August 21, 2004

You can't fool all the people all the time.



There's people who cannot be fooled by the tricks of oil-rich authocrats like Hugo Chávez. The authors of these two cartoons hail from two very different places. The first was penned by a canadian, the second one by a chilean. They perceived what a substantial percentage of the Venezuelan population has perceived: There is government foul play in this referendum, driven by an addiction to power unhealthy in any tried and true democrat.

Certain forces inside the Chávez camp might have pulled a fast one on the OAS, the Carter Center, the international observers (not all of them though) and the international community, but what's really damaging to him and his entourage is he with the help of his cronies Carrasquero, Battaglini and Rodríguez set up the Venezuelan people to be duped by a less than stellar electoral process which has a lot of loose ends right now.

So here's a word to the wise: this government has done the unthinkable, it has broken the faith of people in the institution of suffrage. People will have a hard time embracing peaceful democratic solutions because they have been deceived and disappointed by the actions of a cabal of fundamentalists and opportunists who see the State as means to an end: power and money.

Hugo Chávez might heve gotten away with it this time, but some venezuelans have learnt the hard way you can't always entrust men like Chávez with power.

P.S.:
To Quico: stop questioning yourself. You're right and you know it.

To the InChBrig: One day we will remember this and laugh about it. You on the other hand will keep telling yourself that Hugo was a patron saint of democracy and the poor when you know it's bullshit.

To JdS: Nice way of being ni-ni: Palo por ese culo? Felicitaciones, te botaste.

"When you have eliminated the impossible...

...whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."
-Sherlock Holmes

1-Impossible: The Carter Center and the OAS conspiring with CNE and the Chavez government to wilfully disregard fraud.
2-Impossible: The Carter Center and the OAS are so clueless they are willing to participate in a cold-audit carried out on a biased sample of ballot boxes, or on ballot boxes that have been tampered with.
3-Impossible: A cold-audit of 150 voting boxes, picked at random and checked in front of CC/OAS, fails to turn up evidence of the theft of millions of votes.
4-Improbable: Wilfully or not, Sumate/PennSchoen&Berland screwed up their exit polls.
5-Improbable: CNE refused the hot-audit because they actually believed that holding up a results announcement for an additional 5 or 6 hours risked destabilizing the country.

Believe me, folks, it brings me no joy to post this...

August 20, 2004

Y entonces?

From today's Financial Times piece on the cold-audit.

As the audit was under way on Thursday night observers appear to have found only 713 examples from more than 12,000 polling centres that showed results with identical numbers of votes including 311 that showed an equal number of No votes.

"The most important thing is that it affects both sides. It would appear to indicate a random effect," said Jennifer McCoy, a Carter Center official. "This audit will determine if there is a significant incidence of this cap effect."

It's an odd-numbered day, guys: today I'm leaning against the fraud hypothesis.

Email to stop me in my tracks



Just got this in my email, more grist for the mill...

A word of caution: I come from the former Yugoslavia, specifically Serbia. Over there, we overthrew our elected dictator in 2000. The overthrow was trigerred by the opposition claims of electoral fraud, that in turn brought hundreds of thousands (some say millions) protesters to the street, prompted the police and army to switch sides and Milosevic fell. The specific fraud claim was that the opposition candidate won more than 50% of votes in the first round of presidential elections and that the authorities somehow falsified that result. However, two years later, several opposition leaders confessed in interviews included into a documentary film (not sure about the name) that they had lied. The opposition candidate had less than 50% of votes in the first round but the opposition was afraid that Milosevic would get together his act by the second round and did not want to risk yet another failure. So they consciously lied, the people believed them, and the rest is history.

Which makes me wonder whetehr something similar is happening in Venezuela. If I were with CD and I was aware of an impending loss, I would do exactly what they are doing now. Given the divisions in the Venezuelan society, they do not need to provide any verifiable or convincing evidence of fraud. "Indications" of fraud are enough for most of CD supporters, right? Thus, the opposition supporters will continue believing that they are a majority and be even more fired up because of the "fraud". To admit that Chavez' victory was fair essentially means admitting that "they" have the majority, and in a society as divided as in Venezuela, would anything be more discouraging than that?

LET´S HAVE FUN...

Guys:

I studied literature, not statistics, so the scientific rant is BORING (at least for me!). My main trouble, for all you guys is:

LAST SUNDAY, ALL VENEZUELANS GOT TO VOTE. THE LINES WERE AMAZING (Justin Delacour, as a witness, admitted that, and, as he didn´t know each and every vote, he surely, for the sake of fairness, would stand by his words!), NO MATTER WHERE YOU WENT, NO MATTER WHO YOU WERE, NO MATTER IF YOU CHOSE 'YES' OR 'NO', THERE WAS A MASS STANDING NO FIRST WORLD COUNTRY HAS SEEN IN AT LEAST 50 YEARS!

NOW, GUYS: MY PERSONAL, INDIVIDUAL, PROBLEM, IS:
Can exit polls be so wrong? Fujimori was considered by dear little Carter and the OAS as a"cheater" after those exit polls. Hummm!!! Daniel Ortega accepted his defeat under exit poll evidences, HUMM! Noriega ALMOST admitted his defeat on those "exit polls"! HUMM.

But then, with an unproofed e-system, guys like Dan Burnett told me (us): "You lost! Admit it and move over!" Some Americans doubt the "legitimacy" of Bush´s presidency for just one reason. HUMMM! The e-voting!

So, All of you (and Dan, this is for you) , and also on the name of "foreign" correspondants that took this as a trip to tropical beaches, why should I accept your perceptions as final opinions after less than a week? How long did you take to accept "fair results" in Bush´s case? If I remember well, it was at least a month...

This election was supposed to bring some "stability" to the region (that was CARTER´S ROLE!).
But, even among "light" Chavistas, that wasn´t the evident result. Yesterday, I took a cab. The driver (I told him I had voted yes), never told me how he had voted. He was dubious... as the rest of Venezuelans.

I repeat, again, what I´ve said all along: Maybe the YES lost. If the numbers had been undoubtedly counted in some number of polling stations, I would have accepted the results. After two bottles of good rum, I would have stood up, and followed Mr. Burnett advise and move on. But not even Chavecos are doing it... The cab driver was depressed and worried...

So, as a question to reasonable independents: should I accept your "we are the First World, we are the children" song and dance along? No, guys. I´m a human being, not a number in your fair statisticts that say: in Venezuela, 80 % is poor, so Chávez should at least have 80 % support!
Even if official numbers are right, he just got 60 %. SO SOMETHING IS WRONG. MAYBE WE ARE ALL WRONG!

Look here: over every neck, there is a head. If not, we´ll all look like chickens on the fridge! Something was wrong in the e-vote in Venezuela. If those "soi disant" liberals don´t address my reasonable doubts, the same they had over Bush´ election, I´ll assert that the only valid democracy was the classical one... the one with slaves Pericles developed! And, of course, I´ll be among the Third World slaves... As always.

Best regards, take care, keep safe, stay cool! And, oh, yeah: use e-voting machines. That´s the safest way, guys. Venezuela just prooved it!

August 19, 2004

For all oppo sympathizers of the blog

Rhyme and reason have left the building and, as Quico is not here to control the disorder, I beg you not to post nor debase yourselves with people that can act in such and ungentlemanly fashion when they are sure they won clearly and cleanly. Pa decírselos en español, se les ve la catadura de esbirros, cómo se comportarían en el improbable caso de ganar en sus propios lugares de origen. So, guys, control your anger and let them ramble by themselves. Without interlocutors, they will soon calm down. I beg you: ignore them, or we will lose a place to meet we all appreciate and cherish, while they don´t.

Realities


1-It would take a miracle of public relations management for the opposition to win the international public opinion battle around the referendum. As far as 99% of foreigners are concerned, what Carter says, goes. The opposition has never demonstrated any particular gift for public relations abroad - quite the opposite - so one thing is clear: Five years of efforts by the opposition to explain to the world just how brutally nasty, deceitful and dangerous Hugo Chavez is were comprehensively undone on Monday. This is a battle we will not win.

2-Working on the assumption that there was a Si-cap fraud (i.e. the machines were programmed to cap the number of Si votes they would register) - the fraud will only be understandable by people with a solid background in university level statistics. Chavez is a genius at this sort of thing - most of the outrages he commits are so complicated, they're impossible to explain succinctly and clearly. Just as there's no 30-second soundbyte explanation possible for the Montesinos Affair, the looting of FIEM, the April 11th massacre, the purge of PDVSA, the burning of the Fuerte Mara soldiers, or any of 5 dozen other outrages, there'll never be an understandable 30-second retelling of the Si-cap fraud. However, statistically speaking, it may well be possible to demonstrate a fraud even without looking at a single ballot paper. A statistician can easily work out the probability that the statistical "fluke" that's turning up in the data is merely a coincidence. If, as seems likely, that probability is vanishingly small, I'll have to think there was fraud, whatever the audits say.

3-CNE claimed that the reason for refusing an Auditoria en Caliente is that it would have taken too long - the automated tallying system would have had to be stopped while paper ballots were counted, generating mistrust and confusion. If the purpose of refusing the Auditoria en Caliente was to bolster the credibility of the eventual results, the least one can say is that it was not a very effective strategy. Throughout, CNE acted as though holding an auditoria en caliente would be a punishingly slow task, or one of herculean complexity. This is not so, as the good burghers of Valle de la Pascua demonstrate. According to this International Herald Tribune piece, "In the town of Valle de la Pascua, where papers were counted at the initiative of those manning the voting center, the Yes vote had been cut by more than 75 percent, and the entire voting material was seized by the national guard shortly after the difference was established."

4-Holding an Auditoria en Frio on a sample of Voting Centers selected unilaterally by CNE 12 hours earlier is about as useful as an ashtray on a motorcycle. It stands to reason that if 40% (or is it 60%?) of the country is convinced you're crooked enough to cheat them out of their votes, they're not going to trust you to choose the sample and procedures meant to demonstrate that you didn't.

5-As Daniel explains in his blog, a random selection of voting tables may not be a particularly sensible response to the specific fraud allegations being made. The Coordinadora Democratica is alleging quite specific irregularities in a specified set of voting centers. CNE - which was so adamant in checking every single signature con lupa - refuses to open up the ballot boxes in the specific places where the CD alleges fraud. Why? El que no la debe no la teme. Once again, CNE acts in a way that is at least consistent with a cover-up - and certain to be interpreted as such by doubters.

6-If Chavez won cleanly, CNE's refusal to conduct a hot-audit has robbed him of the possibility of convincing the entire country that he won cleanly. The country is back to square one in terms of collective schizophrenia. 60% of us live one reality, 40% live another reality. Perversely, each side is convinced that it is the 60% and the other side is the 40%. Each side is convinced the other is engaged in a mind-blowingly complex, dark, evil conspiracy to usurp power. The governability crisis continues. The epistemic gulf drags on. The only thing that's changed is that Chavez will now enjoy much greater international credibility. Fronteras adentro, nothing has changed.

August 18, 2004

Credibility, Responsibility and Conspiracy


Folks,

If the after-the-fact audit shows that the CNE results were genuine, this would demonstrate that there was a massive conspiracy to mislead the nation - possibly pushing it towards a civil war - on the part of those who conducted the exit polls. It is plainly impossible for a well-run exit poll of 20,000+ respondents to get results wrong by 20%. If there really was a conspiracy on that scale, all those who conducted exit polls or believed in them will see our credibility hit an unimaginable abyss. If this is the case, Venezuela's rank-and-file opposition members must demand a thorough overhaul of the opposition's leadership. And this blog will have to run a long, thorough apology and go offline.

Fight Gallinerization Today!


The last post has been erased to clean up the comments section, which had descended into an unacceptable string of ad hominem attacks. Since there are many new people posting over the last few days, I'll restate some basic rules:

1-Don't insult your opponents. Ever. It's just not allowed. I'll ban you if you do it again - you know who you are.

2-Make comments meant to take the debate forward, not to bait your opponents into a screaming match.

3-Remember that you don't own the truth, and people who disagree with you are entitled to disagree with you. This is true even when you feel really, really deeply about what you're writing

Finally, a tip rather than a rule: try not to be boring.

No on-the-spot audit, no closure

From the comments...

I only have time for one post tonight. So I have this to say.

If the second audit reveals that the vote tally was fraudelent the CNE, Chavez, JVR and a whole host of others should be in jail and a new RR held right away.

But I would like to hear from folks on this. If the audit matches the announced results is this the end? Will people accept the results? What I am hearing here makes me think that no matter what happens many here are going to allege fraud. So I think that people here should put their cards on the table and say where this ends for them and what results they will accept.

The CNE didn't have to agree to this audit but they did. I'm glad. Someone here is lying big time and will have zero credibility after this is over. We'll know who that someone is shortly. So please, lets all say where we stand on this.
Dan Burnett | 08.17.04 - 10:56 pm | #

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Dan,

You raise the key question, and I'm afraid you are right: even if the auditoria en frio (after-the-fact audit) says CNE had it right, many in the opposition will not accept it. Why? Because the "cuerpo del delito" - the ballot papers - have been in the hands of stooges of the main suspect - the Chavez-controlled military - since Sunday night.

The fact is that the *only* procedure that could've settled this question definitively and beyond any shadow of a doubt was an on-the-spot audit - the so-called auditoria en caliente. If CNE had agreed to open the ballot boxes on Sunday night, five minutes after the last vote was cast, publicly, in a statistically valid random sample of voting centers, in front of poll workers, witnesses from both sides and international observers, counted the physicial ballots and matched them to the electronic tally, then, then - there would be no room for doubt at all. This, after all, is what the Smartmatic machines were designed for, the whole reason they produce a paper vote.

Think how different Venezuela would be right now if we'd had an on-the spot audit. The country would be moving on by now...the winners would be celebrating, the losers soul-searching, the country entering into a new phase. The country would've found a peaceful, democratic, electoral and constitutional solution to the crisis - which was the whole point of the exercise in the first place.

Now, why was there no on-the-spot audit? The history here is very clear, very straightforward, amply documented. Felipe Mujica and Alberto Quiros Corradi, the opposition's negotiators at CNE, pushed hard for this kind of check in pre-vote negotiations with CNE. Jorge Rodriguez, acting as CNE's main negotiator, simply refused, categorically, to even consider any variation on this kind of check.

To my mind, it was JR's refusal to allow an auditoria en caliente that robbed the country of the possibility of a definitive, authoritative solution to the crisis. Even if there was no fraud, JR killed the only check that could've convinced both sides of our terribly polarized, low-trust country that this was so.

In other words, no on-the-spot audit, no closure.

I've spent the last two days obsessively considering this question, and I just cannot think of any plausible explanation for JR's refusal to allow on-the-spot audits that doesn't involve some kind of hanky panky. I wish I could, but I can't. Maybe you can help me here.

On-the-spot auditing, according to the burned-by-Diebold US left, is the key requirement to make eVoting trustworthy. On-the-spot auditing is what the Smartmatic machines were built to allow. Why the hell did they buy the machines and then refuse to perform the key checks the machines were designed to allow? It doesn't add up.
Quico | 08.18.04 - 7:03 am | #

Addendum: I am not a Johnny-come-lately on the on-the-spot audit front. I wrote about it three times in June, just before and just after the CD/CNE negotiations were concluded:

On June 7, 2004 I wrote: "Thre must be a paper trail, and on the spot verification of the automated totals. The experience with Diebold in the US makes this painfully clear."

On June 9th, right after CNE finally set a referendum date and ruled out an on the spot audit, I evaluated the announcement: "The bad: The date is August 15th, not August 8th. There will be no on-the-spot verification of automated results."

On June 11th, in the comments section: "The auditoria en caliente is the key to everything. The system was *designed* with on-the-spot auditing in mind. There is no possible justification for not having it..."

The importance of on-the-spot auditing was clear all the way back then - but I thought, like Quiros and Mujica, that getting to a vote before Aug. 19th was so much more important than any other consideration, that even a key check like this one could be tossed into the pyre for the sake of expediency.

August 17, 2004

GUYS, calm down...

As is obvious to all the "parroquianos", I'm against Chávez. That means that, ballot counting, we can still lose. But not by the margin Carrasqueso says (THAT WASN'T A MISSPELLING!). All we want is a fair counting, that's all. Not the typical "acta mata voto" (translation: "red tape gets over people", or something near that), but a real recounting of ballots, a statistically valid sampling. I can lose, guys... Here, in this particularly weird blog, all Chávez's opposers knew we could lose. But what I won´t take (what WE won't take) , never, is to be treated like scum. I want demonstrations, not beautiful words. My perceptions (the mood in Caracas is just the one we had after the Vargas' tragedy) are of no avail, neither is the fact that there are no celebrations, just agressions. WE WANT THE TRUTH! WE WANT THE FACTS. And if oil prices go up... well, those of you who live in the first world should instruct your mothers in the old, lost, mysterious art of walking!

The fat lady hasn´t sung yet...

"CABALLERO NO SE ACUESTE USTÉ A DORMÍ
SIN COMESE UN CUCURUCHO DE MANÍ"

(Just to start a new thread, so no one gets fired. Be calm, reasonable, as our doubts!)

"Exit Poll Results Show Major Defeat for Chavez"

This is the Penn, Schoen and Berland exit poll press release.

New York, August 15, 2004, 7:30pm EST - With Venezuela's voting set to end at 8:00pm EST according to election officials, final exit poll results from Penn, Schoen & Berland Associates, an independent New York-based polling firm, show a major victory for the "Yes" movement, defeating Chavez in the Venezuelan presidential recall referendum.

With more than 8 million Venezuelans having cast their ballots so far, the results of a national exit poll show that Chavez has been ousted by referendum.

The Penn, Schoen & Berland Associates exit poll shows 59% in favor of recalling Chavez (the "Si" or "Yes", anti-Chavez vote) and 41% against recalling Chavez (the "No", pro-Chavez vote).

The poll results referred to in this release are based on an exit poll just concluded in Venezuela.

This is a national exit poll conducted in 267 voting centers throughout the country. The centers were selected to be broadly representative of the national electorate in regional and demographic terms.

In these centers, 20,382 voters were interviewed. Voters were selected at random but according to a strict demographic breakdown by age and gender to ensure a representative mix reflective of the national electorate. Those voters who were randomly selected to participate in this exit poll were asked to indicate only their vote ("Si" - for "Yes" - or "No") on a small ballot which they could then personally drop into a large envelope in order to maintain secrecy and anonymity. Data was sent by exit poll workers to a central facility in Caracas, Venezuela for processing and verification.

The margin of error for these final exit poll results referred to in this release is under +/-1%.

One detail, and my last contribution...

Carter said the Carter Center had been present at the tallying. Gaviria said they hadn´t...

The Perfect Fraud

Or, an avalanche of whys

The last three days have been a terrible emotional rollercoaster, and the time may not be right for cool-headed analysis. One of two things happened on Sunday - either the government won massively or it cheated massively. Last night, I was almost sure the government won massively - today, I'm leaning the other way. Why?

Ever since CNE decided on the Smartmatic machines, there's been a number of troubling question hanging over the election: why, if you're paying millions of dollars for thousands of machines whose main benefit is that they produce a paper trail for each vote, did CNE refuse, from the start, to allow an auditoria-en-caliente (on the spot audit) to compare the paper votes at each of the voting centers with the actas (tallies) transmitted back to CNE headquarters? In the days after the reparos process, opposition negotiators Felipe Mujica and Alberto Quiroz Corradi pushed hard for this guarantee to be built into the process, but met a brick wall in Jorge Rodriguez. He wouldn't even agree to an auditoria en caliente of a small sample of voting centers - why?

One obvious hypothesis is that JR understood that an auditoria en caliente was the one control that would lay bare the kind of fraud they were planning - where the machines register votes that are different from those cast.

More deep dark whys: Why did CNE work so hard to limit the scope of activity of the International Observers? Why did they allow Carter and Gaviria to do a quick count of the transmitted (i.e. already tampered with) results only? Why did they insist on inviting Hebe de Bonafini and other open government supporters, but "forget" to send out invitations to the European Union mission?

Why were they so scared of exit polls?

Why did they threaten to shut down TV stations if they aired exit poll results?

Why were some Aporrea posters sure they'd lost on Sunday night? Why did Romero Anselmi go on VTV on Sunday night, looking like a funeral director, to say that, "whatever happens, the democratic game goes on" and that "it's ok, because we have a lifesaver called the Constitution, and that will go on"? Why did Comando Maisanta disappear all Sunday and turn up on TV looking dishevelled and straining to put on a smile? Why was Chavez praising JVR's loyalty on Sunday morning? Why?

Why did a half-dozen independently conducted exit polls all come up with the same results, which were a mirror image of the results eventually announced? Was this a massive opposition conspiracy? Who gave the CD leaders such stunningly effective acting lessons? Why were they so exultant all night on Sunday? If they were acting, why aren't they given an emergency Oscar?

Why was the CNE's Comite de Totalizacion (tallying committee) never assembled, as it should've been according to CNE's own regulations? Who carried out the totalizacion? Why was Ezequiel Zamora barred from the tallying room? Why were opposition witnesses barred from the tallying room?

Where are the paper votes right now? What guarantee do we have that they're not being tampered with ahead of an auditoria en frio?

There are too many loose ends here. I'm getting leaks from an OAS staffer who says he believes there was fraud, but the restrictive observation rules imposed by CNE made it impossible for the observers to detect it.

Remember, so far, not one paper ballot has been matched to a single electronic tally - CNE did not allow OAS/Carter Center to perform such checks. In the end, these idiots agreed to carry out an observation mission under rules that barred them from poking into the site of the fraud.

Extremely serious stuff. If the fraud allegations are true, Venezuela today is a dictatorship, a country run by the minority. You have to admire the gumption, the audacity of CNE's directors in pulling off a stunt of this magnitude. Worst of all, with no auditoria-en-caliente, it may well be that the paper ballot have already been disposed of or tampered with. We may never know what really happened...because, again, CNE insisted on a series of observation rules that leave room for this avalanche of whys.

Of course, this could be all wrong - perhaps there was no fraud, perhaps the Perfect Fraud came on the other side, in the form of a carefully orchestrated opposition conspiracy to cast doubt on perfectly valid results. The one instrument that could have cleared this up definitively - an auditoria en caliente directly after the close of voting performed on a random sample of voting centers - was denied categorically by CNE.

Why?

August 16, 2004

None of it makes any sense...


But it looks very much to me like the government won fair and square. If it didn't, it'll come out in the paper-trail audit, which CNE's Jorge Rodriguez has already agreed to.

If the government did win fair and square, the Coordinadora Democratica has a LOT of explaining to do. In fact, if the government did win fair and square the Coordinadora Democratica leadership has a lot of resigning to do.

Worst Case Scenario

It's the very worst thing that could've happened. CNE head Francisco Carrasquero, by himself, announces a set of partial results that give the government a huge advantage. The opposition CNE members immediately say the announcement was made without following proper procedures. The opposition cries foul, and announces mirror-image results. The Carter Center/OAS mission is missing in action, at least at first.

A national disaster, in short. The referendum was meant to bring closure to the governance crisis in Venezuela. With results that fly in the face of exit-poll results announced on the basis of a fishy procedure, the referendum takes Venezuela further away from closure, not closer.

These are dangerous days for Venezuela, dangerous hours. The potential for violence is high. The opposition cannot, will not accept these results. And chavismo, surely enough, will not accept their reversal.

In other words, God only knows how the referendum will go down in history, but it will not go down as the peaceful, constitutional, electoral and democratic solution to the crisis that was the one chance the country had of avoiding both dictatorship and civil war.

There could, I suppose, still be a 13th hour surprise. But Jimmy Carter and Cesar Gaviria are diplomats, not miracle workers.

Pray for Venezuela, folks...it's going to get ugly.

12:45 a.m.: The Carter Shuttle Swings Into Action

Past midnight, and the mood in the opposition is exhultant. The real question now is how the government will deal with the staggering defeat they're being dealt. Will they grin and bear it, or are there more tricks to come?

UnionRadio reports that President Carter has just left Opposition headquarters at the Tamanaco Hotel headed towards the National Electoral Council. This is crunch time, la hora de la chucurrucuticas. The next few hours are critical.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, when all is said and done, we'll have to choose a major Caracas street to rename Avenida Presidente Carter...

August 15, 2004

Carter: Everyone Will Get To Vote

President Carter announces that CNE says it is willing to keep voting centers open for as long as it takes so everyone gets to vote. Lines remain very long throughout Venezuela, turnout appears to be extraordinarily high.

Presidents Carter and Gaviria once again urged everyone not to announce results before CNE makes an official statement...but, lets get real: this is Venezuela, information leaks, exit polls leak, sewer systems leak, everything leaks...and, dear readers, Hugo Chavez is in big big trouble...

Eyewitness Report #1

I woke up before 5:00 am and got to my voting center by 5:10. Everything went smoothly and even that way, I got to vote by 8:30 am. Guess what was causing the delays?

You got it...the fingerprint machines. The funny thing is that the voting centers that have fingerprint machines (very few,) already gave up on transmiting the data to make comparisons. They only get your fingerprint and that's it. This is the situation nation-wide.

Before getting home I took a little ride around the city and huge lines are the common scene.

Many voting centers haven't been opened yet but people seem to be waiting patiently.
That's it for now.

Cristina in Caracas

Have a short, sharp snippet of observation to add to this blog? Send it to caracaschronicles@fastmail.fm

August 14, 2004

One for luck, please read it carefully

(The following is the Homeric Hymn to Ares, Greek god of war. The ancients had a form of ritual, called "apothropaic", in which you called by good names gods and godesses that were to fear. Ares is one case. It comes from circa 485 A. D., and the translation is Charles Boer´s, considered by many as the best in English. Please read it carefully, specially the final lines. Let the gods and godesses and every possible force bless us!)

Ares, superior force,
Ares, chariot rider,
Ares, wears gold helmet,
Ares has mighty heart,
Ares, shield-bearer,
Ares, guardian of city,
Ares has armor of bronze,
Ares has powerful arms,
Ares never gets tired,
Ares, hard with spear,
Ares, rampart of Olympus,
Ares, father of Victory
who herself delights in war,
Ares, helper of Justice,
Ares overcomes other side,
Ares leader of most just men,
Ares carries staff of manhood,
Ares turns his fiery bright cycle
among the seven-signed tracks
of the aether, where flaming chargers
bear him forever
over the third orbit!
Hear me,
helper of mankind,
dispenser of youth's sweet courage,
beam down from up there
your gentle light
on our lives,
and your martial power,
so that I can shake off
cruel cowardice
from my head,
and diminish that deceptive rush
of my spirit, and restrain
that shrill voice in my heart
that provokes me
to enter the chilling din of battle.
You, happy god,
give me courage,
let me linger
in the safe laws of peace,
and thus escape
from battles with enemies
and the fate of a violent death.

Nothing left to write...

Today, there's nothing left to write. If political speculation was an export commodity, Venezuela would be Kuwait. Every possible spin has been put on every possible snippet of information. Writing is useless today. Waiting is all we can do.

How can you shake off the explosive cocktail of anxiety and trepidation you're feeling today?

1-Get cooking. Lines tomorrow will be long. Very long. People may hold out for a few hours, then poop out as they start to get hungry. Bring some food for yourself. Bring some food for your line-mates. Arroz con pollo is a good option, as is a big pasta salad. Or just make a thermos full of coffee and bring some plastic cups. Make a personal connection with the other "si" voters in line so they feel bad about going home even if the line lasts 10 hours.

2-Get calling. Phone a Ni-Ni Today. Give it one last try. Call anyone you know who is minded to vote "si" but is apathetic and may stay home. Offer them a ride.

3-Get calm. Get ready mentally to be civil to the "no" voters you meet in line tomorrow. Even friendly.

4-Get grateful. Read the international page of the newspaper. Realize how much worse off people in Nayaf are compared even to our worst case scenario. Feel fortunate.

5-Get stoned. Camomille tea. Flores de Bach. Valeriana. Paciflorum. Nerv-o-calm. Lexotanil. Whatever it takes...

August 13, 2004

Supositorio de Triquitraqui

Yesterday's closing "Si" march seems to have breathed some badly needed hope and dynamism into the opposition's campaign. At the last possible moment, the opposition remembered how to march. There is no better tonic for opposition morale than holding a big, big march, and yesterday's rally seems to have done wonders to dispel the gloom that had been visibly falling over the "Si" camp. Supositorio de triquitraqui, que lo llaman...

CD spokesman Chuo Torrealba - far and away the brightest star in the CD's upper realms - has a little riff that goes something like: "Look, the dirty little secret here is that we are not the leaders of the opposition movement, we are merely the conductors. The leadership of the opposition movement is out on the streets, in the energy of the millions of people who simply will not accept the imposition an authoritarian system of government in Venezuela. We, as conductors, can try to channel that energy. But we did not put that energy there, nor do we control it. At most, we try to steer it."

This reality came into focus clearly on the Autopista yesterday.

When chavistas talk about "the opposition", they're referring to the 50 or 60 people who lead the Coordinadora Democratica. And many of them are, no doubt, lamentable figures - batequebraos de toda la vida. It's not surprising that the army full of caciques and shorn of indios called the CD put on an awful, unfocused, discombobulated campaign. There was never much hope of getting pears from that particular elm tree.

But if the "Si" camp is going to win, it was never going to be thanks to the efforts of the Batequebrao Squad. The one hope the "Si" has is that the movement's leaders would once again come to the rescue of its conductors. However misconceived the opposition campaign has been, there are millions of Venezuelans passionately committed to ending the Chavez experiment. They deserve much more competent conducting that they've been getting, but they won't stop playing simply because the conductor is not up to the task.

[Incidentally, the millions of earnest, idealistic Chavez supporters out there certainly also deserve far more competent leadership than they've been getting, but that's a subject for another post...]

Today, I have serious doubts that the Batequebrao Squad is really up to running the country. But looking at the image's of yesterday's march, I can see that the country has changed, decisively, over the last 6 years. If the "Si" wins and the regime changes, the conductors will not be able to break free of the leaders, because the leaders will be only too aware that it is them (i.e. US!) who put them in power. The era of closed-doors elite decisionmaking is over - the leaders have realized that the conductors work for them, not the other way around.

For all of the government's fixation with the opposition's alledged "secret heads" - from George W. Bush to Carlos Andres Perez - it's always been the grassroots who've called the shots. It's the grassroots that signed, marched, and will vote. On Sunday, we'll find out if this grassroots movement actually outnumbers the one on the government's side.

If it doesn't, que nos agarre confesados...

August 11, 2004

Three questions to start a juicy comments thread...

1-Who do you think will win next Sunday and by how much?
2-Why do you think so?
3-What will happen on August 16th? 17th?

Please try to answer briefly - no Cont.'s. Do NOT flame.

This thread will be interesting to look back on after the fact.

Thanks to Dan Burnett for the idea

August 10, 2004

Why should the minority accept the veredict of the majority?

What gives the many the right to impose decisions on the few? How can the few be constrained by the many, and yet remain free? These are deep philosophical questions that have to be answered if democracy is to mean freedom for all rather than freedom for the majority only. As far as I know nobody's answered it better than Rousseau. When we vote, it is the will of the nation, as a single organic unit, that we try to ascertain. That's what Rousseau calls the general will. From this point of view, if the "no" side wins on Sunday, the opposition will have to accept that we were wrong, that what we believed to be the general will is not, in fact, the general will. And we will have to accept the majority's decision as something that is not imposed on us, but rather as something that was, in the end, our will. Needless to say, this applies in the other direction as well.

From Rousseau's Social Contract, Book IV, Chapter 2:

The vote of the majority always binds all the rest. This follows from the social contract itself. But it is asked how a man can be both free and forced to conform to wills that are not his own. How are the opponents at once free and subject to decisions they have not agreed to?

I retort that the question is wrongly put. The citizen gives his consent to all the decisions of the body politic, including those laws which are made in spite of his opposition, and even those which punish him when he dares to break them. The constant will of all the members of the State is the general will; by virtue of it they are citizens and free. When in the popular assembly a law is proposed, what the people is asked is not exactly whether it approves or rejects the proposal, but whether it is in conformity with the general will, which is their will. Each man, in giving his vote, states his opinion on that point; and the general will is found by counting votes.

When, therefore, the opinion that is contrary to my own prevails, this proves neither more nor less than that I was mistaken, and that what I thought to be the general will was not so. If my particular opinion had carried the day I should have achieved the opposite of what was my will; and it is in that case that I should not have been free.

This presupposes, indeed, that all the qualities of the general will still reside in the majority: when they cease to do so, whatever side a man may take, liberty is no longer possible.

The die is cast.

Alea jacta est.
Caius Julius Caesar

La suerte está echada. The die is cast.

However you may wish to interpret it, the fact is there's very little time left to change the course of fate. Only an event of miraculous or catastrophic nature could modify the idea that millions of Venezuelans (of any political sign) have made themselves about this government during almost 6 years. Yes, indeed it's been almost 6 years. On August 15th, 2004, President Chávez will have spent exactly 5.53 years in power. 5.53, you ask.

Yes, 5.53 years. That is the product of dividing the amount of days Hugo has been in power between the amount of days in a year: 2021 days/365 days pr. year = 5.53 years. It is curious that on that day, a president who keeps telling us he will be in power until 2021, arrives at exactly 2021 DAYS in power. Coincidence? Fate?

It will be 5.53 years, which began auspiciously because the lot of us bought into Chávez's intentions and promises of taking the country ahead in peace.

That there's violence in both sides, that both parts have degraded political discourse, that the opposition does not condemn it's own violent radicals, that we don't assume the reponsability of the actions of both Carmona and Ortega, that we are an embodiment of the past; are all ideas frequently presented as arguments by "ni-ni's" and philochavistas to present the idea that the Venezuelan President should be left alone.

Well, I want to express the following:
  • Violence from any source is despicable and must be abhorred

  • Both parts have commited grave mistakes in their handling of the last three years.

  • Again, Violence is depicable. If the opposition is responsible for it, it is even more so, because the way to go should be democratic.

  • I admit that I felt a strong sympathy for the paro and its promoters at its beginning, although I understand they did not force anybody to do anything. IT must be noted though that the Venezuelan approached the Paro as if it did not exist: it was "virtual", "inexistent", "mediático". Now the Paro is to blame for even the simplest things.

  • I was exactly 18 years old at the 4F 1992. I voted for the first time in 1993. And I did so perfectly conscious of the responsability of the act of voting. I took the time, even as party-minded 18 year old to find out about the candidates and their agendas. In 1998 Chaves proposed change, in peace. And lied. I never belonged to any political party, and adecos and copeyanos I feel no sympathy for. But antipathy for adecos, will not drive me to support Hugo and his hate agenda

Having said all that, I decided to post this, because if it serves to convince a single "ni-ni" who believes Chavez should be left to finish his period, or a chavista who has enough doubts about the intentions of their leader, that this government is nothing but a vile lie, smoke and mirrors with everybody's money, I've accomplished my task.
Again: Alea jacta est. But my undecided friend, there's always time to reconsider: Venezuela, not its government, requires your loyalty. The future is also in your hands.


Los "civilistas" protegen a los escuálidos de si mismos Posted by Hello

August 7, 2004

Just a specimen of Venezuelan humour...

(Sure that I ´m going to be censored and earn a "color de hormiga" card, I can´t resist the temptation to post this joke here).


Conjugacion del verbo REVOCAR:

YO revoco

TU revocas

ÉL SE VA

NOSOTROS celebramos

VOSOTROS celebráis

ELLOS huyen




In English:

I revoke

You revoke

HE GOES AWAY

We celebrate

You celebrate

THEY FLEE

August 6, 2004

An attempt to enlight the situation.

The last couple of days have been quite agitated both in Venezuela and CC.
Andres has always tried to make things lighter by posting some Poetry from Venezuelan Laurates.
Some have mentioned the need to let go and release the tension.
So, I'll leave you with a piece of music(at least its lyrics), in order to ease our moods in this last stretch of the road till the 15th.

Sobre mis párpados vela
el gallo de la madrugada,
sobre el péndulo que la vigilia mueve.
Tus rotundas palabras,
tu cortante gesto son el gélido viento que silba
por las rendijas de mi pensamiento.
Y es tan grande la tristeza que hoy siento...
Aléjate espejismo del amor eterno,
sólo eres literaria veleidad.
Ni al peregrino das posada
ni al sediento agua
ni al que ansía saber muestras la verdad.
Detesto el tiempo, la ansiedad lamento.
Descansar sólo quiero, junto al calor del fuego,
Me amarro al momento, y lo único que poseo,
con los hombres azules
irme al azul desierto.
Es lo que hoy deseo,
y a ti te deseo que de cascabeles,
pífanos y timbales se alegre tu camino.
Que nunca te sea adverso el destino.
Que encuentres en tu vida
amigos diáfanos y entretenidos.

Sobre mis párpados velas,
frágil ave de la madrugada.
Eres péndulo que en la vigilia hiere.
Tus cortantes palabras,
tu rotundo gesto
son el gélido viento que silba
por las rendijas de mi pensamiento.
Y es tan honda la nostalgia que hoy siento...

Aléjate espejismo del amor eterno,
sólo eres literaria veleidad.
Ni al peregrino das posada
ni al sediento agua
ni al que ansía saber muestras la verdad.

Somete el tiempo apagará el lamento
bajo un límpido cielo al calor del fuego.
Me acojo el momento y lo único que deseo
es con los hombres azules
irme al azul desierto.
Es lo que hoy deseo.
Y a ti te deseo
que encuentres tu camino.

Es lo que hoy te deseo y lo que hoy te escribo.



Manolo Garcia(Musico Español, Los Hombres Azules,2001)

For all those who expect the best from (AND FOR) Venezuela

SOLO LA TIERRA

Por todos los astros lleva el sueño
pero sólo en la tierra despertamos.

Dormidos flotamos en el éter,
nos arrastran las naves invisibles
hacia mundos remotos,
pero sólo en la tierra abren los párpados.

La tierra amada día tras día,
maravillosa, errante,
que trae el sol al hombro de tan lejos
y lo prodiga en nuestras casas.

Siempre seré fiel a la noche
y al fuego de todas sus estrellas
pero miradas desde aquí,
no podría irme, no sé habitar otro paisaje.
Ni con la muerte dejaría
que mis cenizas salgan de sus campos.
La tierra es el único planeta
que prefiere los hombres a los ángeles.

Más que el silencio de la tumba
temo la hora de resurrección:
demasiado terrible
es despertar mañana en otra parte.

EUGENIO MONTEJO
Terredad

August 5, 2004

on the subject on the "correct behaviour"


Tips for Effective Online Communication
Online etiquette is often referred to as "netiquette".
Remember: You are communicating with real people, not machines.



  • Use the same courtesy as you would extend someone you are having a phone conversation with.

  • Don not entice a flame and don?t participate in flamefests. Flaming occurs when you send a message that provokes an angry, and often nasty, response. When others join in, a full-fledged flamefest ensues.

  • Use the same rules regarding good grammar, punctuation and word choice as you would for any written communication.

  • Don not type your message in all capital letters. the are hard to read. This is known as SHOUTING and may provoke flaming.

  • Use the subject line to give recipients an idea of the message?s contents.

  • Don not use vulgar language or make sexist comments.

August 4, 2004

An anecdote to start a new thread

Yesterday, I was in the mood for hot-dogs, so I went to a street vendor very near my house. There was a girl there, waiting for a "pepito" (that´s a meat sandwich, delicious, for the unfortunate non-Venezuelans that have never tasted it), and, by their dialogue, I figured out two things: 1) she used to work around there, while she lives somewhere else; 2) she and the vendor knew each other and were on friendly terms.
Suddenly, out of nowhere, he started to talk about how he was going to vote for the NO, and about this hot girl that lived near by... "but she is an escuálida, so I´m losing points there" (the speech was a little bit longer, but that was the drift). Neither the girl nor me said a word, but then I turned out to look at her, and she was looking at me. We both smiled, and, without a word, we both knew the other was going to vote YES. No publicity, no outward signs, nothing but a look and a shy, sly, smile. Isn´t it wonderful to live in a country where you can communicate without words with total strangers as if you had known them all your life?

August 3, 2004

A little bit of Humor(the Gallinarization of CC)

sorry guys...

needed to cheer things a little.

July 31, 2004

If Chavez Wins

The comments section has had some not-very-enlightening debate on how the opposition may react in case Chavez wins. With my last post, I wanted to make clear that it's not only an opposition problem, since chavismo contains its own radical fringe that may not accept a defeat. However, the problem is altogether dicier for the opposition, which seems less psychologically prepared for a loss, and less clear on what comes next if we do lose.

So what would we do if Chavez wins, as he may well? What should we do? To answer these questions, it's worth thinking back to September 2002, when the slogan Elecciones Ya! was born. It's taken 23 months of agitation, four signature gathering drives, the paro, the reparos, Plaza Altamira, zopotocientos foros in the Ateneo de Caracas and an astonishing organizational drive by the Coordinadora Democratica and Sumate to turn that slogan into a reality. For years, literally, we've been working towards August 15th. After all that, a defeat would be a bitter, bitter pill indeed.

But why was it, at the end of 2002, that the opposition started to congeal around the idea of the "electoral solution" to the crisis? Because it was clear to us that when people voted for Chavez in 1998, 99 and 2000 they were not told they were voting for a personalist, autocratic system, that they thought they were voting for a democratic government and would not have voted for Chavez had they known that, after 2000, he would veer as sharply to the autocratic left as he did. We were sure that, given a chance, the voters would remedy that mistake.

We also knew, after April 11th, that any attempt to expel Chavez from power that was not peaceful and democratic would further worsen the nation's division. That it would bring a government that a huge chunk of the country would consider illegitimate and would, therefore, only lead to further instability. We understood that the goal was not merely to get rid of Chavez, but to get rid of Chavez well. Or, as I was writing way back in October 2002,

It's critical that Chávez is replaced through an election. Aside from all the valid idealistic reasons for demanding democratic decision-making, the fact is that he does retain the support of a third of the population. Much more relevantly, he maintains the fervent support of about 20% of the electorate, the so-called chavistas duros (hard-core chavistas) who see him more as a mystical figure than a politician. If Chávez is pushed out of office unconstitutionally, by force, these people will never accept the outcome. At best, they'd be a constant thorn on the side of the next government, at worst they could start a civil war. It worries me that the most radicalized opposition figures out there don't seem to realize how much of a problem this is, and continue to push for extra-constitutional means of getting rid of the guy. Making sure that 20% feels included - or at least doesn't feel openly violated - by the transition to the post-chavista era will probably be the most important task of the next government. Let's hope they don't screw it up.

Only an election offers the possibility of a peaceful, democratic, and constitutional outcome to the crisis that is recognized as legitimate by all, because only in an election can the entire body politic participate. In a situation as badly polarized as Venezuela's, only the opinion of the whole can convince the minority of the legitimacy of accepting the majority's decision.

Today, Venezuelans can no longer say Chavez is an unknown quantity. The regime's extremism, sectarianism and authoritarianism are plain for all to see. Two years ago, the opposition gambled that, given this choice, people would rush to throw out the bum. Today, polls put that in doubt. It seems imaginable, now, that a majority of Venezuelans actually wants this kind of fuzzy-autocracy, or is satisfied enough with Chavez not to see it as a problem. If they win, well, I'll be forced to say I don't understand their ideology or values at all. But I have to respect them.

And, of course, if the vote goes smoothly and the observers sign off on a Chavez win, the opposition will not really have any choice but to respect the results either. All its bargaining power, credibility, and ascendancy over the armed forces, the international community, etc. will be up in smoke. A real Waterloo. If the opposition loses and loses decisively, its reaction will, in a sense, be quite beside the point - the Coordinadora will have no choice but to accept the results...if not in words, in deeds.

This is the beauty of the democratic system, folks. Los politicos proponen y la gente dispone. This is how it's supposed to be - and barring a catastrophic technical failure, this is how it will be.

July 30, 2004

Ramon Machuca threatens to cut off oil supplies to the US if the "yes" side wins

From Union Radio

Leaders from the pro-chavez oil workers' union, Sentraset, threatened to cut off oil supplies to the US and start a national stoppage if "on next aug. 15th a new fraud is committed" and the "yes" side wins the referendum.

More...

El 28, el 28, el 28...

The real threat to the integrity of the referendum is not the possibility of fraud. It's not ballot stuffing or triple voting or voting from beyond the grave. The real threat is that, like in May 2000, CNE just won't be ready to hold the vote in time.

2.5 weeks to go, and the voter registry has just now been finalized, including huge numbers of questionable address-changes and millions of somewhat mysterious new voters. The SBC people have still not been given the REP information they need to program the voting machines. The thumbprint readers may or may not be able to cope with the pressure put on them. Francisco Carrasquero rejects the possibility of manual voting if the automated systems fail.

Paranoia, as we all know, is free. But this type of strategy of systematic delay has become a bit of a trademark for this CNE. Ever since August 2003, every obstacle imaginable has been trotted out to delay the effective activation of people's rights under the constitution's Article 72. This is the CNE that turned a simple signature drive into a 8-month long telenovela, the same CNE that sat on the electoral registry for a year before suddenly "discovering" thousands of dead people on the rolls and stood by passively as dozens of reparos tables instituted an operacion morrocoy, that has never really tried to hide its disdain for the possibility of a presidential recall.

It escapes no one's attention that, if the election system fails catastrophically on Aug. 15th, Chavez will have to hold out less than a week before his grip on power is extended until 2006. It would be the mother of all political crises. But then, as you see Jorge Rodriguez's determination to deploy a fingerprint-logging system that CNE's own tests show will not work, it's impossible not to wonder about hidden agendas.

July 27, 2004

About English, Spanish, Rhetorics and Rhythm

(For Quico and Coral, in the middle of my insomnia).

Coral wrote:

"I agree with Quico. In the USA, the finest, most enduring, historical manifestos and speeches have been written in notably simple English. Lincoln's Gettysburg Address was written in language a baby could understand".

An example: "Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal". Would a baby uderstand an expression as "Four score and seven years ago"? Wouldn´t "87 years ago" be more to the point? It´s as if we started, in a good Spanish speech about the 23 de enero de 1958, by saying: "ocho lustros y seis años atrás"... Not very clear, but it sounds so much better than "hace 46 años"...

Another example: "When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation". That is a little bit complicated, to say the least. 

To translate both statements you would need to go back in time, looking for Rhetorical expressions inside the language you are trying to translate them into. No easy task. 

The problem, a basic problem, I think, is of rhythm. As Fiona Shaw pointed out in a brilliant show about Shakespeare for the BBC, Shakespeare took the common language, identified its rhythm, and turned it into poetry. That is what explains why, even if the Gettysburg Address is not exactly simple, it can reach out to everyone who read it in the Lincoln Memorial, without even reading it aloud... and please believe me, I had to go up to the Lincoln Memorial alone, to read it and weep by myself before facing my prosaic family (and that version of the Imperial Roman Campo di Marte which the Mall is, with all its monuments to dead soldiers...). 

Now read this. "But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground". Feel the rhythm! It´s there! It jumps at you as you read it, grabs you by the throat, and doesn´t let you go until you are choking!

On the other hand, Spanish has always been a "prosaic" language. It´s not easy, to put it bluntly, to achieve what Shakespeare did in "blank verse" without going into rhyme! To reach a shimmer of the rhythm of English, Spanish has to turn to long resounding phrases. The effect is not always fortunate, I´ll give you that. But you work with the language you ara forced to. No way Venezuelans could write an agreement in perfect, rhytmical English, and be understood by common readers. Given that most Venezuelans seldom read good literature is Spanish (for some cultural reasons we favour foreign literatures, and in translation, mind you, over good Spanish prose), it is unfair to ask from them a perfect, moving speech, inspiring, rhythmically conceived and, at the same time, simple and pristine.

But again, that is our language. We inherited from Spain, as Americans from Shakespeare, a specific rhetorical (Quixotical?) rhythm. As a baby can "comprehend", without understanding clearly, Lincoln´s  "eight score and seven year ago", a not so bright Venezuelan reader can understand, in a glass darkly, what the CD agreement meant. Spanish is less clear than English, maybe, it requires more words to say the same thing, but it has its own traditions, heights and chasms. To all those shortcomings every Spanish speaker is used. It´s his language, and those shortcomings fit him like a big, mildly uncomfortable coat (just as Shakesperian English fits most American readers).

So, please, dear gals and guys, start by understanding that a language is a way to conceive the world (Borges wrote some line I would find for you as soon as possible, it´s over 5:00 a.m. and I´m simply spent), not just a vehicle to transmit ideas or an arbitrary repertoire of symbols. As a speaker of that language, you are forced into its limits, unless you have the power of a poet like Shakespeare to break or extend them. Granted no one on the CD is a Shakespeare, a Cervantes or even a Cadenas, try to value what they have done. Do as you do with Lincoln and Jefferson: go to meet them half-way. Do your part.         

 

July 26, 2004

The Style is the Message

or, Despair over an opposition that doesn't seem to have learned anything at all...

From the National Accord for Social Justice and Democratic Peace:

La reconciliación es más que un acto político: es la expresión concreta de la unidad nacional en torno a un proyecto de nación. Por ello el centro de la acción del gobierno de unidad nacional que proponemos estará en la atención privilegiada de los sectores cuya integración a la sociedad ha sido obstaculizada por un inaceptable proceso de exclusión. Especial impulso se le dará a la aplicación de una política social que le permita a la gente desarrollar sus capacidades para incorporarse al trabajo productivo. Generación de empleo y seguridad social y ciudadana son indispensables para la paz. Para ello es imperativo la recuperación y expansión del sector productivo del país, tanto público como privado.

"Reconciliation is more than a political act: it is the concrete expression of national unity around a national project. Therefore the center of the action of the government of national unity that we propose shall be in the privileged attention to the sectors whose integration into society has been obstructed by an unacceptable process of exclusion. Special emphasis shall be given to the application of social policies that allow people to develop their capabilities to incorporate themselves into a productive working life. Generating employment and social and citizen security is indispensible to peace. To this end, the recouperation and expansion of the country's productive sector, both public and private, is imperative."

I have two things to say about this paragraph and the Accord in general.

1-I agree deeply with the content.
2-It doesn't matter that the content is right, because these days in Venezuela, the style is the message.

Go back to the original Spanish. Read it for style rather than substance. Notice the profussion of palabras domingueras, the convoluted sentence structure. Try to imagine you live in a barrio and dropped out of school in the fifth grade. Could you understand it? Is this document accessible to you?

The sad thing about the opposition's elitism is how unconscious opposition leaders are of it. Again and again they've tried to write synthetic accords to communicate with the poor, again and again they produce a document that's about the poor but, probably, incomprehensible to most poor people.

I hate to say it, but reading the document I was grasped by this bizarre urge to vote No, by this deep sense of anger at realizing how far out of the pot opposition leaders are pissing, how detached from the popular mind they are, how much they unwittingly confirm the chavista attacks against them. Six years on, the opposition still hasn't grasped even the basics of why Chavez has had such success in communicating with the poor majority. Six years on, the opposition still finds it vaguely embarrassing to put out a document written in Spanish that everyone can understand. Six years on, opposition leaders still haven't realized that you can't convince someone who doesn't understand the language you use, still hasn't realized that the majority of voters did not go to university. Six years on, the opposition still hasn't found a voice most people can understand.

I read this accord and, frankly, it makes me scared. It makes me scared not just because it suggests the opposition could lose - but also because of what might happen if it wins.

The opposition vows to fight social exclusion, but it does so using a language that excludes the socially excluded.

This is the drama at the center of the opposition's Communication Gap - six years on, we still haven't realized that excluded Venezuelans resent their symbolic (/linguistic) exclusion as much as their economic exclusion. They resent having to listen to politicos who use words they can't understand as much as they resent not having enough to eat. And they will continue to vote for Chavez in their millions not because he has mitigated their economic exclusion (which he hasn't), but because he has ended their symbolic exclusion - their exclusion from being able to understand the language of power (/of the powerful).

Because Chavez talks to them, not about them. Because he works hard to speak in a way everyone can understand, in a way that makes everyone feel part of the audience, that makes everyone feel aludido.

Six years on, the leaders on our side still haven't learned the trick. Still they conceive of politics as a kind of game played by the elite and for the elite - or at least a game played using a language and a style accessible only to the elite. A document like this excludes the poor at the most basic level - at the level of making it impossible for them to even understand what the hell the opposition is even talking about, the meaning of the words and sentences we use.

And then, then we're baffled when chavistas say we want to go back to the old way of doing things.

It pains me to write it, folks, but on a symbolic level, they're on to something big.

July 24, 2004

Hoover Digest: Hugo's Last Stand?

The Hoover Digest's Primer on the Venezuelan Crisis for chronically clueless gringos:

by Michael Walker

CARACAS-A national recall referendum scheduled for August 15 will decide the fate of Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez - and that of his country. Assuming the referendum actually takes place - and with Venezuelan politics, one should never assume anything - the opposition will finally have its chance to unseat the mercurial leftist leader.

Showdown

It appeared for a time that the referendum would not take place. The opposition needed 2.4 million signatures to trigger the recall. More than 3 million signatures were gathered and submitted in December; however, amid much controversy, Venezuela's national electoral council disqualified nearly a million of the signatures on technical grounds. During the months of contentious legal battles that ensued, the opposition took to the streets in large marches that occasionally turned violent. In February, at least 14 people were killed in confrontations with the national guard.

Lots more...

[Who are these guys? The Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace, Stanford University, is a public policy research center devoted to advanced study of politics, economics, and political economy - both domestic and foreign?as well as international affairs. With its world-renowned group of scholars and ongoing programs of policy-oriented research, the Hoover Institution puts its accumulated knowledge to work as a prominent contributor to the world marketplace of ideas defining a free society.]

July 22, 2004

Demonization

It should be too obvious to state, but it bears raining on this particular bit of wetness. The government's referendum campaign is centered on demonizing all who disagree with Chavez. I don't mean that figuratively, I mean it literally.

Just to clarify for foreign readers, the Chavez government has chosen Florentino y el Diablo as its campaign theme. Florentino y el Diablo is a poem by Alberto Arvelo Torrealba about a poetry slam between a golden-tongued plainsman (Florentino) and Beelzebub - it's kind of like The Devil Went Down to Georgia only with poetry rather than fiddles as the artistic weapon of choice.

Chavez, needless to say, is Florentino here, while the opposition is, well, the Lord of the Hades. This is not implied or hinted at. It's not an occasional play on words. It's quite explicit. In fact, it's the center of the 'No' camp's rhetoric and campaign propaganda.

The broader political message here is spookily authoritarian. Accept our leader or you're Satan, is basically what they're saying. Only our point of view is acceptable. Disagreement is diabolical. Dissent fiendish. Is this how you build an open society?

The question, for me, is how millions of human beings can be led to support such a fantastic, cheerful surrender of common sense. I know, it shouldn't, but it still baffles me. How can millions continue to believe in a leader that embraces such extremes of scare-mongering and sectarianism? And how can anyone abroad fail to see the catastrophic social rifts that follow when you treat politics likea morality play with yourself as the embodiment of pure good and all who disagree with you in the role of pure evil?

Radical comeflor at heart, I just don't see how anyone can fail to see the intellectual and ethical bankruptcy of such a mannichean vision.

July 21, 2004

Lying as State Policy: Lies that make us go SI!

I know Quico's list of lies is more methodical, and better documented, but I just thought I'd keep it short and sweet. So here it goes:

  • Hugo Chávez: If there are any abandoned children left on the streets, I'll change my name.(Just call him Claus, Santa Claus).


  • Hugo Chávez: I'll turn Miraflores into Latin America's biggest university. (They call it Corruption U., the Alma Mater of graft and blackmail)


  • Hugo Chávez: Venezuela will become in less than two years a world power in the production of african oil palms.(JA!)


  • Hugo Chávez: Under my government there will be no currency devaluations.(From 700 to 3000 is not a devaluation, it's a sin)


  • Hugo Chávez: In my first year in office there will be no more homeless children left. (Again, his name should be Ali Baba)


  • Pedro Carreño: Montesinos was murdered in a Peruvian military base and I have proof. (Yeah, he also knows where Jimmy Hoffa is buried)


  • Hugo Chávez: I've already authorized the conversion of La Carlota into a fantastic theme park, with artificial waves. (Sweet water surfing anyone?)


  • Nicolas Maduro: This video proves that a CIA plane was in Venezuela. (The plane belonged in fact to a diaper company, Nick puso la cagada!).


  • Hugo Chávez: In my government no soldier will raise his weapons against the people. (Bolivar musbe rolling in his grave)


  • Hugo Chávez: My government does not need political policemen and the DISIP will disappear as a repressive body. (Jesus H. Christ!)


  • Hugo Chávez: I will plant with fruit trees and vegetables every green area of the cities: squares, parks, medians, anywhere. (Peaches, apricots, raspberries and all sorts of local varieties too)


  • Hugo Chávez: the river Guaire will be cleaned in my government and caraqueños will be able to sail it (?! Was he on drugs? Schooner Brownwater up ahead, sir!).


  • Lucas Rincón: A formal resignation was requested, which he accepted. (Se le solicitó la renuncia, la cual acectó).


  • José Vicente Rangel: Neither Ballestas, nor Montesinos are in Venezuela, it's all a media lie. (They were planted by the oligarchic fascist media)


  • Hugo Chávez: I will place a vertical henhouse in every home. (He will also give every child his own donkey for transportation and cows for milk, we will not be the mos modern country in the world, BUT we will be the one who loves animals the most - at least everybody will have to learn tonadas to milk cows in the morning)


  • Hugo Chávez: I do not need luxury planes. (He's got not only the Airbus, but the Camastrón and a small fleet of Falcons and choppers. His plane was used in the Promotional video that sheiks see when they want to buy one like that from the dealership)


  • Hugo Chávez: The young men in Fuerte Mara only have light burns, that scandal is a media lie. (No respect for those guys. Some of them are still, let's say, missing)


  • Hugo Chávez: A space ship launching base will be built in Venezuela. (Again I ask, is he on crack?)


  • Hugo Chávez: Joao de Gouveia is an innocent gentleman, incriminated by the media. (This is downright crazy!)


  • Hugo Chávez: There is no doubt the opposition did not gather enough signatures. (Goebbels preached it, Chavez is the master: repeat, rinse, repeat)


  • Hugo Chávez: In my government there will be no more kidnappings in the border. (He meant the border with Aruba, Curaçao and Bonaire)


  • Hugo Chávez: In my first year of government i will get rid of unemployment, that's why I created the Bolivar Plan.(Two words: Cruz Weffer)


  • Hugo Chávez: After my first trip to Europe I can assure you there are lines of foreign investors.(This is a factual statement: they are making lines to WITHDRAW their money from Venezuela)


  • Hugo Chávez: I have no doubt Alvarenga will be revoked by a crushing majority. (JA!)


  • Hugo Chávez: I will create a network of dining halls for the homeless. (See the news on the homeless killers to see how much this government cars for those in need)


  • Hugo Chávez: In my government the harassment and persecution of the media will be over. (This one sets the standard of what a lie is. If you look liar in the dictionary, you'll find a picture of Chávez illustrating it and a quote of this one in bold red lettering)


  • Hugo Chávez: I will jail any corrupt individual. In my government there will be no impunity. (El chino de Recadi se revuelve en su tumba)


  • Hugo Chávez: The Bolivarian Circles are pacific organizations and no one will be able to prove otherwise. (This one is kinda of true, for a few notable exceptions. Carapaicas, Tupamaros on the other hand...)


  • Pedro Carreño: DIRECTV spies its users through their decodifiers, it is a CIA device, I've got proof. (Crystal Meth, Pot, ecstasy???)


  • Hugo Chávez: CADIVI will enter history as the best run monetary control institution. (Ask Adina)


  • Hugo Chávez: In the new PDVSA corruption will be a thing of the past. (I think he meant a thing of the PPT)


  • Hugo Chávez: The "Land Law" will make us self-sufficient in less than a year. (I ran out of witty commentary)
  • Good enough to post here

    from the Comments...

    I think in the dynamics of these discussions, there is a factor that needs to be considered. When people that support Chavez intervene, they somehow assume that we are supporters of a particular group of the opposition. My guess is that most of the readers of this blog, have been in the opposition for over twenty years and that even if they supported, however briefly, any of the Governments of the IVth., if this blog had existed then, most of us would have been highly critical of any of those previous Governments.

    In my case, I was never happy with the Governments of the IVth. Republic. I thought two of them briefly tried to solve the main problems of the country, but then politics got in the way. But to me Chavez could not be the solution either, although I hoped I was wrong. How can a former military, surrounded by the mediocre people of all sectors perform well? What I never imagined was that he would actually emphasize the vices of the IVth. to such a degree.
    Miguel Octavio

    ---

    The main difference with the past, is that a new player has emerged: civil society. In the past politics was only for politicians. The government that will succeed Chavez will have to deal with a more politically active country. People are involved, and they want to have a say.

    For example: I am sure there are many politicians in la CD right now that would rather name a candidate the traditional way: by cogollo. They are going to go through primary elections, a regañadientes, because this is what civil society wants.
    Gustavo

    July 20, 2004

    "The Opposition will apply Diabolical Plan to Interrupt the Referendum"

    From Venpres, La Agencia de Noticia de Todos los Venezolanos

    Caracas, 19 Jul. Venpres (Xavier de la Rosa).- MVR Assemblymember Willian Lara assured on Monday that the opposition has a diabolical plan to interrupt the recall referendum on August 15th to sabotage the process.

    He said that parts of the opposition, conscious that they don't have the popular support to mobilize more than 2.6 million voters, will boicott the referendum in the afternoon.

    "We have information that they are training voters and witnesses to walk up to the machines, after 10:00 a.m., and spill water, coffee or soft drinks on them, or bump into them so they'll fall to the ground and break," he warned...

    More (if you can stomach it)...

    Folks, the hardcore paranoia phase of chavismo is now in full-swing. These guys see trotskyite plots everywhere, and the standard of common sense has long ago ceased to be applied to the accusations they make. Sick, man, they're sick.

    July 19, 2004

    Frittata Chronicles

    Perugia is a cosmopolitan place. Thanks to the charmingly named University for Foreigners - where I first learned Italian in 2001 - the medieval city center is crawling with students from every part of the globe. Small and innately sociable, the city lends itself to amazing interchanges.

    A few nights ago, I got invited to dinner at a friend's house. The dinner party was made up of eight people including three Italians, a Moroccan carpet salesman, an Ethiopian-Italian college student, a Cuban exile, a Lebanese poet and myself.

    Our host was Farouk, the Moroccan guy, who is 36 but has lived in Italy for 16 years. He's pretty much Italianized by now; it shows in the way he cooks. I sat between him and Alicia, the Cuban exile, who is 30, and managed to leave the island just two years ago, after eight years of trying.

    After the fetuccini with cherry tomatoes, ricotta and basil, Farouk brings out the piece de resistance: a frittata (a dry omelette) covered in truffle paste. Truffles are the quintessential Umbrian specialty - the black variety grows in the hills beyond Perugia more plentifully than in any other part of Italy. Everyone around the tables looked at the bits of mushroom in wonderment - but Alicia, well, she just saw the eggs. "A tortilla! Great!"

    Farouk looked at her slightly quizzically. The eggs, of course, are just there to carry the flavor of the mushroom as unobtrusively as possible. She caught his glance and blushed, sensing the faux pas. A few glasses of wine later, she explained.

    "I'm sorry if I dissed your truffles, Farouk, they really were delicious. But see, well...here in Italy a frittata is just something you take for granted. What could be simpler? It's just eggs! But for me, well, you know, I've only been in Europe for a little over a year...and eggs, man, part of me still sees them as a luxury."

    Now it's Farouk's turn to look puzzled.

    "See, in Cuba everyone has this, how do you say it? It's like a rationing booklet. You get the food that the government gives you to eat, no more. If you want more, you have to have connections or dollars. And, well, you know how many eggs there are in the ration? Guess."

    "No idea."

    "Four."

    "Per family per day?" Farouk asks.

    "What are you talking about? Four per person, per month."

    Farouk looks shocked. "Four eggs a month?"

    Alicia smiles, and flashes four fingers up in the air.

    "If you want a fifth?"

    "Erm, well, unless you're friends with a party big wig, you basically have to sleep with a tourist to get the dollars to buy it."

    "You're joking?"

    "That's how it is, man. In fact, a good chunk of the reason I wanted to get out so badly is that I love omelettes and I refused to sleep with random French truck drivers just to eat them more than once every two weeks."

    "And meat?"

    "Meat? Man, Farouk, you can make a Cuban cry talking about this. Listen, when I came here it had been three years since I'd seen a chicken in a plate in front of me. Chicken is no longer in the ration books, at all. Hospital patients get some, a chicken thigh once every two weeks. They marvel at it before eating it. If you're healthy, no chicken."

    "No meat at all?"

    "We do have picadillo, which is this kind of, God, how to describe it? It's about 60% ground up meat, but you know, really the worst parts of the cow, all the crap, the innards and such. The other 40% is industrial soy protein. Comes in little tin cans, tastes like barf. That's the only meat Cubans can eat, unless they get sick or spread their legs."

    Long silence.

    Farouk turns to Alicia, looking sheepish. "Are you sure you wouldn't like some more frittata?"

    ------------

    Since Alicia's been abroad for over a year, her passport has expired and, because she overstayed her exit visa, she's considered a deserter and cannot renew it. In effect, she is stateless.

    It took her 8 years of applying for various study-abroad programs to finally get a chance to leave. When she finally managed to get out in 2002, she left her whole family behind. Her father is a low level communist party official, a fidelista. Alicia can't apply for Political Asylum in Italy because if she did he would be fired and blacklisted, and her entire family would sink even deeper into poverty. At least, through her dad's job, they can get a few extras that they couldn't get otherwise - shoes and such.

    "The incredible thing is that my dad still believes in Fidel, he really does. He hasn't seen a chicken breast since the 1980s but he still thinks the revolution is the way forward."

    "Capitalism spreads wealth unevenly," I tell her, "whereas communism spreads misery evenly. Winston Churchill."

    She laughs. "That's pretty much it. You know, it's funny, whenever I meet people here and they hear where I'm from, the first thing they say, almost all of them is - oh, 'Cuba e bella!' And I don't know what's running through their heads as they say it, if it's Buena Vista Social Club or some idea about Che Guevara, or if they're just trying to be polite, or what. But when I hear that, I just want to shake my head and ask - 'so, do you like frittata?' "

    -----------

    Talking to Alicia about Venezuela is an education of its own. She can't quite wrap her head around the politics in Caracas, in ways I find telling. She doesn't know whether to be horrified or amused when I tell her the number one criticism of Chavez in the opposition is that he's trying to "cubanize" Venezuela - even though 90% of the media spend 90% of their newscasts criticizing the government.

    "So, wait, journalists write whatever they want against the government whenever they want, and nothing happens to them?"

    "Well, not nothing. There's a bit of harassment. Sometimes hothead government supporters beat us up on the streets, steal cameras and such. TV journalists, especially, really have to be careful. Oh and threats, a lot of threats."

    "But that's not what I mean. I mean do they go to jail? How about execution? Re-education?"

    "No, no, none of that. There are a couple of journalists facing jail terms, but they're really the most extremist of antichavistas, and in fairness, I wouldn't doubt the libel charges against them. But yeah, there are dozens of papers and five TV stations, mostly with anti-government coverage morning noon and night."

    She's visibly confused.

    "But, but, but this is light years from Cuba!"

    "I know!"

    Silence.

    "It's not a dictatorship at all!"

    "Well, that's the strange thing about Venezuela, Alicia: it's obviously not a dictatorship in any traditional sense of the word. But it's also not a democracy in any traditional sense of the word. It's...well, it's weird. It's in a strange liminal space between the two."

    "How so?"

    "Well, if you actually listen to the official rhetoric coming out of Miraflores, well, that's rhetoric you would recognize. According to the official story, there is no problem in Venezuela that is not the US's fault. The opposition is, as far as Chavez is concerned, merely a mouthpiece for the US. There's no such thing as legitimate dissent, because all dissenters become, ipso facto, suspect of collusion with the Americans. Notionally, at least, Chavez recognizes no such thing as legitimate dissent. Calls us escualidos, y'know."

    "Yeah, well, we're gusanos."

    "Right. Same thing. Exact same rhetoric. This is not coincidental, you know Alicia, every time Chavez needs any kind of advice he calls Fidel. There are multiple reports going around that Chavez only turned himself over on the night of the 2002 coup after a chat with Tio Fidel. We subsidize oil shipments to the island, Chavez praises Fidel to high heaven every chance he gets, never misses a chance for a nice photo-op with him, obviously sees him as a role model. This scares the hell out of people in Caracas - and scaring the hell out of us seems to be the point."

    "Creepy. It's hard to quite figure how the two sides fit together. Perro que ladra no muerde, I guess."

    "Por ahora no muerde, is the thing. I mean, it's very obvious, you only need to click through the channels on Venezuelan TV for five minutes in the morning to realize the country is, in some ways, riotously, impossibly free, even libertine. I mean, the TV especially really does go way too far in criticizing the guy. But the words that come out of Chavez whenever he speaks are so sectarian, so extreme, so meant to divide and scare and intimidate, that we have to wonder how long before we start parading off to jail. Already my mayor and about 18 other politicians are sitting behind bars on very silly trumped up charges. Will it stop there? Will it grow? We have no way to know."

    "You have a long ways to fall before you get to where Cuba is, though," she says.

    "No doubt about it. I'm pretty sure most Venezuelans eat more than four eggs a month. But then you barely have any violent crime, we can't go out without fearing for our lives."

    "Incredible! Fidel would never put up with that kind of stuff."

    "See, we don't even get the benefits of authoritarianism with Chavez. A revolutionary government with the world's second highest murder rate! It's unbelievable!"

    "Por dios...but I have to say, from what you're telling me, doesn't sound like there's very much cubanization going on at all in Venezuela."

    "It's hard to put your finger on it. In some ways you're obviously right. But the thing is that when you have a leader that doesn't recognize that it is normal and proper for others to disagree with him, who seeks social conflict as an end in itself, who believes the problems of the country are intimately bound up with the fact that the elite participates in politics and sees the elite's expulsion from the political process as the solution, when you live under a leadership that doesn't allow dissenters to participate in intramural softball tournaments at their ministries, when sectarianism is state policy...well, yes Alicia, obviously we're way far away from where Cuba is now. But what direction are we moving in? Where does the logic of their ideas point to?"

    Silence.

    July 18, 2004

    Bread and butter issues will decide the referendum

    or, Why I still think Chavez will lose

    Nobody who spends any time in Venezuela could confuse it with a well-functioning country. Venezuela is increasingly poor, increasingly anarchic, and increasingly violent. According to almost all polls, economic and physical insecurity have long been the central concerns of Venezuelan voters. On both these central issues, the Chavez government has failed calamitously.

    Take violent crime. Since 1998, it has reached stratospheric heights. Venezuela and Iraq have roughly the same population. In 2003, there were 13,000 violent deaths in Venezuela, and just under 11,000 civilian deaths in Iraq (according to the anti-war website IraqBodyCount.org.) Venezuela is now the second most murderous country on earth, after Colombia, having left even Serbia, Jamaica and South Africa behind. Statistically, a Venezuelan is far more likely to die violently than an Israeli. The murder rate tripled between 1998 and 2003.



    Meanwhile, per capita income has fallen by around 50% over the last 25 years, down to levels not seen since the mid 1950s. Latin American experts speak about the lost decade of the 1980s, but for Venezuela it's been more like the lost half-century.

    The twin scourges of steady impoverishment and rising violence and anarchy had been at play in Venezuelan for two decades by the time Hugo Chavez reached power. Popular anger at the inability of the old regime to deal with them largely explains the electorate's decision to give Chavez a shot in 1998. After two decades of broken promises, people were understandably hopping mad. Not surprisingly, they voted en masse for the guy with the angriest anti-establishment discourse.

    That was six years ago. A cursory glance at the statistics shows that Chavez has failed to even start to make a dent on these two, central, over-riding concerns of the Venezuelan electorate, the kitchen-table issues persistently ranked most important by people in surveys.

    In both cases, the problems have grown because the chavista state has failed catastrophically to deal with them. The newly overhauled penal procedure system has systemically failed to come to grips with violent crime - investigations are rare, convictions rarer, prosecutors' backlogs often involve thousands of cases. The police are undertrained, underequiped, underpaid and easily corruptible, forensic labs barely exist, the state can't find enough lawyers who meet even basic qualifications to be judges.

    Violence hurts Chavez's core constituency the hardest. The overwhelming majority of the murders happen in barrios (shantytowns), precisely the areas of greatest social exclusion that are supposed to form the backbone of Chavez's support. Today, the reality is that if you live in a barrio and you kill someone, you can be almost entirely sure you won't go to jail for it. Shooting is an unremarkable thing, an almost nightly occurrence in many barrios. As a result, law abiding barrio-dwellers simply don't go outside at night. They live under an effective curfew.

    On the economy, the story of a quarter-century decline accelerating in 1998-2004 is quite similar. The economy had been alternating between stagnation and contraction for 20 years leading up to 1998, (except for a brief period of expansion during the government Chavez tried to overthrow.) Aside from the disastrous financial meltdown of 1994, however, Venezuelans had never seen mass impoverishment on the scale they've seen under Chavez. At least the 1994 crash was followed by a period of stability and then some moderate growth. Certainly, the sustained rate of impoverishment over the last 6 years is unprecedented. It's hit every part of the economy, and even the expected dead-cat bounce this year will do little to make up the lost ground.



    For most Venezuelans, their personal experience of the economy is of having to work harder and harder for less and less money and less and less security. More Venezuelans now work illegally than legally. (The technocratic euphemism is "informally", but it means outside the legal framework.) Illegal workers in Venezuela simply have no welfare protections at all, no severance pay, no vacation leave, nothing.

    According to a UCAB study, 90% of illegal workers earn less than the legal minimum wage. To work illegally is to be at the mercy of the unrestrained forces of the market, with no institutions to protect you at all. During the revolutionary people's bolivarian government, for the first time illegal workers have come to outnumber legal ones.

    Worse still, out and out unemployment has risen as well. This is particularly alarming in a society where the unemployed typically receive no state aid. Instead, they have to rely on already hard-pressed families to eat, impoverishing their entire households. Given that over half of the nation's manufacturing industries have gone under in the last 6 years, it's hardly surprising unemployment has risen sharply.

    So on the Big Two issues, on the issues non-ideological voters care most about, Chavez is faring very badly indeed. Chavistas will argue that the opposition is to blame for this decay. But pragmatic voters are uninterested in the blame game: everywhere and always, the party in power pays the price for underperformance. Venezuela will not be an exception.

    Governments that make people less secure, whether in their bodies or their pocketbooks, fare badly at the ballot box. No amount of rhetoric can trump the lived experience of deepening poverty and growing fear of violence. You don't need a statistician to tell you you're poorer than you were 6 years ago, or that your neighborhood is more violent than it's ever been. These are things you live, not things you read about.

    The dirty little secret here is that many or most of Chavez's supporters voted for him in 1998 and 2000 because they thought he was going to make their day-to-day lives better. He promised he would, with an energy, a passion and a (seeming) sincerity they'd never seen before in a politician. Today, there are three times as many murders as in 1998. Three times! And less than half as many manufacturing companies! Chavez can call a cadena and talk until the end of time, but those realities are not going away.

    The fact - and this is ideologically impossible for the chavistas to understand and accept - is that most 1998 chavistas wanted what most normal people everywhere want. They didn't want the end of American Imperialism, they didn't want to re-engineer capitalism. They didn't want to reorder society from the ground up, or turn PDVSA into a glorious people's cooperative. They certainly didn't want to hear long rants against the catholic church, or the president of the US, or the people who owned the stations that make the telenovelas they watch. These things are just boring to them. You can't eat rhetoric.

    Like people everywhere, they just wanted to earn enough money to eat three times a day and send their kids to school. They wanted to be able to walk the streets of their neighborhoods at night without fearing imminent death or maiming. Chavez promised both. He's delivered neither. That's why he'll lose.