFlag32]

From Press TV:

Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez pardons people accused of involving in a
failed 2002 coup that removed him from power temporarily.

Chavez said he would also pardon others accused in suspected attempts to
overthrow the government or assassinate him.

"It's a matter of turning the page," Chavez said in a telephone call to state
television on New Year's Eve. "We would like a country that moves toward peace."

The Venezuelan leader read aloud the law, which grants amnesty to those who
signed a decree recognizing the interim government that briefly took power
during the 2002 coup.

Dissident military officers expelled Chavez, but within two days he was returned
to the presidency following mass protests by his supporters in the streets.

He reiterated that regardless of the law, no one in Venezuela is jailed 'for his
political ideas'.

[RedFlag32]

I think this is one of chavez's problems,he is too soft on the reactionaries.

[dangeresque]

I'd love to see all of the violent, tantrum throwing spoiled brats that hate Chavez machine gunned and buried (certainly they'd make better fertiliser than human beings) but maybe this is a tatical move to shame the worms...

But anyway, I have to agree, he has made a very moderate revolution and he could still suffer the same fate as Allende in doing so.

[RedFlag32]

www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/columns/shoptalk_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003693357

The Many Sides Of Venezuelan Media
The IAPA is not defending press freedom, but rather taking sides in a
partisan struggle in a politically polarized country.

By Mark Weisbrot

NEW YORK (January 07, 2008) -- A January 2nd article in Editor and
Publisher gives the impression that the Inter-American Press Association
(IAPA) is defending freedom of expression in Venezuela. But a careful
review of the facts indicates that the IAPA is not defending press
freedom, but rather taking sides in a partisan struggle, in a politically
polarized country.

In 2004, when I testified at a U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee
hearing on Venezuela, there was a conversation among the witnesses
afterward that summed up the role of the private media in Venezuela. I
noted that the Venezuelan media supports the opposition, and another
witness, a political scientist who was no fan of President Hugo Chavez
corrected me: "The media is the opposition." She was right. The major
political parties were so discredited and weak that political leaders
followed the lead of the media.

This was true during the April 2002 coup – the world's first "media coup"
-- which was backed by the United States [see
www.cepr.net/content/view/649/45/], and also in the devastating
2002-2003 oil strike. During the strike I watched the private TV stations,
which then had an 80 percent share, call on people all day long to get out
in the streets and try to bring down the democratically elected government
for the second time in eight months.

CM8ShowAd("Middle"); Today, the media is more diverse because state TV has
expanded, and some of the biggest opposition newspapers (El Universal and
El Nacional) lost some of their market share because their strident
opposition ran up against the government's popularity and success. But the
private media is still solidly partisan, and still has a bigger share of
the overall media than their opponents in the state-run media. Some have
moved closer to a Fox News modus operandi, following some of the norms of
modern journalism while ignoring others. But they are still a major
opposition force.

A private media as exists today in Venezuela would not be tolerated in the
United States, where we have a Federal Communications Commission and rules
that would prevent it. For example, two weeks before the 2004 U.S.
Presidential election, the Sinclair Broadcast Group of Maryland, which
owns the largest chain of TV stations in the U.S., decided to broadcast a
film that accused candidate John Kerry of betraying U.S. prisoners in
Vietnam. Nineteen Democratic senators sent a letter to the US FCC calling
for an investigation, and some made public statements that Sinclair's
broadcast license could be in jeopardy if it carried through with its
plans. Sinclair backed down and did not broadcast the film.

In Venezuela, the government decided in May 2007 not to renew the
broadcast license of RCTV, the largest TV station. The international media
tried to make this look like an act of censorship, but in fact such a
station would not get a broadcast license in the U.S. or probably any
democratic country. In addition to its activist role in the oil strike
described above, the station also used faked film footage during the April
2002 coup to convince people that the government was murdering people in
the streets. This deception played a major role in the coup, which was
reversed when hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans – not shown on
Venezuelan TV -- took to the streets to defend their democracy.

If the IAPA is concerned about press freedom in the region, they might
want to meet in Colombia, where a journalist recently had to flee the
country after President Alvaro Uribe denounced him and he immediately
received death threats. Colombia has actual death squads that kill
government opponents; Chavez has also criticized journalists, but nobody
has had to flee the country as a result. Of course, Colombia cannot deny a
broadcast license to an opposition TV station, because there aren't any in
that country.

Better yet, the IAPA could set up a non-partisan panel of experts to
compare the state of press freedom and diversity in Venezuela with the
rest of the region. This is what the Carter Center did, in response to
widespread but completely unfounded allegations of electronic fraud in the
August 2004 recall referendum – which the panel investigated and then
dismissed.

An objective study would find that Venezuela's media is among most
oppositional in the hemisphere, without censorship. Of course the
state-run media is also partisan. It is not a perfect system – I would
prefer objective reporting on all sides. But the two opposing sides
provide more diversity and choice for the public than prevails throughout
most of the hemisphere (including the United States), where media
oligopolies dominate and sometimes swing elections for the right -- as in
Mexico and Costa Rica most recently, or Brazil before 2002.

By taking sides in Venezuelan politics, without investigating the facts of
the situation, the IAPA discredits itself as an avowed advocate of press
freedom.