May 8, 2004

Just Imagine: Two dead after US troops set iraqi prisoners on fire

SUBHEADS: New reports from Abu Ghraib prison include reports of deaths, all-night beatings, rape, electric shocks, tear gas used in confined spaces, and prisoners forced to eat their own hair and feces.


President Bush calls officers responsible for Abu Ghraib prison "heros", plans to decorate them...



Imagine that? Unimaginable. Impossible. Far fetched. Yet this is precisely what happened in Venezuela, where the government first covered up allegations of serious abuse against opposition activists held in custody, and president Chavez then went out of his way to honor the "revolutionary courage" of those responsible, going as far as to give them medals for their role in the violence!

Que molleja, primo!

May 7, 2004

Accountability and silence

There's a funny dynamic at work in my comments forum - every few weeks some brave government supporter desides to chip in and post a comment, and then, well, all hell breaks loose. Though we've gotten better at treating chavista commenters with respect, we don't always manage to be entirely pleasant. Poco a poco...


The thing that strikes me is that the chavista posters are invariably, in no time at all, deluged with questions from the opposition posters. What happened to the more than $2 billion that disappeared from FIEM in 2001? Why did Chavez continue talking through the April 11th cadena instead of stopping to halt the violence? Who killed the protesters in the Autopista Regional del Centro in October 2002? In Charallave in Jan. 2003? Who killed Evangelina Carrizo and Juan Carlos Zambrano and Pedreañez? Where did García Carneiro get the money to buy a yatch? How can Chavez condemn what happened at Abu Ghraib Prison while ignoring the abuse at Fuerte Mara? How can a Supreme Tribunal decision be both final and not-final at the same time? Is article 31 of the Recall Referendum Regulations approved last August still in force? How can it be in force if the regulations published to operationalize it are in direct contradiction with what it says? If there was a megafraude with the planillas planas, how come there were more planillas planas in the government's recall request against the opposition assemblymembers than in the opposition's recall request against Chavez? If there was a megafraude, why would you go out of your way to violate article 31 and allow people who recognize that they did sign validly back in November to go back and take it back? The list, obviously could grow and grow and grow...


Now, some chavista posters make an attempt to answer, others - who can blame them - don't. But what I find significant about this little phenomenon is the nearly bottomless thirst antichavistas have for some kind of reasonable explanation from the government side. Any government supporter who pipes up gets the deluge of queries, for the simple reason that the government itself never answers any of these questions.


The mechanism that brought us to this point is itself a serious cause for concern. Government spokespeople long since stopped inviting non-chavista media outlets to their press conference, long since stopped going to opposition-controlled radio and tv shows, long since stopped answering questions from the opposition. Really the only time they face questions is when faced with a State Radio, State TV or State Press Agency type - and the questions they make are invariably pathetically easy. Chavista ministers and officials just don't put themselves in a position to hear tough questions, much less to have to answer them.


It's true that the opposition media bears some of the responsibility for this situation - its treatment of government spokespeople has often been disrespectful and at times openly slanderous. But the outcome is an incredibly destructive escalation of the two-entirely-separate-worlds dynamic between pro- and anti-Chavez sectors of society. The government simply does not feel obliged to answer questions from those who don't subscribe to the Chavez cult of personality. This liberates the government to behave in ways that are plainly indefensible since, after all, they know full well they'll never be called on to defend their behavior.


What's worrying about this dynamic is that it shows a government that thinks it can pick and choose between its citizens and decide who it will be accountable to and who it won't be accountable to. (Some citizens are obviously more equal than others.) Instead of establishing institutions that may force it to answer all questions from all comers (say, oh, a Freedom of Information Law, just to pick a policy idea at random) the government picks first and second class citizens - those who subscribe to the cult of personality and therefore obtain the privilege of asking questions, and those who don't and therefore lose that privilege.


Just to end this little riff, I'll mention one of those extravagant Chavista lies that show how destructive this whole answer-questions-only-from-sycophants policy can be. Sitting in for a sick Chavez in the next-to-last Alo, presidente, Education Minister Aristobulo Isturiz proudly announced to the country that his ministry had created some 60,000 school libraries over the last few years. Had an critical mind been allowed anywhere near a microphone at that time, that voice might have pointed out that there are only 20,000 public schools in Venezuela, total. Either Isturiz expects us to believe he's built an average of three new libraries per school, or when he says "library" he means "bookshelf." I'd like to know which one it is - but guess what! I don't suck Chavez's member in print! So I don't get to ask!

May 6, 2004

La Alpargata Insolente del Extranjero

Expect to see Eva Golinger blow a gasket over this delicious bit of reporting by El Nuevo Herald, revealing that Citgo made campaign donations to both the Democratic and Republican parties in the 2002 election season. A $15,000 Citgo contribution apparently reached the GOP just two weeks before the April 2002 coup.


Citgo, just to refresh foreign readers' memories, is a 100% Venezuelan owned oil company based in Tulsa (though soon moving to Houston.) Citgo is a "US-based" company, so I guess it's not technically illegal for them to contribute to US political parties. It's just irresistably delicious to write about, though, after the oceans of ink and, erm, gillions of pixels mobilized to castigate US for funding political groups in Venezuela.


Can you say rabo'e'paja??

The Nadir of the Ni-Nis...

Datanalisis says...


...polarization is increasing in Venezuela, with the ni-ni (apolitical) camp dwindling to just 30% of registered voters, the lowest it's been in years.


Datanalisis now figures the breakdown is like this:


Opposition - 37%

Ni-Ni - 30%

Pro-government - 28%.

No answer - 5%


They also estimate that 77% of the electorate would turn out for a referendum, but they do so using the stupidest methodology in the book: by asking people directly whether they plan to vote. This, as everyone knows, is badly misleading, since people are often embarrassed to tell pollsters the truth if they don't really plan to vote. So, one big demerit point for Datanalisis on this score.


Still, if 37% of the electorate can be relied on to turn out to recall Chavez, that's 4.4 million votes. Plenty...more than enough...


More..

Kerry! Amigo! El pueblo está contigo!

John Kerry ran his mouth on Spanish language gringo tv last night:


[...Univision interviewer Jorge] Ramos asked Kerry if he thought that Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez was a dictator and Kerry responded, "Chavez is fast on the road of becoming exactly that. He is breaking the rules of democracy. I think it is very important for him to allow that referendum to take place and for this administration and others to put more visibility on what is happening so we can hold him accountable to international standards of behavior. Democracy is at risk." [...]


More...

May 4, 2004

Democracy or Revolution?

For six years now, Hugo Chavez has been promising Venezuelans a Democratic Revolution. The crux of the political crisis in Venezuela lies in the fact that this is a contradiction in terms.


Revolution will not share power, it cannot share power. Reaching an accomodation with opponents is precisely the opposite of a revolution


Democracy, particularly in the way it's been understood in Venezuela for half a century, means powersharing.


Revolution assumes that there is a single acceptable understanding of political reality, only one approved understanding of the reasons for the problems in society, and therefore a single acceptable political stance.


Democracy assumes that reasonable people may disagree on matters of politics, and that it's healthy for a society to have a multiplicity of competing understandings vying for favor at any given time.


Revolution divides the world up between good guys and bad guys, between the people and the enemies of the people, between those who subscribe to the revolution's sanctioned understanding of political reality and the "unreliables" who don't.


Democracy accepts that political differences need not imply imply differences in honesty, virtue, or integrity. It sees those who disagree politically as opponents or adversaries rather than enemies.


Revolution demands total control over all branches of the state, at least, and of society as a whole in extreme cases.


Democracy accepts the variety of political views in society, and sees as normal and healthy that different branches of the state should be under the control of various groups in society.


Revolution sees consultation and negotiation with the enemy as treason.


Democracy sees consultation and negotiation with adversaries as the bread-and-butter of political life.


Revolution demands unquestioning loyalty.


Democracy demands citizen participation.


The phrase revolución democrática is, strictly speaking, meaningless. The government has to choose one or the other. For years the question of which way the Chavez adventure would go seemed up for grabs. Today, after the Referendum shenanigans and the approval of the TSJ law, Chavez's choice has become crystal clear: he's devoted to his revolution, and to get it, he's willing to destroy our democracy.

May 3, 2004

Guest Post: Packing the TSJ...again!

by Jimmy Humboldt


Let's be honest here, people love to hate Chavez. Venezuelans are great at pretending that they never voted for the guy, and the country does seem to have forgotten the nasty stuff that went down for years before he came to power. Personally, I'm more than a little skeptical of the opposition's screeching about the "end of democracy" and "takeover of state institutions" on the part of the ineffable Hugo Chavez. After all, he is the president - they're just the guys that tried to overthrow him a bunch of times.


Now, I've given Chavez as much of the benefit of the doubt as anyone. But this week I just about ran out of steam. I ran out of ways to describe this government as democratic or legitimate. In fact I got so pissed I could hardly even see straight, much less have a civil discussion about Venezuelan politics.


Early Friday morning the Venezuelan National Assembly approved the Supreme Justice Tribunal Law, opening the way for the chavistas to pack up the high court with revolution-sympathetic justices.


I'm so bored of the "authoritarian Castro-crony" cliches to describe Chavez that I don't know how to express how much this law flies in the face of democracy. The opposition has churned through the same old stale accusations so many times that the world is desensitized to how serious they are. We've been hearing that Chavez is a totalitarian dictator worse than Hitler for so long that it's hard to make the case competently without sounding like another bleating sheep in the pack.


But here's my honest opinion - the TSJ Law is an obvious threat to democracy. The law expands the high court from 20 to 32 justices, adding 12 news faces that will be designated by a simple 50% + 1 legislative majority, and gives the National Assembly power to fire justices with the same voting scheme.


There are any number of reasons to describe this as unconstitutional - which I'll get to in a minute - but the real reason it pisses me off is not just that Chavez is packing the courts, it's that he's packing the courts for the second time!


Everyone, even the chavistas, agree that when the court was first created in 2000, Chavez's top political advisors packed it full of magistrates they expected to control. Through the standard intellectual gymnastics, this was defended on the grounds that anyone who supported Chavez supported the Revolution, and was therefore patriotic and ergo good for the country.


This analysis sidesteps a fundamental element - the Revolution is a political movement run by a political party, and - according to the little blue book - TSJ magistrates cannot be chosen on the basis of political affiliation. The chavistas assured us for years that of course, the magistrates were completely impartial and only concerned about ensuring the legality of the Chavez reforms.


But unfortunately Chavez let the underhanded, backstabbing Luis Miquilena, the political brains behind his rise, hand-pick "his" magistrates for him. When Miquilena parted ways with Chavez, he took his Supreme Cronies with him. In August of 2003, the TSJ refused to hold a trial for military officers implicated in the 2002 coup - a decision reached as a result of heavy pressure by Miquilena.


Now, here was a moment for the chavistas to step up to the plate and accept defeat. The poetic justice was so evident; the revolutionaries had used the same slash-and-burn tactics that came before them, the same institutional degradation that their movement was built on criticizing. A quick mea culpa could have salvaged the Bolivarian Revolution in the eyes of those with some semblance of critical thought.


Instead Venezuela was treated to a sermon preached from Mount Miraflores about how "powerful economic interests" had bought out the court to ensure that no justice was carried out against the coupsters.


It's like the chavistas forgot they had schemed to bring those justices onto the bench, and had defended them for years against attacks that they had been designated through cronyism. Suddenly, these 11 magistrates became Martians that had somehow, magically, inexplicably, appeared on the bench of the country's top judicial authority.


Instead of an apology for their retrograde politics, the National Assembly launched a witch hunt to fire the magistrates that had voted against trying the officers. That witch hunt failed - the constitution explicitly states that only the attorney general backed by 2/3rds of the Assembly can remove magistrates from the bench, and only after an investigation proving misconduct.


On Friday, the Bolivarian Revolution was officially given permission to re-launch that witch hunt - with the new law, chavistas can fire magistrates at their discretion. Of course, to their credit, they most likely won't need to resort to that - they just have to squeeze 12 more magistrates on to the bench and magically the balance of power shifts back to the Chavez camp - just like in the good old Miquilena days when the court knew how to take orders from the executive without talking back or asking questions.


The 1999 Constitution - you know, the one Chavez keeps in his breast pocket - expressly forbids much of what's in the TSJ law. No sane interpretation of the constitution could allow what they're doing. The legislature is supposed to have a 2/3 majority to ensure there is enough political consensus to change a major (organic) law. Furthermore, the constitution stresses the independence of the branches of government - the assembly can't fire magistrates or hire new ones any more than the TSJ can decree that the assembly should have 200 deputies instead of 165 - and then proceed to appoint 35 new ones.


So this is where I appeal to the best minds of chavismo to explain why I'm wrong? I'm more than willing to listen. The only possible explanation I can see is that the chavistas want control of the high court again, particularly now that Chavez may be facing a referendum, and are not shy about using old-style Venezuelan politics to get it.


I've heard some deputies say the poor TSJ magistrates are so overworked that they need more bodies on each bench to get their work done. But if there really is a need for this, why are some magistrates so violently opposed to it? And if it really is so important, why not develop the 2/3 majority established in the constitution?


Now I have to ask my audience of chavistas brave enough to suffer through pages of ranting on CaracasChronicles - if you were not in government, would it be acceptable for the majority to pack the courts with its friends? Would you consider this democratic behavior if it did not work in your favor? What would be your reaction if Henrique Salas Römer filled the high court with familiar faces from the April 11 coup through evidently extra-legal maneuvers? Would you want a hyper-powerful executive if the executive currently in office were not a friend of yours?

May 1, 2004

Very bad things

The approval of the new Supreme Tribunal law is a disaster. Pro-Chavez assembly-members approved the law to expand the Tribunal from 20 to 32 judges, in a blatant court-packing exercise. Judicial review wasn't doing great in Venezuela recently. But now it's unequivocally deaditie dead dead dead.

April 30, 2004

Lets talk about investment...

It's heartwarming to see Martin Sanchez of Aporrea and Venezuelanalysis suddenly take an interest in investment. His latest dispatch is breathless about DaimlerChrysler's announcement that they will invest $20 million to "expand production" in their Valencia plant, apparently for export.


I'm glad Martin agrees with me about the importance of investment in general, including private sector investment. I wonder if he's had a look at the Central Bank's own figures on overall investment in the Chavez era. Since it is a bit of a pain to see the data, I took the time to do it for him...




100% official Venezuelan government sources:
Central Bank for the Gross Fixed Capital Formation statistics and the 2001 Census for the population data.


[Note: I only go up to 2002, because that's the latest data our bureaucratic hare of a Central Bank has published. I use the BCV's own inflation-adjustment, the 1984-base bolivar.]


Just to put Martin's write-up in a bit of perspective, $20 million, works out to less than 12 constant 1984 bolivars per person per year, so less than a dollar a year per capita. That's less than half of 1% of the total gross fixed capital formation in Venezuela in 2002.


Don't get me wrong, I'm thrilled for those Valencia auto workers who get to keep their jobs. But we need to recognize they're a distinct minority. If you want to discuss investment in Venezuela, lets do it openly, with the facts on the table, not as a propaganda exercise. Un poco de seriedad, por dios...

April 29, 2004

Oddly fun...

I must have been in a very odd mood last night. I spent over an hour listening to this speech Chavez gave on December 5th, 1999 (Real audio stream). It's an eye-opener.


The first half an hour is an impassioned defense, an apology even (in the Greek sense) of the February 1992 "military rebellion" Chavez led. He carefully explains that February 4th was a military rebellion not a coup - the difference apparently being that a rebellion is when Chavez is on the giving end, a coup when he's on the receiving end.


He waxes lyrical about the feverish, even obsessive (Chavez dixit) efforts the conspirators made from 1989 to 1992 to plan the coup and "accelerate what needed to be accelerated." Extra schadenfreude comes our way around minute 14, when he "honors" his fellow conspirators one by one, stopping to say a few kind words about each...Francisco Arias Cardenas, Jesus Urdaneta, Acosta Chirinos, any number of people who've since switched sides. "True patriots!" he calls them, then adds "it honors me and commits me even more to the cause to share a stage with them!" He also saves some flattery for Kleber Alcala and Felipe Acosta Carles, brother of Luis, who apparently died in the riots of February 1989.


The speech then descends into a torrent of praise for the new constitution - which was voted on ten days later - and eventually widens into a veritable flood of abuse hurled at the opposition. This is curious. Remember, it was December '99. Chavez had an 80% approval rating - the opposition was in no way a threat to him, or even a serious political force to contend with. It was mostly a rump, really, with neither a real following nor real power. That doesn't dissuade Chavez from spending half the speech attacking them, villifying them in aggressive and willfully provocative terms. I say "willfully" for a reason, Chavez makes it clear he knows exactly what he's doing. "Para que mas les duela," ("so it stings more,") he says, just before launching into one of his more colorful attacks.




Chavez's 1999 Approval Ratings: Those were the days!


I admit I was a bit disappointed with the speech, in that I was hoping to hear more about popular sovereignty and then blog about the way the phrase has disappeared from the official lingo.


What I found was something a bit different - a demagogue who uses his astonishing rhetorical ability to paint a highly simplified, Manichaean view of the world. Chavista rhetoric inevitably dissolves into a Disney style moral universe where those who follow him are good, really good, inherently good and virtuous as revealed by the very fact that they follow him, and those who oppose him are deeply, fundamentally evil, as revealed by their opposition to the revolution. Hammering in this point seems to be the point of the speech.


It's easy to forget, but thanks to the internet, easy also to remind ourselves. The class-warfare rhetoric, the divisionism, the hate-mongering, the conscious effort to intensify class antagonism, all of that has been there from the start. It was even there when Chavez had no effective opposition, two and a half years before April 2002, when there were no marches, no signatures, no cacerolazos, no National Assembly, no one really to challenge his power.


To be a chavista, to my mind, is to accept this moral universe, to wallow in the dumbed down certainties of an ideological orthodoxy that demands your total acritical loyalty and counts anyone who raises a critical voice as an enemy.


Seen in this way, polarization is not the accidental by-product of Chavez's rule. As Chavez obliquely hinted in his letter to Carlos in his parisian jail, polarizing society along class lines has been the chavista plan all along. It's been pursued with the bloodymindedness of a true believer and the skill of a born demagogue. And as I try to work out the implications of that strategy, I do get the feeling that a diet of geraniums is particularly ill-suited to combating it.


So listening to that 5 year old speech left me quite pessimistic about the possibilities of building a dialogue across ideological lines. Long before the "positive feedback loop" that Sabatier writes about had taken hold, Chavez's strategy was already founded on the old leninist maxim of "deepening the contradictions." The worse it gets, the better it gets. Even all those years ago, enshrining the positive feedback loop of polarization was the cornerstone of government policy. So how the hell do you get around that?


I have no idea, but the speech did leave me with one (semi-)conforting thought: it's the comecandelas who are playing into Chavez's hands. Chavez relies on polarization, but it takes two to positive feedback loop!


Chavez's political program makes no sense outside a context of systemic polarization. In a sense, Chavez is polarization. So if you want to fight Chavez, fight polarization!

April 28, 2004

Cristina's predicament

...or...

La arrechera de Cristina


No one who's ever met my sister Cristina could even imagine her filling out her firmazo form wrong. Cristina's an elementary school teacher, and a rigorous one at that. My mental image of her is inseparable from the piles of notebooks she's permanently correcting with an attention to detail that keeps her students on the straight and narrow. Her handwriting has the exacting precision of a self-proclaimed neat freak. There is no question of her screwing up her data on something as important as the firmazo.


Yet, when Cristina checks her ID number with the CNE signature database, she's told "she did not sign, or her signature was not processed by CNE." As far as CNE is concerned, it's like she never signed at all!


Now, someone made a mistake here, that much is clear. A "material error", one might even say. Cristina meant to sign, and she did sign, but her signature just vanished. There ought to be some way for her to set the record straight, to make sure her will is reflected in the final tally, don't you think?


Well, that's what CNE thought 9 months ago, but it's now what they think anymore. What's ironic about Cristina's situation is that the rules CNE published way back in September did provide a remedy for people in her situation. In fact, protecting people in this situation is what the original reparo mechanism was all about.


To quote the original CNE regulations, article 31:


In the five following days after the publication (of the valid and invalid signatures), electors whose signatures are rejected may personally go in front of the National Electoral Council in order to correct any material error that the Electoral Administration may have committed in verifying his data. If he fails to do so, the rejection (of the signature) shall stand. Equally, electors who allege they did not sign the forms shall be able to go in front of CNE to ask to be excluded immediately from the signature tally.


(En el plazo de cinco días continuos siguientes a la publicación, el elector firmante que fuera rechazado podrá acudir personalmente ante el Consejo Nacional Electoral, a los fines de subsanar cualquier error material en que haya incurrido la Administración Electoral durante la verificación de sus datos. En caso contrario, quedará firme su rechazo. Asimismo, el elector que alegue que no firmó la planilla, podrá acudir al Consejo Nacional Electoral a los fines de solicitar su exclusión inmediata del cómputo de las firmas.)


Great, a rule that makes sense! If only. Under the rules CNE approved this week, Cristina's signature is simply not eligible to be repaired.


It's not just that the rules published this week are different from the ones approved all those months ago, it's that this week's rules do exactly the opposite of what the original rules were meant to do. Once all the bla, bla, bla dies down, Cristina's signature will be kept out of the total, whatever article 31 says. Y punto.


Sumate says there are 200,000 such Astonishing Vanishing Signatures. Lindo, ¿no?

The decision is made...

The Coordinadora Democratica will participate in the reparos process. For once, expectations are low: we can only be pleasantly surprised if CNE comes around and calls a referendum, but we'll not be animically crushed again if they don't.

April 27, 2004

Open Letter to Eva Golinger

Dear Eva,


I don't know you, except as a byline over articles that I strenuously disagree with. I'm writing to you out of a concern, voiced again and again by some of my readers, to try to build some kind of understanding, some kind of common action with people on the other side of the political divide that's grown so deep and corrosive in Venezuela these last few years.


In some ways it's natural for political opponents to distrust each other, and each other's motives - it's happened in any number of political conflicts before and it'll happen in many to come. It's hard to get over the impression that, well, your motives are noble, your command of the facts extensive and your understanding clear, and that therefore anyone who disagrees with you must be either evil or working with an ulterior motive. I know this is as much a part of how chavistas perceive opositores as vice versa.


The escalation of mistrust and animosity that ensues is destructive and dangerous, and needs to be considered as a big problem in its own right. At some point, the causes of polarization become almost secondary: it's the polarization that sparks off civil wars. In Venezuela, we're still early enough to prevent things going that far.


Sooner or later, people from opposite sides of the Venezuelan divide have to come together in a spirit of cooperation, making an effort to bracket those points where we can't agree and to focus on those where we can.


When I lived in Caracas, I volunteered for a journalists' NGO called Los Del Medio, founded precisely on this principle. Remarkably, given the atmosphere, the group was non-partisan, including both pro- and anti-government members who agreed that the Venezuelan media is failing its citizens by painting a polarized and hyper-simplified image of what is happening in the country.


I bring this up because one initiative Los Del Medio briefly considered taking on was a proposal to approve a Freedom of Information law in Venezuela. At this point, Venezuela is one of the last countries in the Americas that lacks Freedom of Information legislation, and as Los Del Medio knows only too well, this can make impartial reporting quite difficult.


And then it struck me, this is an issue where Eva Golinger and I actually might agree. You've already shown what a powerful tool for citizen participation laws like the FOIA can be. You understand as well as anyone could how such transparency can play a critical role in citizen activists' drive to hold their governments accountable. You know how important this kind of scrutiny is to real democracy.


Venezuelan citizens need and deserve the same legal mechanisms for participation and for holding their elected leaders accountable as U.S. citizens, and certainly is a natural fit with the calls for radically increased citizen participation President Chavez built his presidency on in 1998-2000. It strikes me that with from your position, and with your impeccably clean revolutionary credentials, your view would carry at least some weight in the government. What's more, an initiative of the sort could make a start, just one small, tiny, but symbolic contribution, to showing that people with radically different views of the world can still recognize one another's humanity and come together to affirm the values they have in common.


Hoping you'll read this letter with an open mind,

ft

Nothing new under the sun


I thought I could keep my research separate from my Venezuela-blogging, but it's not really working out that way. Try this one, from a paper by Paul Sabatier (et al.) on "Perceptions and Misperceptions of Political Opponents":


We hypothesize that actors will evaluate their opponents' motives and behavior in more negative terms than will the rest of the policy community. These are really very straightforward arguments derived from theories dealing with own group bias and with cognitive balance/dissonance.


Most actors start with the assumption that they are right-thinking, virtuous and fair in their judgments (Harrison 1976). Thus anyone who disagrees with them must be mistaken about the facts, operating from the wrong value premises, or acting from evil motives. A fundamental tenet of balance/dissonance theories is that people find it very difficult to balance a positive self-image with a positive image of someone who disagrees with them (Festinger 1957; Abelson et al. 1968, Wicklund and Brehm 1976). The longer opponents persist in their "error" - i.e., resist our sound arguments - the more one begins to suspect their motives or otherwise regard them as dangerous and untrustworthy. This is particularly true if they persist in disagreeing with us on issues which we regard as salient (Lawrence 1976, Judd and Johnson 1981; Freeman and Hittle 1985.)


The dynamics of conflict creates tendencies for negative judgments to escalate over time. An important feature of policy conflicts is that the winners are often able to impose costs on the losers. If A - whom B already suspects of being misguided - imposes costs on B, B's view of A is likely to deteriorate further. As the competition escalates, B is tempted to take more and more questionable measures, but these can only be justified by portraying opponent A in more and more negative terms. Hence, in conflicts which are intense and of reasonably long duration, the dynamics of escalation tend to transform opponents from responsible adversaries into people with extreme and dangerous views (Coleman 1957). Thus opponents begin to impugn each other's motives more and more, and come to increasingly negative evaluations of the other's behavior.


[...]


One of the most striking characteristics of [the research] is that the "devil shift" has all the worst features of a positive feedback loop: the more one views opponents as malevolent and very powerful, the more likely one is to resort to questionable measures to preserve one's interests. But the more one does so, the greater the probability opponents will start perceiving one as a very wicked character, thus resorting to unscrupulous countermeasures, thus further confirming one's perception of them as "devils." Suspicion and conflict escalate, and it becomes very difficult to break the cycle.


-Paul Sabatier, Susan Hunger, Susan McLaughlin, "The Devil Shift: Perceptions and Misperceptions of Opponents" in The Western Political Quarterly, Vol. 40, No. 3 (Sept. 1987), 449-476.

Freedom of Information

Human Rights Watch sez...


Cuba: Trial Violates Dissidents’ Right to Free Expression


(New York, April 22, 2004) — Cuba’s planned trial of a blind human rights lawyer, along with nine other dissidents and independent journalists, on charges of “disrespect for authority” demonstrates a continuing pattern of political repression, Human Rights Watch said today. Human Rights Watch has learned that the trial of the 10 defendants is scheduled to be held on Tuesday, April 27.


Juan Carlos González Leiva, a blind lawyer, is the president of the Cuban Foundation for Human Rights (Fundación Cubana de Derechos Humanos). He and most of the other defendants have been held in pretrial detention in eastern Holguín province for more than two years.  

 
“The upcoming trial is a travesty,” said Joanne Mariner, deputy director of Human Rights Watch’s Americas Division. “The defendants face criminal charges that clearly violate their basic rights to freedom of expression.”  


The defendants were arrested on March 4, 2002 at Antonio Luaces Iraola Provincial Hospital in Ciego de Ávila (a town in central Cuba), and held without formal charges for six months. They are now reportedly being prosecuted for the crimes of disrespect to the President (desacato al Presidente), disrespect to the police, public disorder and resistance.  


More...
 

April 26, 2004

No sooner said...

...than done. Venezuelanalysis of course jumped on the Keller numbers. Oddly, they did not bother to explain to their readers why the same opinion polls that were unacceptably biased, golpistas and meant-to-deceive six months ago are suddenly reliable enough to hang a story on. Oh, wait, the results changed!

Fascist puntofijista coup-mongering escualido oligarch reactionary barrigaverde pollster springs a surprise...

Watch Venezuelanalysis suddenly start touting Keller's numbers...


Reuters sez:


Poll: Chavez would win recall vote


CARACAS, Venezuela (Reuters) -- Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez would narrowly win a recall vote if it were held now because of a divided opposition and low turnout by disillusioned voters, according to a poll released Friday.


Thirty-five percent of registered voters backed Chavez while 31 percent would vote against him, said local pollsters Alfredo Keller & Associates which conducted the survey in late March.


Another 34 percent of those questioned opposed Chavez but were likely to abstain from voting in any referendum because they were frightened or had lost faith in the opposition.


"If there was a referendum at this time Chavez would win," the firm's president Alfredo Keller told reporters. "The opposition certainly has the majority, but that majority is fractured in two blocks."


Polls up until now had suggested Chavez would lose the referendum.


More...




My two cents: Keller's poll is not as incompatible with GQR's results as it might seem. The difference is basically about how they figure "likely voters" - Keller goes much further than GQR in excluding from his results people he doesn't think are likely to vote. Grim.

April 25, 2004

Excerpt from "Politics and the English Language"

George Orwell, 1946


[...]

Political words are commonly abused. The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies "something not desirable." The words democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice have each of them several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another.


In the case of a word like democracy, not only is there no agreed definition, but the attempt to make one is resisted from all sides. It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it: consequently the defenders of every kind of regime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using that word if it were tied down to any one meaning.


Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different. Statements like Marshal Petain was a true patriot, The Soviet press is the freest in the world, The Catholic Church is opposed to persecution, are almost always made with intent to deceive. Other words used in variable meanings, in most cases more or less dishonestly, are: class, totalitarian, science, progressive, reactionary, bourgeois, equality.


Now that I have made this catalogue of swindles and perversions, let me give another example of the kind of writing that they lead to. This time it must of its nature be an imaginary one. I am going to translate a passage of good English into modern English of the worst sort. Here is a well-known verse from Ecclesiastes:


I returned and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.


Here it is in modern English:


Objective considerations of contemporary phenomena compel the conclusion that success or failure in competitive activities exhibits no tendency to be commensurate with innate capacity, but that a considerable element of the unpredictable must invariably be taken into account.


This is a parody, but not a very gross one. It will be seen that I have not made a full translation. The beginning and ending of the sentence follow the original meaning fairly closely, but in the middle the concrete illustrations -- race, battle, bread -- dissolve into the vague phrases "success or failure in competitive activities." This had to be so, because no modern writer of the kind I am discussing -- no one capable of using phrases like "objective considerations of contemporary phenomena" -- would ever tabulate his thoughts in that precise and detailed way.


The whole tendency of modern prose is away from concreteness. Now analyze these two sentences a little more closely. The first contains forty-nine words but only sixty syllables, and all its words are those of everyday life. The second contains thirty-eight words of ninety syllables: eighteen of those words are from Latin roots, and one from Greek. The first sentence contains six vivid images, and only one phrase ("time and chance") that could be called vague. The second contains not a single fresh, arresting phrase, and in spite of its ninety syllables it gives only a shortened version of the meaning contained in the first. Yet without a doubt it is the second kind of sentence that is gaining ground in modern English.


I do not want to exaggerate. This kind of writing is not yet universal, and outcrops of simplicity will occur here and there in the worst-written page. Still, if you or I were told to write a few lines on the uncertainty of human fortunes, we should probably come much nearer to my imaginary sentence than to the one from Ecclesiastes.


As I have tried to show, modern writing at its worst does not consist in picking out words for the sake of their meaning and inventing images in order to make the meaning clearer. It consists in gumming together long strips of words which have already been set in order by someone else, and making the results presentable by sheer humbug.


The attraction of this way of writing is that it is easy. It is easier -- even quicker, once you have the habit -- to say In my opinion it is not an unjustifiable assumption that than to say I think. If you use ready-made phrases, you not only don't have to hunt about for the words; you also don't have to bother with the rhythms of your sentences since these phrases are generally so arranged as to be more or less euphonious. When you are composing in a hurry -- when you are dictating to a stenographer, for instance, or making a public speech -- it is natural to fall into a pretentious, Latinized style. Tags like a consideration which we should do well to bear in mind or a conclusion to which all of us would readily assent will save many a sentence from coming down with a bump.


By using stale metaphors, similes, and idioms, you save much mental effort, at the cost of leaving your meaning vague, not only for your reader but for yourself. This is the significance of mixed metaphors. The sole aim of a metaphor is to call up a visual image. When these images clash -- as in The Fascist octopus has sung its swan song, the jackboot is thrown into the melting pot -- it can be taken as certain that the writer is not seeing a mental image of the objects he is naming; in other words he is not really thinking.


A scrupulous writer, in every sentence that he writes, will ask himself at least four questions, thus:


1. What am I trying to say?


2. What words will express it?


3. What image or idiom will make it clearer?


4. Is this image fresh enough to have an effect?


And he will probably ask himself two more:


1. Could I put it more shortly?


2. Have I said anything that is avoidably ugly?


But you are not obliged to go to all this trouble. You can shirk it by simply throwing your mind open and letting the ready-made phrases come crowding in. They will construct your sentences for you -- even think your thoughts for you, to a certain extent -- and at need they will perform the important service of partially concealing your meaning even from yourself. It is at this point that the special connection between politics and the debasement of language becomes clear.


In our time it is broadly true that political writing is bad writing. Where it is not true, it will generally be found that the writer is some kind of rebel, expressing his private opinions and not a "party line." Orthodoxy, of whatever color, seems to demand a lifeless, imitative style. The political dialects to be found in pamphlets, leading articles, manifestoes, White papers and the speeches of undersecretaries do, of course, vary from party to party, but they are all alike in that one almost never finds in them a fresh, vivid, homemade turn of speech. When one watches some tired hack on the platform mechanically repeating the familiar phrases -- bestial, atrocities, iron heel, bloodstained tyranny, free peoples of the world, stand shoulder to shoulder -- one often has a curious feeling that one is not watching a live human being but some kind of dummy: a feeling which suddenly becomes stronger at moments when the light catches the speaker's spectacles and turns them into blank discs which seem to have no eyes behind them.


And this is not altogether fanciful. A speaker who uses that kind of phraseology has gone some distance toward turning himself into a machine. The appropriate noises are coming out of his larynx, but his brain is not involved as it would be if he were choosing his words for himself. If the speech he is making is one that he is accustomed to make over and over again, he may be almost unconscious of what he is saying, as one is when one utters the responses in church. And this reduced state of consciousness, if not indispensable, is at any rate favorable to political conformity.


In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible. Things like the continuance of British rule in India, the Russian purges and deportations, the dropping of the atom bombs on Japan, can indeed be defended, but only by arguments which are too brutal for most people to face, and which do not square with the professed aims of the political parties. Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism., question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness. Defenseless villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is called pacification. Millions of peasants are robbed of their farms and sent trudging along the roads with no more than they can carry: this is called transfer of population or rectification of frontiers. People are imprisoned for years without trial, or shot in the back of the neck or sent to die of scurvy in Arctic lumber camps: this is called elimination of unreliable elements. Such phraseology is needed if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of them. Consider for instance some comfortable English professor defending Russian totalitarianism. He cannot say outright, "I believe in killing off your opponents when you can get good results by doing so." Probably, therefore, he will say something like this:


While freely conceding that the Soviet regime exhibits certain features which the humanitarian may be inclined to deplore, we must, I think, agree that a certain curtailment of the right to political opposition is an unavoidable concomitant of transitional periods, and that the rigors which the Russian people have been called upon to undergo have been amply justified in the sphere of concrete achievement.


The inflated style itself is a kind of euphemism. A mass of Latin words falls upon the facts like soft snow, blurring the outline and covering up all the details. The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one's real and one's declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink. In our age there is no such thing as "keeping out of politics." All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred, and schizophrenia. When the general atmosphere is bad, language must suffer. I should expect to find -- this is a guess which I have not sufficient knowledge to verify -- that the German, Russian and Italian languages have all deteriorated in the last ten or fifteen years, as a result of dictatorship.


But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought. A bad usage can spread by tradition and imitation even among people who should and do know better. The debased language that I have been discussing is in some ways very convenient. Phrases like a not unjustifiable assumption, leaves much to be desired, would serve no good purpose, a consideration which we should do well to bear in mind, are a continuous temptation, a packet of aspirins always at one's elbow. Look back through this essay, and for certain you will find that I have again and again committed the very faults I am protesting against. By this morning's post I have received a pamphlet dealing with conditions in Germany. The author tells me that he "felt impelled" to write it. I open it at random, and here is almost the first sentence I see: "[The Allies] have an opportunity not only of achieving a radical transformation of Germany's social and political structure in such a way as to avoid a nationalistic reaction in Germany itself, but at the same time of laying the foundations of a co-operative and unified Europe." You see, he "feels impelled" to write -- feels, presumably, that he has something new to say -- and yet his words, like cavalry horses answering the bugle, group themselves automatically into the familiar dreary pattern. This invasion of one's mind by ready-made phrases ( lay the foundations, achieve a radical transformation ) can only be prevented if one is constantly on guard against them, and every such phrase anaesthetizes a portion of one's brain.


...what is above all needed is to let the meaning choose the word, and not the other way around. In prose, the worst thing one can do with words is surrender to them. When you think of a concrete object, you think wordlessly, and then, if you want to describe the thing you have been visualizing you probably hunt about until you find the exact words that seem to fit it. When you think of something abstract you are more inclined to use words from the start, and unless you make a conscious effort to prevent it, the existing dialect will come rushing in and do the job for you, at the expense of blurring or even changing your meaning. Probably it is better to put off using words as long as possible and get one's meaning as clear as one can through pictures and sensations. Afterward one can choose -- not simply accept -- the phrases that will best cover the meaning, and then switch round and decide what impressions one's words are likely to make on another person. This last effort of the mind cuts out all stale or mixed images, all prefabricated phrases, needless repetitions, and humbug and vagueness generally. But one can often be in doubt about the effect of a word or a phrase, and one needs rules that one can rely on when instinct fails. I think the following rules will cover most cases:


1. Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.

2. Never us a long word where a short one will do.


3. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.


4. Never use the passive where you can use the active.


5. Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.


6. Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.


These rules sound elementary, and so they are, but they demand a deep change of attitude in anyone who has grown used to writing in the style now fashionable.


...If you simplify your English, you are freed from the worst follies of orthodoxy. You cannot speak any of the necessary dialects, and when you make a stupid remark its stupidity will be obvious, even to yourself. Political language -- and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists -- is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. One cannot change this all in a moment, but one can at least change one's own habits, and from time to time one can even, if one jeers loudly enough, send some worn-out and useless phrase -- some jackboot, Achilles' heel, hotbed, melting pot, acid test, veritable inferno, or other lump of verbal refuse -- into the dustbin, where it belongs.

April 24, 2004

Orwell quote fun


"Some ideas are so ridiculous that only an intellectual could believe them."

Attributed to George Orwell, but I can't find an exact reference. (Alternative versions have the ideas as "stupid", "preposterous", "absurd", and "crazy." Anyone know where this comes from?)

April 23, 2004

Learn-about-Georgia Day

We're all way too depressed about the possibility of a positive and peaceful outcome in Venezuela. So I'm declaring today Learn-about-Georgia day. We're talking post-Soviet Georgia, where a "rose revolution" peacefully overthrew a Soviet-era dictator last year. The overthrow of Shevardnaze was an inspiration, and the new government of Georgia is, to my mind, absolutely remarkable. Read up! I guarantee it'll make you feel better.


I heard this sensational documentary about it on the BBC yesterday and I felt like I needed to share. Because, man, if you think no one cares about Venezuela, spare a thought for Georgia - they're as low in the international priorities list as you can go. But did they give up? No! They rolled up their sleeves, they decided to give themselves a government that does not tolerate corruption, and so they're doing it, they're overcoming their history, they're overcoming their total absence of a democratic tradition, and they're building their future themselves. If they can do it, surely we can do it too.



President Mikhail Saakashvili


I really urge you all to read up on President Saakashvili and, especially, to listen to the really remarkable BBC documentary about the new government. It's 25 minutes long. You need a RealAudio player, but that's free and so is the BBC content.




Beyond that, here's some more Georgian food for Venezuelan thought:


Fact Index: Mikhail Saakashvili: Bio


BBC: Poll triumph for Georgian leader


BBC: Young cabinet named in Georgia


Open Democracy: Mikhail Saakashvili: new romantic or modern realist?


Open Democracy: The pillars of Georgia’s political transition


BBC: Mikhail Saakashvili Profile


BBC: Georgia 'revolution' inspires neighbours


Civil Georgia: New Georgian Parliament Convened


Radio Free Europe: Saakashvili Raising Hopes That Corruption May Be Tackled In Earnest


Civil Georgia: Government-friendly online news.

Georgia Tourism Office: A tough sell

Breaking the coalition

It's the standard advice negotiators get when facing a particularly tough negotiating partner. The Romans built a tidy little empire on the principle.


Stuck? Divide your enemies.


One would expect VP Cicero, of all people, to be well versed in such tactics. Predictably, the initial reactions to the reparo regulations from the opposition coalition were divided. Most of the antichavez coaltion seems to agree that participating is the least-bad idea - including AD, MAS, Causa R, Bandera Roja, Union (most of it), Solidaridad, and others. But a few voices on the center-right - Primero Justicia, Proyecto Venezuela, and Alianza Bravo Pueblo - disagree and call for following "the judicial route."


From this point of view, CNE did a sterling job, carefully calibrating the reparo procedures to split the opposition down the middle. Brito's draft of last week was just a trial balloon to see how much CNE could get away with. They could see that if they agreed to the Comando Ayacucho proposal to check 50% of the fingerprints, they would fail in the broader drive to divide the coalition, simply because NO ONE in the opposition could agree to that. In retrenching, CNE again found "sweet spot" - that gray area acceptable to one part of the opposition, but not the other.


Sigh. It stinks to see the government apply such a basic strategy and succeed. I've been spending too much time fantasizing about just grabbing Julio Borges, el viejo Salas, and Ledezma and just slapping them again and again until they snap out of it. I don't understand their attitude at all. If they don't see the need for unity now, if they don't realize they're playing into the government's hands now, when will they? Also, was it just me or is it clear that the "divisionists" who "don't really want a recall" that Ramos Allup was ranting about last week were, in fact, the PJ cagaleche squad?


Can someone please explain?

April 22, 2004

Hold your nose and repair?

Wielding his newly expanded prestige, Pompeyo Márquez says the opposition should accept the reparos methods announced by CNE. His reasoning is Janette's - yes they'll try to cheat, but we should go for it anyway.


So the opposition does seem minded to play ball on the repairs, but it does seem a bit premature to take a position so soon. Amazingly, even today, going on five months after the signature drive, CNE has still not published its databases, or announced the exact detail of the reparos process (how many tables per signing center, etc.) Decisions are never ever final with these guys.

The evolution of chavista rhetoric...

No, guys, I'm not trying to torture you. I just thought it would be good to make this available to the foreign readers.


It's funny to think about the way Chavez's rhetoric has evolved over the years. I think the periodization goes something like this.


1998-2000: Radical people power. "The people are sovereign and they exercise that sovereignty directly, through the ballot box."


2001-2003: The Oligarchy did it. "Any problem we have, some rich Venezuelan is to blame."


2004: The Gringos did it. The Fidel speech cut-and-paste period.


The funny thing is that the guy gives a speech like this, then JVR blows a gasket when someone like Bill Nelson says the plainly evident, that it's not exactly a friendly line to take with the US.


Chavez is subtle. He shifts rhetorical lines gradually, almost imperceptibly. And you can learn a lot by looking at the rhetorical lines that have been discarded. For instance, have you noticed how the phrase "el pueblo soberano" ("the sovereign people") - which he used at least once per paragraph in 1998-2000 - has entirely disappeared from his lexicon? Instead, these days, we get an impassioned defense of the USSR - not a line the guy was using in 1998.


Six years it's taken for Chavez to just own up and admit he's a Communist...or, at least, sees the world in exactly the same terms as communists...


Sorry for the length - I wanted to repost in full, to give the foreign readers a sense, just a sense, of what a complete Chavez speech is like. Bear in mind, queridos gringos, that we've been watching speeches like this at least once a month, on cadena, for years...


---


Translation of Hugo Chavez's meeting and national broadcast (Cadena) from Avenida Urdaneta.
April 13, 2004.


I would like to give a very warm greeting. In a special and exemplifying way, I wish to greet my fellow citizens who have come today. Welcome to Bolívar's country. A welcome hug. Today, we will open the second event of solidarity with the Bolivarian revolution.


In these caribbean lands, Bolívar's flag has been raised, Bolívar being the leader of this revolution, yesterday, today and forever.


I believe there are many things we have to say here, in this Caracas, in April of 2004.


A true demonstration of courage, of consicience, of popular strength that the Venezuelan people gave, the people of Caracas, right here. This street, this very street, is a witness. These trees, these mountains, are witnesses of that unprecedented fact in the history of this continent. How a nation harassed, under a real terrorist media bombardment, who were denied all their rights, had to confront a tyranny of elite Venezuelan oligarchs ... a true example of conscience.


Ali Primera sang a song, "innocence does not kill a nation, but neither does it save it".


It is important to study the cause of the entire historical process, much more important for us, here in Venezuela and in the world, especially for those of us who are fighting to transform the world, on april 11, 2002 ... and also the causes of what happened on april 13.


Those two days have to be studied. We have to look at it. We cannot disconnect what has happened here. Those who believe themselves to be the owners and lords of the planet and we who cry out the slogan, let us be free, the rest is not important, what we want is to be free, we who want a world of just people.


What happened on april 11 has to be viewed in retrospect, because after the second world war, when the pretension of the fascist movement was beaten and the United States' imperialistic movement was imposed, every day we know it more clearly. Recently it was commented.


Some original documents, and I recommend always doing that, going to the original documents, because there are too many lies in the history books. The winners write the history books and they deceived us for a long time. I have always said, friends of the world, who are visiting us, recalling my tender youth, when we were cadets, it was never explained to me why we had to honor Christopher Columbus. To present arms to him and honor him. We were ordered to adore our invaders. Those who massacred our Indians, the owners and masters of our lands.


Today, the true history is emerging on this continent. We have nothing against Europe, but they have to recognize the historical truth. The people of Latin America, the Caribbean and Asia were colonized for so long.


To build the roads we should search for our roots, so that we can know who we are, where we come from and why we have to fight this battle. We who are alive must talk about it.


The North American Empire began to articulate the domination mechanisms, to impose an economic, political and amoral model. The pretension of dominating this continent is not new. During the 19th century, right here, in this Caracas, in Lima, Simón Bolívar put himself in front of the imperialist pretension. Monroe's slogan: America for the Americans. Bolivar had, like san martin, artigas o'higgins and many more, who would form a league of latin american nations, in order to balance the colossus of the north, so that they could negotiate on equal terms ... The union of the south and already, from Washington, they called Simón Bolívar the dangerous mad man of the south. They tried to kill him on several occasions ... And behind the killers was the hand of general Santander and behind him was the United States embassy in Colombia. Simón Bolívar said, for example, in 1825, when Spain recognized the freedom of Gran Colombia and of these countries of the south ... He actually said: "what kind of brothers are those from the north? They do not recognize our sovereignty."


Bolivar wrote this prophecy: "north america seems to be destined to infest the america with misery in the name of freedom". It has been fulfilled, sadly.


Thus, the intention of the North American elite to impose their will is not new. When I mention the elite, I mean exclusively the elite that governs the United States, that pretends to massacre the world. I want to clarify that.


We, as we love the Venezuelan people, the colombians, argentineans, mexican, salvadorians, nicaraguans, hondurans, cubans, in that same way we love the people of the united states, its men and women, children and hopes. And with them we share the hope, god willing, the conscience of the people of the continent, also flourish the people of abraham lincoln, the people of martin luther king, that assassinated fighter, people of how many? I always say this but I wish to clarify it. Our greetings to the people of north america are sent in this message, to the people manipulated by the tv networks, suffering the bombardments of the media elites, cnn, which only says what is convenient to the governing elites, or the main newspapers of usa, who lie.


They failed here because here the people are free. Who awoke and are right here, in their humility, but with a historical greatness. Their rebel blood, indian, black, caribbean. Writing a new page in history. Another battle of their long struggle for equality.


Freedom without equality is false. It is null. They pretend to sell us the idea of liberty. But, what is it? The liberty of the powerful who oppress the weak? That is not liberty. Between the strong and the weak, freedom oppresses. The uniting of the people ... Of the groups who struggle ... For that real freedom. Only together can we be free.


What happened here is part of the global scenery. They pretended to impose it to the world especially after the second world war.


It started briefly after the third world war or the cold war ... And we know how that contest between the northamerican superpower and the ussr ended. The dream could not be accomplished in the ussr ... And that degenerated into what "che" used to say. The soviet union was not going to copy the methods of imperialism. The soviet union fell and the madness was unleashed. Capitalism entered its expansive, accelerated and rational phase ..clearly, The capitalist elites do not know how to count, in spite of its equipment, technicians and its advanced technology. Something fails in the elites numbers. They decided to conquer the world. They used the thesis of the end of history, of the last man, the global village ... And the ones who have suffered most from that mad globalizing race are us, the underdeveloped countries.


One of the examples that is worth mentioning is our brother people from argentina ... To the argentinans, like to most of our countries in this continent. For different reasons, they applied over there an extreme dose of neoliberalism. That was a common factor. Here came the neoliberal fever. The privatizing wave. The thesis that the state should be reduced to the minimum expression ... That the military forces should disappear, because only the civilian police should patrol the streets. The thesis of the international monetary fund.


Only here, in Venezuela, it very soon started giving signs and responses and that is how there was a popular anti-neoliberal uprising on february 27, 1989. The people went to the streets and left the streets full of blood, in opposing the neoliberal project, the imf ... And later we know what happened ... I reached palace because of the will of these conscientious people, a government with a project. It is now more than five years.


At the end of the century, the Venezuelan people brought out from the depth of its soul, from its history, the conscience to bring a government that represents them, as it has, with dignity. Five years and 69 days to be exact.


The reason most powerful of those events that occurred here on april 11, 2002. That pretended on some occasion, said cynically by churchill, referring to the experience that was going on in the soviet union, the socialist revolution that was advancing. A phrase from king herod. We have to strangle the baby before it grows, referring to the ussr. That herodian, fascist phrase is traveling around Venezuelan lands now.


The elites, not only those who govern the usa, but the Venezuelans from the savage and gross oligarchy that dominate this land since a long time ago and who intended to continue governing it, they will never again come back.


Not only the Venezuelan elite has circulated that phrase, but also the elites of other american countries for whom the success of this project is not convenient ... And that is the reason why they celebrated with champagne and good whiskey on that april 12th.


But, as a good Venezuelan diplomat said, over there in bogotá, ... When the orchestra was arriving, a helicopter was landing here ... The orchestra did not have time to play. They could not take the second drink. Just as the Venezuelan oligarchy who came to fill the palace ... They left by the back door, to the dungyard of history. The Venezuelan people put them out of the palace.


In order not to lose the thread of the reflection that I tried to bring to you today, to the Venezuelan people… keep in mind what I was saying that what happens here is part of the global battle. I have said it several times.


The Venezuelan oligarchy and the elites of other countries, seeing the Bolivarian triumph in year 1998 and the arrival to the government in 1999, at the beginning applied the principle of 'if you can't fight them, join them'. As one of the oligarchy's spokesmen called me a bug, that I had to be dominated, they had to go after him to dominate him, and they came here to try to dominate the bug, but as I have said, the bug was more bug than they expected.


An operational siege was activated around me, especially during year 1999 and 2000. A real siege. But this heart that beats never stopped feeling the beats of the heart of the people. I did not come to betray the Venezuelan people. The Venezuelan people have been betrayed many times. I did not come to betray the people of simon Bolívar. From that chain of traitors. I did not come to negotiate principles - to surrender into the arms of the oligarchy. I came to be of help to the Venezuelan people, in their hopeful dreams of freedom. I will never forget those nights of april 11 and 12. At around this same time, around 8.05 P.m.


(Side commentary - off track salutations to noted visitors, etc.) Here is jose vicente rangel. A special greeting on this day. Of memories. General acosta carles. Bernal is around there, juan barreto, simón pestana, next mayor of baruta, secretary ana elisa osorio and with her the Bolivarian women. A kiss to you. There are the governors, jesus montilla, antonio rodríguez, to all of you my greetings, mayors, secretaries, congressmen. Tarek william saab, the next governor of anzoategui. Hero of this occasion. The Venezuelan people are the real heroes. Long live the Venezuelan people. Heroic, conscientious and united strength and exemplary ... And if the despotism raises its voice follow the example that Caracas gave (part of the national anthem).


Every day we have realized what is going on in the world scenario. The global battle ... Fighters from the rural paths … of the latin american brethren. We have so many that I cannot name them all because the meeting will be too long. You know, because you come here regularly. Feel at home. We love you;. We love you and want to share your battles that are the same as ours.


Now I want you to know that every day, these Venezuelan people have come after year 2002, after april 11, and all that happened that year. We are conscious, but have not lost our humility, and we do not feel indispensable. The history can only be made with the people united. We do not believe in predestined men, in solitary stars. Here we believe in the multitude, in the strength of the people. These Venezuelan people, everyday have realized and we, who have leadership roles, direction, have increased our conscience of the modest, small but very important role of the Bolivarian revolution.


These days, since we have a bigger conscience we have made the decision to take care of this process and what we do, the direction of the project, the strength, the originality of the project and especially the viability and success of the Bolivarian project. We know it can play an important role in awakening of the masses and the people, of the movements that are constructing and struggling in the four cardinal points.


Here we are and we need to be here always, fellowmen, very clear about the world's surroundings. The fascist coup of april 11th in Venezuela was not designed here in Venezuela but in washington. It has the white house's signature and the signature of the dominant elites in the usa.


I must repeat so that the world knows about it.


On april 12th, war ships landed at maiquetía. They violated the sovereignty of the caribbean and they were in paraguana. Planes flew within the Venezuelan airspace. From here, I raise my voice again ... And it is the voice of millions of men and women ... Saying that we will not permit any interference from the us government in Venezuela..


I have recently challenged the usa. I repeat it again. I make a bet with bush to see who lasts longer in government, he in the white house or me here. Now watch this, the threat.


Over there in Washington, they say that fidel castro and myself are a menace to the continent ... The destabilizers of the continent ... The bad boys.


The bad boys are they. They are the great destabilizers. If not, look what is happening in mesopotamia, in those lands where the code of hamurabi (021600) was born. There is a culture. I have had the joy of knowing the culture of the arab and persian countries. I have visited them. I studied its history, customs. I knew leaders, directors. It is a profound culture. More ancient than the anglo-saxon one. They are people who have fought during centuries and centuries. Look at what is happening now. Violence starts that no one knows when or where it will end.


And whose fault is it? Is it sadam hussein's fault? Is it the islamic fundamentalist's fault?


All the fault has a name george w. Bush!!! He is the culprit. So many children dead just two days ago. One day ago a missile fell and blood was shed in bagdad streets ... Faluya and many other towns. From here we send our hearts to the iraqui brethren ... And to the arabs in the middle east who are fighting against imperialism.


Recently, a writer called hans british gave me some books - and I look for time, especially in the early morning, to read. He discusses in one of his books the issue of the fourth world war ... And it is not his thesis ... But of a group of world thinkers. Wars, invasions, deaths, economic war, silence. You don't listen to bombs or machine guns. They are the silent bombs of hunger that kill thousands of children daily. The condemning neoliberalism.


Here there was a third world war. September 11 2001.


With those attacks. With the excuse, using the deaths and sorrow, the families and the terror. The government of the united states declared war practically on the world, and threatened those people and governments who did not align with their interest. He said that those who were not with the usa were against the usa.


We are not kneeling and we are against them. We are projustice. What happened here could be classified in this same framework. From that new stage, the so-called war against terrorism was launched into the world. Once the elite took, as an excuse, the fight against terrorism, in order to defeat nations as they did in guatemala, nicaragua, república dominicana, haiti and so many other brother nations.


They overthrew our comrade allende. They launched terror in chile, to overthrow that dignified president who preferred to die than lower his head.


Within that same framework is april 11 in Venezuela ... Part of this phenomenon called the fourth world war ... Afghanistan, iraq, cuba, and haiti.


See what happened there in haiti, it is there to see, as christ said, hypocrit pharisees. The elites are full of hypocrisy. It was nothing more than the kidnapping of a president.


One can ask, therefore, from here, where should we show our faces and we ask ourselves, how can we respond to the catholic religious elite, to the human rights commissions, to the oas, to the interamerican press society (who are permanently declaring that my government is a dictatorship, that there is no free press).


When you see aristide's kidnapping, you ask yourself, where is the oas, where is the un? ... They are saying nothing. Where are those international organisms? Those who say they defend democracy?


No less than north american troops invaded haiti and kidnapped president jean bertrand aristide. And, now. They are implementing a government and they recognize a transitional government.


We have stated we neither recognize nor will we recognize a government in haiti which is produced by a coup d'etat. We are very sorry. We call for international solidarity with haiti. Bolivar was helped a lot from over there. First to miranda, when he returned bringing the flag. It was haiti, the free black republic ... And then to Bolívar.


But let's get back to the global framework. To the empire, it is not convenient that this Bolivarian project, an alternative to the neoliberal model, be successful ... And it is being successful, against all odds. It continues advancing. It will continue advancing. Especially supported by the strength of the people and by the cooperation of many friends in the world.


Well, now, the second part of this reflection, seeing it globally, has to do with the causes, not of april 11th, the global war, the Venezuelan oligarchy, and the owners of private mass media, the ecclesiastic elite, and the corrupt union elite. The elites of those parties that governed for half a century ... All these elite groups: political, religious, social... The media elite, joined together, following orders from the white house.


But this is not a recent fact, in our countries, groups within the military sector forget their compromise with their countries and flags, and they knelt before the special interests.


Part of the high command of the armed forces, more than 60 generals and admirals and other groups, added themselves to the coup. They sent out all the force they were capable of concentrating. A social mass, that they managed to concentrate, poisoned by media terrorism, were sent against the palace.


The media bombardment, how funny, however, did not last even for 48 hours. All that strength concentrated at one moment, with all the advantages that power can give them, with the support of usa and other governments of this continent and europe. From a whole bunch of elites, an uninformed population because they had no way of knowing what was happening, but I will never forget, I said it a while ago, I am going to repeat what I once said.


I ask for forgiveness, my fellow citizens. I ask for forgiveness, because on that night of april 12th, after they took me prisoner and took me to bahía de turiamo, where they wanted to execute me before a firing squad, I was really exhausted ... And I committed a grave sin. I did what peter did when he denied christ. I, for an instant, denied that I had lived. I started to think that it had not been worthwhile to live. Nevertheless, from the bottom of my soul, a strength came out that told me "over there you have a people, hugo… a conscientious people! I must tell you that when I rose from that terrible doubt, I was planning to return. Thinking from a prison cell, I calculated about 6 months or one year to return. I never thought that, a few hours later, I would be back in this palace, in this street. How did that happen? ... And this is important… how could a people, without mass media, without clear and certain information, whose most important leaders were in prison, being persecuted? How could it be, that in less than 48 hours, we left this place around 3 a.m On april 12th, , the sun rose on april 13th , and we came back to this same place, almost exactly 47 hours later, we returned. What happened here?


We have to evaluate this especially because, comrades of the world, out there, in any place, where there is a popular transforming force, they will immediately start to feel the impact of the oligarchical forces of their own countries, and of the world.


How is it, that in Venezuela, the national elites and the imperialist forces could not overthrow a government? And they struck a strong blow at a vital point?


I will go through it, in order to contribute to the analysis that could be useful for those who are fighting against those elites in a country. Whatever its name, from any continent.


Here, in latin america, the awakening of the people. We have a group of governments that each day, has been assuming positions in defense of the interest of its people. Now, those governments, as I have said in a private meeting with some latin-american presidents, I told them "we, those who are governing our people, have a great dilemma in front of us, we either reinforce our engagement with our people or we slacken and we betray their hope." Here, we will not give up one millimeter. We will not betray the hopes of the Venezuelan people.


Now, this is important. Take a look to what happened on april 12th. I remember a first sign that the wind brought. I was a prisoner at fuerte tiuna ... Inside a room ... And there was a young officer watching the door. That young man had his doubts. He did not know what was going on. Suddenly I heard a rumor, not very far away ... Outside the walls, from the woods ... And I asked the young man, "do you hear that?" "What can that be?", I ask him. He looks through the window and tells me, no, those are soldiers jogging ... Doing physical training. On april 12th , in the afternoon, I told him, "no; I have years listening to soldiers jogging. Look son, those are not soldiers jogging. Those are people concentrating at the gates of fuerte tiuna. Who called them? The people themselves! Because they went there, or over there in maracay, the people went to the parachute brigade, why did they come to the palace, knowing that there were soldiers here? What triggered the people, no doubt many things! Second part


those conscientious people, the ones with their national leaders in the barrios, and a group of leaders, like iris varela and many others, went to fuerte tiuna and surrounded the military buildings.


There is an important element to be analyzed ... And I recommend the documentary (video) "the revolution will not be televised". On april 12th, Venezuela awoke with an electrified climate, while the oligarchy was possessed by the demon. Even the archbishops have the demon within. To god that which belongs to god and to ceasar that which belongs to ceasar. If christ was alive, here in person, I am sure he will cross the faces of some of them with a whip, and being each day more compromised with being a christian, christ did not believe in the elites.


Now, while the oligarchies were celebrating, as if possessed by the demon. [Chavez is distracted by the appearance in the crowd of general carneiro].


In history someone called a person "the brief". I am looking at a comrade of many years, general-in-chief jorge garcía carneiro, and for the Bolivarian soldiers of Venezuela, ... An applause for him. In Venezuela, for each military traitor that leaves us, we have one thousand patriots.


Here is something else to be analyzed in the Venezuelan case. We could imagine several scenarios. Those people who came here could have been massacred by the soldiers, ... But the people went without fear, confident ... And the soldiers filled with their Bolivarian essence ... And they hugged. And for life's reasons, I am a soldier and a citizen. I will never forget how proud I feel to be a soldier.


Now, one could also speculate that the people could have stayed in their houses, that the people could have been confused. The mass media, the media dictatorship ... They were informing all the people that I had resigned, and they repeated it a thousand times "chavez resigned". It would not be the first one who resigned in latin america ... And the people had believed that huge lie ... And also that we massacred the peaceful demonstration.


Nevertheless, a few hours later, in the barrios, and in the fields, there was silence ... And like 10 million tigers, or better yet, like indians, the Venezuelan people did like the good soldier who listened, or like the peasant who listens to the wind in order to see if it is going to rain. The people took a long time to react, but they left no place for any doubt, long before that patriot soldier left the prison where they had me, long before, without anyone speaking, the people knew hugo chávez had not resigned.


The people knew that "pedro the brief" had no legitimacy, despite what was being told on tv. All those thesis and theories of the fifth hell to confuse the Venezuelan people ... And the people knew the truth immediately ... And fought for their dignity.


It is also to be considered ... The role that the Venezuelan soldiers played. More than 60 generals and admirals called the armed forces saying that I was a killer.


My greetings to baduell. They threatened the officers, many young men from the armed forces ... They offered millions to baduell, and a position overseas.


They did the same with garcía carneiro. Together with the people and a group of leaders, they retook the palace of miraflores, at this very hour.


At this hour, the Venezuelan paratroopers went to la orchila island to rescue me.


Today, two years after that historical day, a day that even acquires epic features, that popular military rebellion against the media and the oligarchy rescued me.


What happened here is a main part of the project that is in action ... And, everyday, we fight more and more for unity and conscience. We must strengthen the unity and the conscience ... And these days are extremely important ... Now, when the battle is still open, when the oligarchy is still trying.


No, they will not be successful. They will not take over the power, not by the good way nor by the bad one. They will be defeated. The mathematics of the oligarchy is not good. Anything can happen with their mathematics, despite the signatures and the fraud intent, and the pressures.


That is why they do not want to validate their signatures. They failed in the test. They were recalled in order to validate, and now they want to put the college on fire. They cannot approve. They are conscious that they were not able to collect not even 20% of the signatures with the support of the mass media and the usa.


Eva brought a document that demonstrates how the american government supports the coupsters and we are going to publish it ... So that the public gets acquainted with the names and surnames of politicians who charge in us dollars. Mr. Bush has persons employed in this country. He is losing money. So many Bolivarian schools to be built, and so many people that could be taken care of with that amount of money.


We, with Venezuelan money, while mr. Bush uses millions of dollars. We have the proof even to whom they are giving it. While he pays, we are giving money to help u.s. Citizens with citgo. We employ thousands and thousands of workers in the u.s., .and That company supports at least one hospital in the usa, because citgo pays those expenses ... And bush feels proud. And, now, I want to tell the whole world that Venezuelan money helps to diminish the pain of the poor in the usa.


In bush's government there are millions of unemployed. The corruption has quintuplicated. On april 11th , the dictatorship was installed in Venezuela ... And, on april 13th , the soldiers wrote a memorable page in history.


Today, two years after that page was written in our history, I am saying many things, as I have mostly always said during this national broadcast, and it could sound like bad taste and simplistic, but it comes from the deepest part of my soul ... "Each day there is a crowd of people. For you men and women of the country". Thank you.


And I came to welcome this army of men and women, to ask for them the applause and recognition of this Venezuelan crowd.


And the battle has not ended.


It will be long; but, we have no option. And, now, when the rains are starting, I came to tell you that we are going for the governors' and the mayors' elections ... And I came to remind you that we, in this battle, cannot opt between life and death. We are obliged to succeed ... And long live Venezuela.


We will double the march, we will increase our stride, and our unity ... And we will continue the big march towards definite victory ... And "gloria al bravo pueblo": (a piece of the national anthem) "glory to the brave people"



April 21, 2004

Guest post: A Few Questions Greg Left Out

by jimmy humboldt


man, you're better at stats than i am, i certainly would never have looked up the confidence rating. that was a pretty good response, though to be honest i don't think the fact that the chavistas signed off on the megafraude is such an irrelevant detail -- i mean after all, why didn't they say something about the planillas planas until after they found out that including them would mean a recall vote?


the other thing i've always wanted to ask rodriguez is why did the chavistas fill out planillas planas as well? i've had friends of mine on the chavez camp tell me that they too had someone at the table fill out their name and info for them, and just signed and stamped their thumbprint -- this was upon the explicit instruction of the people running the chavista mesas to recall opposition deputies. does that mean that the government was trying to promote a megafraude as well? why can we assume the opposition used planillas planas for the purposes of faking signatures and not assume the same of the revolutionaries?


the cne line has always been that the rules for signing the petitions were "clearer than a rooster's crow" as the awkwardly translated popular expression holds it. but it seems that just about everyone was confused about this, including 1) opposition sympathizers who signed to remove chavez 2) government sympathizers who signed to recall opposition deputies 3) volunteers running mesas for both the chavistas and the opposition 4) observers from both the chavista and opposition camps. Could it be that maybe the rules were not that clear after all? Or more likely, that they were interpreted post facto in such a way that doesn't make any sense given their context?


there's another thing i've always wanted to point out to rodriguez -- there were three separate signature collection processes, two of which evidently failed. the opposition drive to chavista recall deputies, more of a vengeance manuever than a practical effort to change the balance of the legislature, was sponsored by accion democratica, and appears to have been able to convoke only a few referenda. the government campaign was similarly luckless, with a total of maybe three deputies that they could recall. as it happens, the only campaign that did in fact successfully collect the sigantures needed (even though some of the sheets had similar handwriting, as with ALL of the other processes) was the presidential one. And this recall process was the only one that had the organizational help of Sumate, a group that the chavistas have taken great pains to point out has received funding from theUS. Does this mean that the recall process is so onerous that the only ones who can successfully pull it off are those bankrolled by the National Endowment for Democracy? Does it take a grant from an imperial power to get through all the measures that ensure "transparency" in requesting a recall? Is this the participative democracy that led Chavez to rewrite a constitution and call three referenda in less than three years?


i'm not sure anyone has ever turned the chavista's US funding argument on its head, but it's an interesting angle to think about. The government is still pursuing a criminal investigation of sumate for allegedly usurping cne powers, and it has an active smear campaign against it. but why, if this organization has done more than any in the last two years to promote citizen participation, is it being taken apart by a government that proudly promotes participative (NOT representative) democracy?

It's the sampling, stupid!

...or...Why we can be absolutely sure Jorge Rodriguez has something to hide...


...or, perhaps just...


Dear Greg,


I thought you did a good job in your interview with JR, and I wish other Venezuelan journos would adopt that interviewing style: ask hard questions, but ask them respectfully. Like I said, I wish you'd asked him about the chavista-witness signatures on the actas, largely out of my own curiosity. I've never heard a convincing explanation of how you could have a megafraude and chavista witnesses willingly signing thousands of actas at the same time - but that's a relatively minor thing, and not really central to our judgments of JR. Actually, the questions you asked - and the responses he gave - are enough to leave me 100% sure the guy is hiding something. It's all about the sampling.


According to last night's finally final (no, this time we mean it, really) figures, there are 1,910,965 million valid signatures and 1,192,914 we might call "in-doubt." The opposition needs 2,436,083 million to call a referendum, meaning that 525,118 of the 1,192,914 in-doubt signatures would need to be repaired. That's 44% of the in-doubts. What, Greg, do you think is the most accurate method for determining whether more or fewer than 44% of the in-doubt signatures are, in fact, valid? (Here I'm asking Greg the sociologist, not Greg the pundit.)


Now, JR says with great scorn that the opposition, in the context of the reparo negotia...pardon, conversations, suggested testing a random sample of 170 signatures. "Out of a universe of 3 million!"


According to this handy Margin-of-Error calculator from the American Research Group (a well respected US polling firm), a sample-size of 170 for a population size of 1.19 million gives a margin of error (at the usual 95% confidence interval) of 7.52%. Is that a lot or a little?


It depends. If 70% of the sample had been found to have signed properly, a 7.52% margin of error is perfectly okay - because the opposition only needs to show 44% of the signatures are valid. Similarly, if only 30% of the sample had been found to have signed properly, then a 7.5% margin of error would still be fine. It's only if the sample-mean had been found to be between 36% and 52% that you have some real indeterminacy. Even then, the exercise would have been worth it, because it would've given you a far better sense of the scale of the problem than we now have.


But JR doesn't like that small sample size. OK, no problem, follow Carter Center and use a sample size of 1200. The ARG Margin-of-Error calculator says at that point you'll have a 2.8% margin of error at the 95% confidence level. So, if you did it this way, you would only have a problem if the sample mean is between 41 and 47%. A risk, sure, but one with the upside of yielding results that are a-scientifically valid, b-very difficult for either side to dismiss as partisan, c-quick, d-cheap, e-consensual, f-legal and g-fair.


Now, I'm honestly looking for your help here. I've been trying, hard, for months, to try to reconcile JR's refusal to go for a sampling methodology with the multiple personal references I have vouching for his fool-proof integrity. Try as I might, I can't do it.


I can't think of any coherent argument to suggest that a positive reparos process, where you try to drag out all 1.19 million of the questioned signers to sign again, would yield a more accurate picture of how many people really signed than a scientific sample of questioned signatures. It's quite obvious that there's far greater potential for error in the reparos process, compounded by the fact that a positive reparos process can ONLY undercount the signers, and made even worse by the near-certainty of government pressure to dissuade people from repairing (cf. Roger Capella's infamous "terrorists and conspirators" statement.)


Moreover, a reparos process has no built in mechanism to estimate its own propensity-to-error - there is no handy, internet based margin of error calculator for a reparos process. So say you did hold one, and say only 400,000 people go to repair their signatures. You have no way of knowing if those 400,000 are all the people who signed validly back in November, or if they're 75% of the people who signed validly back in November, or half, or whatever.


You're a sociologist, Greg, a slightly meta-post-type sociologist, but a sociologist nevertheless. Cast your mind back to your research methodology courses. Imagine your teacher faced with this problem. Imagine yourself trying to persuade him/her that a reparos process would be more accurate than a sample of the questioned signatures. Could you? Would any statistician buy JR's argument that a reparos process clears up the "margin of doubt" more effectively than sampling?


No matter how many ways I think through this one, I keep coming back to the same conclusion, a conclusion that is deeply painful to me because people I'm very close to have assured me again and again of JR's bona fides, and to lose faith in JR means losing faith in them as well. But there's really no way I can avoid the conclusion that the only imaginable circumstance where you would reject using scientific sampling is if you have something to hide.


So Greg, please, please explain to me where this chain of reasoning is going wrong. For once, I want it to be wrong. It would be far easier for me to believe I'm wrong here, far more comfortable emotionally, but I can't for the life of me see it.


Especially when I start running into stories like this:


---


Miami Herald:

No Chávez recall vote coming, official said


BY RICHARD BRAND

rbrand@herald.com


CARACAS - An executive of an Omaha firm that sold voting machines to Venezuela says a top electoral official asked him during a meeting last year whether his company worked for the CIA and predicted there would be no recall referendum against leftist President Hugo Chávez.


''There was a certain amount of paranoia,'' recalled John Groh, president of the international division of Election Systems and Software (ES&S), of the October meeting in a Manhattan hotel room.


The meeting was with Jorge Rodríguez, considered the most pro-Chávez and influential member of the Venezuelan National Electoral Council's five-person board of directors.


''I took an hour explaining to him that we were not part of the CIA, that I didn't have a military background,'' Groh told The Herald.


'We said that we understand you have an election coming up where there will be a presidential referendum, and . . . Rodríguez said, `That election will never take place,' '' Groh said.


The electoral council, with three pro-Chávez directors and two who favor the opposition, has temporarily dismissed one million of the 3 million signatures the opposition collected demanding a recall vote on Chávez.


At the time of the meeting, ES&S was seeking a $20 million contract to dust off the 7,500 ES&S Model 100 optical scanners, which read paper ballots, that the firm sold to Venezuela for the 1998 elections.


Instead, the electoral council awarded most of a $91 million contract in February to Boca Raton-based Smartmatic Corp., a tiny company whose touch-screen voting machine has never been used in an election anywhere.


''Smartmatic came out of the blue,'' Groh said in a telephone interview from Omaha. ``It's a very small, very new, storefront business that should never be considered for a project of this size.''