Sep 28, 2010
Last weekend's election for 165 representatives in Venezuela's national assembly
is significant but unlikely to bring about major change, despite the
opposition having done better than expected. On the latest count the
pro-government United Socialist party has 94 seats, with 60 for the
opposition Democratic Unity, five for other parties and the rest
undecided. The opposition claims it won a majority of the popular vote,
but apparently it was very close between the two main parties.
As expected, most of the international press and its sources hailed the results as a "major blow" to Hugo Chavez, paving the way for his possible removal in the presidential election in 2012. But this is exaggerated.
The
vote was widely seen as a referendum on Chavez, and it would be an
anomaly in electoral politics if the government did not lose support
after a recession last year that continued
into the first quarter of this year. Chavez's popularity has always
reflected the economy, reaching a low during the recession of 2002-03 -
regardless of the fact that it was caused by an opposition oil strike.
His approval rating has fallen from 60% in early 2009 to 46% last month.
For
comparison President Obama's approval rating has fallen from 68% last
April to 45% this month, and his party is expected to take big losses in
the congressional elections. This is despite him having clearly
inherited economic problems from his predecessor.
It is not clear
why anyone would expect Venezuela to be exempt from the workings of
electoral politics. The opposition has most of the wealth of the country
- and most of its media. They have no problem getting their message
out. Obama also faces a strong rightwing media, with Fox News now one of
the most popular sources for coverage of the autumn elections, but
there is much less of an opposition media in the US.
Much has been
made of the opposition getting more than a third of the national
assembly, thus being able to block legislation that would "deepen the
revolution". Again, the importance of this is greatly exaggerated.
In
reality it is unlikely to make much difference. The pace at which it
adopts reforms has been limited more by administrative capacity than by
politics. The Financial Times recently added
up the value of industries nationalised by the Chavez government.
Outside oil, it came to less than 8% of GDP over the last five years.
Venezuela still has a long way to go before the state has as much a role
in the economy as it does in, for instance, France.
On the
positive side, the most interesting result of this election is that the
opposition participated, has accepted the results, and now has a bloc of
representatives that can participate in a parliamentary democracy.
This
could be an advance for Venezuelan democracy, which has been undermined
by an anti-democratic opposition for more than a decade. As opposition
leader Teodoro Petkoff has noted,
the opposition pursued a strategy of "military takeover" for the first
four years, which included a military coup and a devastating oil strike
that crippled the economy. In 2004 the opposition tried to remove Chavez
through a referendum; they failed, and then promptly refused to
recognise the result - despite its certification by international
observers such as the Carter Center and the Organisation of American
States.
They then boycotted the last election in 2005, hoping to
portray the government as a "dictatorship" and leaving them without
representation. This newly elected bloc could potentially draw the
opposition into real political participation. If that happens, it would
be a significant advance for a country that has been too polarised for
too long.
Join Us: News for people demanding a better world
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. Join with us today! |
© 2023 The Guardian
Mark Weisbrot
Mark Weisbrot is Co-Director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR), in Washington, DC. He is also president of Just Foreign Policy. His latest book is "Failed: What the "Experts" Got Wrong about the Global Economy" (2015). He is author of co-author, with Dean Baker, of "Social Security: The Phony Crisis" (2001).
Last weekend's election for 165 representatives in Venezuela's national assembly
is significant but unlikely to bring about major change, despite the
opposition having done better than expected. On the latest count the
pro-government United Socialist party has 94 seats, with 60 for the
opposition Democratic Unity, five for other parties and the rest
undecided. The opposition claims it won a majority of the popular vote,
but apparently it was very close between the two main parties.
As expected, most of the international press and its sources hailed the results as a "major blow" to Hugo Chavez, paving the way for his possible removal in the presidential election in 2012. But this is exaggerated.
The
vote was widely seen as a referendum on Chavez, and it would be an
anomaly in electoral politics if the government did not lose support
after a recession last year that continued
into the first quarter of this year. Chavez's popularity has always
reflected the economy, reaching a low during the recession of 2002-03 -
regardless of the fact that it was caused by an opposition oil strike.
His approval rating has fallen from 60% in early 2009 to 46% last month.
For
comparison President Obama's approval rating has fallen from 68% last
April to 45% this month, and his party is expected to take big losses in
the congressional elections. This is despite him having clearly
inherited economic problems from his predecessor.
It is not clear
why anyone would expect Venezuela to be exempt from the workings of
electoral politics. The opposition has most of the wealth of the country
- and most of its media. They have no problem getting their message
out. Obama also faces a strong rightwing media, with Fox News now one of
the most popular sources for coverage of the autumn elections, but
there is much less of an opposition media in the US.
Much has been
made of the opposition getting more than a third of the national
assembly, thus being able to block legislation that would "deepen the
revolution". Again, the importance of this is greatly exaggerated.
In
reality it is unlikely to make much difference. The pace at which it
adopts reforms has been limited more by administrative capacity than by
politics. The Financial Times recently added
up the value of industries nationalised by the Chavez government.
Outside oil, it came to less than 8% of GDP over the last five years.
Venezuela still has a long way to go before the state has as much a role
in the economy as it does in, for instance, France.
On the
positive side, the most interesting result of this election is that the
opposition participated, has accepted the results, and now has a bloc of
representatives that can participate in a parliamentary democracy.
This
could be an advance for Venezuelan democracy, which has been undermined
by an anti-democratic opposition for more than a decade. As opposition
leader Teodoro Petkoff has noted,
the opposition pursued a strategy of "military takeover" for the first
four years, which included a military coup and a devastating oil strike
that crippled the economy. In 2004 the opposition tried to remove Chavez
through a referendum; they failed, and then promptly refused to
recognise the result - despite its certification by international
observers such as the Carter Center and the Organisation of American
States.
They then boycotted the last election in 2005, hoping to
portray the government as a "dictatorship" and leaving them without
representation. This newly elected bloc could potentially draw the
opposition into real political participation. If that happens, it would
be a significant advance for a country that has been too polarised for
too long.
Mark Weisbrot
Mark Weisbrot is Co-Director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR), in Washington, DC. He is also president of Just Foreign Policy. His latest book is "Failed: What the "Experts" Got Wrong about the Global Economy" (2015). He is author of co-author, with Dean Baker, of "Social Security: The Phony Crisis" (2001).
Last weekend's election for 165 representatives in Venezuela's national assembly
is significant but unlikely to bring about major change, despite the
opposition having done better than expected. On the latest count the
pro-government United Socialist party has 94 seats, with 60 for the
opposition Democratic Unity, five for other parties and the rest
undecided. The opposition claims it won a majority of the popular vote,
but apparently it was very close between the two main parties.
As expected, most of the international press and its sources hailed the results as a "major blow" to Hugo Chavez, paving the way for his possible removal in the presidential election in 2012. But this is exaggerated.
The
vote was widely seen as a referendum on Chavez, and it would be an
anomaly in electoral politics if the government did not lose support
after a recession last year that continued
into the first quarter of this year. Chavez's popularity has always
reflected the economy, reaching a low during the recession of 2002-03 -
regardless of the fact that it was caused by an opposition oil strike.
His approval rating has fallen from 60% in early 2009 to 46% last month.
For
comparison President Obama's approval rating has fallen from 68% last
April to 45% this month, and his party is expected to take big losses in
the congressional elections. This is despite him having clearly
inherited economic problems from his predecessor.
It is not clear
why anyone would expect Venezuela to be exempt from the workings of
electoral politics. The opposition has most of the wealth of the country
- and most of its media. They have no problem getting their message
out. Obama also faces a strong rightwing media, with Fox News now one of
the most popular sources for coverage of the autumn elections, but
there is much less of an opposition media in the US.
Much has been
made of the opposition getting more than a third of the national
assembly, thus being able to block legislation that would "deepen the
revolution". Again, the importance of this is greatly exaggerated.
In
reality it is unlikely to make much difference. The pace at which it
adopts reforms has been limited more by administrative capacity than by
politics. The Financial Times recently added
up the value of industries nationalised by the Chavez government.
Outside oil, it came to less than 8% of GDP over the last five years.
Venezuela still has a long way to go before the state has as much a role
in the economy as it does in, for instance, France.
On the
positive side, the most interesting result of this election is that the
opposition participated, has accepted the results, and now has a bloc of
representatives that can participate in a parliamentary democracy.
This
could be an advance for Venezuelan democracy, which has been undermined
by an anti-democratic opposition for more than a decade. As opposition
leader Teodoro Petkoff has noted,
the opposition pursued a strategy of "military takeover" for the first
four years, which included a military coup and a devastating oil strike
that crippled the economy. In 2004 the opposition tried to remove Chavez
through a referendum; they failed, and then promptly refused to
recognise the result - despite its certification by international
observers such as the Carter Center and the Organisation of American
States.
They then boycotted the last election in 2005, hoping to
portray the government as a "dictatorship" and leaving them without
representation. This newly elected bloc could potentially draw the
opposition into real political participation. If that happens, it would
be a significant advance for a country that has been too polarised for
too long.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.