Fear and loathing in La Campiña

Quico says: Four years ago, I was working for VenEconomy out of their Sabana Grande offices. Lucky me, I was living in La Campiña, so I had the rare privilege of being able to walk to work every day. Granted, I did get mugged three times in a year and a half, but at least I didn't have to deal with the traffic.

My “commute” took me right by PDVSA headquarters on Avenida Libertador, twice a day. But this was late 2002 - and, as you'll remember, during the oil strike a group of chavistas decided to camp out more or less permanently in front of PDVSA - a sort of “rojo, rojito” counterpoint to the generals of Plaza Altamira. So twice a day, every day of the week, I had to walk straight through this little throng of militant chavistas just so I could get to the office where I'd spend the rest of my day criticizing them.

Looking very much like the antichavista sifrino I am, this experience was more than a little disconcerting. Pretty soon, I realized I would need some camouflage. Rummaging through the wares the street-vendors at the camp were peddling, I found this bandanna:


Looking at it sideways, I realized I kind of liked it. It dawned on me that this was the only chavista slogan I actually agree with. After all, by December, 2002 - with Globovision playing "Y deciiiiiimos siiiiiii a la esperanzaaaaaa!" on a continuous loop all day long - I was sure the opposition had gone off the deep end. This was a chavista slogan I could make my own!

So for months on end I wore this silly thing on my head on my way to work. There was something appealingly ironic about having to wear it for my own protection. I felt like I was playing a secret joke on the government, like their attempt to impose a new identity on me was as crazy as the ribbon claimed Chavez was making me. I could laugh about it because I was certain that, though they might be able to dictate what I put over my head, they will never control what’s in it.

An identity under siege
“Chavez makes them crazy.” When you think about it, it's a really odd slogan. Where else do you find a leader who boasts about undermining the mental health of his opponents? Why is this something to brag about? What does it say about Chavista values that managing to get under our skin is actually a cherished revolutionary achievement? And what is it about Chavez, in the final analysis, that's driving us crazy?

I think Katy came close to answering this the other day when she noted that:

Chávez knows we fear him. That's why his speech is so hateful, so full of incitement. He works to ignite our fear and makes us appear... well, fearful, or to use another word, squalid. It's a show put on for the benefit of poor voters who get a kick out of watching us tremble. It's like their own little French Revolution is playing inside their head; Chávez's tongue playing the part of guillotine.

Part of what's driving us crazy is the realization that Chavez actually gains politically when he baits us - that the more he puts us down, the more his supporters get off on it. Strident divisiveness is not part of Chavez's political strategy - it is his strategy.

There's an element of symbolic warfare at play here. Driving us crazy is important for chavismo because it's part of a strategy to "resignify" the country.

This is a word I’m borrowing from pollster Oscar Schemel, who said:

The current political struggle is chiefly over interpretations and meanings. While the elites and the middle class fight to impose their own notions about democracy and citizenship, the poor majority, chavista and non-chavista, is refuting and resignifying those same ideas. A new culture is emerging, and it's resignifying and deactivating our received ideas about politics, amidst a social and symbolic struggle to redefine democracy, development and social relations.

Regardless of what we may or may not think will happen in December, beyond the polls and predictions and allegations, there are two things I have learned this week. The first is something we can all agree on, that Rosales still has a shot, because the only poll that counts is the one in December 3rd. The second is more controversial, and it’s that most of us would find it incredibly difficult to deal with the possibility that there may be more of “them” than there are of “us.”

The reasons for this go back to Chávez himself. Because Chavez's attempt at re-signification is, in the end, an attempt to redefine our identity, to change who we are.

The attempt isn't subtle. From changing the national coat of arms to adding extra stars to the flag to splashing a partisan tag across our damn passports and cédulas, the revolution has not been bashful in its attempt is to enshrine its ideology, its phraseology and its iconography permanently into the symbolic fabric of our national identity. The goal is to establish chavismo as the ideology of the State and not merely of the government - partly, of course, by erasing the distinction between the two.

Chavismo's symbolic agenda is fundamentally exclusionary - it is about excluding us, subduing us, about banishing our values, our thoughts and our understanding of what democracy is and how it should work. Its goal is to impose a new symbolic order where the way we think is "un-Venezuelan." What's serious, what drives us crazy, is that Chavismo has launched a bold and ruthless drive to redefine "our" national identity in terms that expressly exclude “us” from it.

Is it any wonder the guy is driving us crazy? Is it any mystery why his supporters are proud of that?

Become the majority right now!
My fellow bloggers and I have been getting some very strong, deeply emotional reactions in the last few weeks from committed readers, people we respect and value and spend lots of our time writing for. What is curious is that what sparked this controversy is something that wouldn’t be that controversial in a working democracy: our honest opinion, based on research that may or may not be right, that more people may be planning to vote for one candidate than for another.

What's clear is that, for many in the opposition, the proposition that we might be in the minority is an impossibility; a banned thought, something unsayable, unthinkable - certainly unbloggable.

Why are we so touchy about this? I think Katy's right: deep down, we are dead scared of losing the battle over the meaning of Venezuelan-ness. Our understanding of democracy, which we had always taken as the unchanging center of our national identity may be about to die...and we've convinced ourselves that it will die, if it turns out that we are in the minority at the end.

Suddenly under siege, feeling itself dependent on majority support for its viability, our identity has turned defensive. Paraphrasing, J.M. Briceño Guerrero, our certainty of being a majority has turned oddly defensive...

it's as though we were speaking rather in the imperative: "be the majority" - layered over an unspoken "it would be unbearable not to be so", all of which rides on the strongly repressed sense that "horror, we aren't!", which only bolsters the imperative: "become the majority right now!" which again turns into the indicative, now supersticious and magical: "we are the majority."

We have fallen into a trap, believing that if there are more of them than there are of us, Chavez's attempt to resignify Venezuelan-ness has succeeded. It’s as though contemplating the possibility that more people want to vote for Chavez than for Rosales is contemplating, symbolically speaking, our own ethnic cleansing - the anhiliation of our identity.

But we’re wrong about this. Who we are, what we are, our right to be dissenters and fully Venezuelan at the same time can be sustained even if we are in the minority. A new, exclusionary definition of Venezuelan-ness cannot be sustained over the active resistance of just under half the country; it’s just that we act as if it could. Only the belief that this election is a matter of survival leads us to say things like “everything is in play this December.”

Well, everything is not in play. Don’t get me wrong, this is an important election, one that we really, really need to win. But if we don’t, we will continue our struggle. Unless, that is, we lose the battle inside ourselves; we start wearing our bandannas on the insides of our heads.

In the end, I got so attached to this little trinket, to this souvenir of my struggle to survive amid the symbolic onslaught, that I brought it with me when I came to Europe. I like to glance at it when JVR starts baiting us for the cameras, when Chavez starts to rant. It reminds me that the more we lose our cool, the more we advance their agenda.

Because when the other side's goal is to make you crazy, the only way to fight back is to stay sane.

"No me ayude tanto, compañero."

Hate Caracas Chronicles lately? Guess what, so does everybody else! After a bloody barrage of abuse aimed at my recent editorial line - the disgruntled readers' version of shock and awe - I thought I'd ask one of my most loyal, crankiest readers to post a kind of Why CC Sucks Greatest Hits.

Escualidus Arrechus says: Lately, what used to be a brilliantly insightful blog on Venezuelan politics, has degenerated into a premature funeral procession for Manuel Rosales, the Venezuelan opposition, or both, depending on the mood that takes our fearless leaders. Depending on your degree of participation in the comments section, you may or may not be aware of how pissy this has made everybody. My job, I guess, is to give you the highlights.

Mind you, this isn't an attack on internal criticism within the opposition, or even a call against making such criticisms in public. If the opposition fell into that m. o., we'd be no better than chavismo itself. But there's "self-criticism", and then there's the borderline suicidal ramblings Quico and Katy have been feeding us of late. I don't even entirely disagree with them, and I'm by no means a blinders-on Rosales booster. But the defeatist funk has been steadily increasing over the past few days, and something's gotta give.

As far as I can tell, there're four key talking points in the Caracas Chronicles “Suicide is Painless” prom theme for 2006:

1. “Rosales is fighting a losing battle. The polls say so, and Lord knows they're infallible”. Now, Rosales might very well lose on December 3rd. But the fervor with which Quico clings to the almighty polls is only comparable to, well, the fervor with which some in the opposition reject them. Neither one is particularly rational. Every time a poll is exposed as suspicious or downright rubbish, Quico points to his favorite, most trusted pollsters, whose results match those of the disgraced pollster du jour. Well, Quiquete, does that mean the pollster with the shoddy methodology and/or sampling was actually right, or does it perhaps mean that there's something rotten at the source? The best methodology in the world is useless without quality data, and that's become harder and harder to find in Venezuela lately.

The polls could very well be correct (personally, I think Rosales has a fighting chance, polls be damned), and Chavez could still enjoy the approval of half the population. But I'd rather not lick my wounds before the battle is waged. I want campaign strategy, not eulogies while I'm still alive.

2. “Rosales is doomed because he's surrounded himself with remnants of La Cuarta”. This is personal sour grapes masquerading as political analysis. Quico has a long-documented distaste for the old political class, dismissing it as a single entity, a strategy reminiscent of the one Chavez used to sell the electorate on his constituyente. And it's the trait of his that gets my goat the most. He's taken Chavez's half-assed politics and made them his own. It's almost as though he feels he's a true moderate by conceding the enemy's got a point. No, Quico, it just means you're easily manipulated by leftist guilt.

3. “The Venezuelan private media justifies Chavez's attacks when they shamelessly give extensive coverage to Rosales' rallies”. A lovely sentiment, and one I can agree with to a degree. The private media, and Globovision in particular, can be viciously anti-Chavez, and their open bias could negatively influence swing voters. But to leave it at that is to engage in shallow analysis that brings nothing to the table. In a country where the “public” TV network is a stronghold of government propaganda, where newspapers are hit through the denial of foreign currency for supplies purchases, where TV stations are routinely raided and “investigated”, the conditions for healthy journalism are shot. The Venezuelan media is fighting for its life under this administration, and any analysis that ignores that, is incomplete, and hopelessly naive.

4. “Chavez is authoritarian, sure, but totalitarian? Nah. Drop the hysteria”. Must be nice to live in a country where you can wax poetic about the differences between the terms. Chavez is certainly not a totalitarian hegemon, but not for lack of trying. It may sound like a cheap shot, but I honestly believe their distance from home has erased Quico and Katy's memories of life with a president that regularly calls you the enemy. Los tiros? Ya sabemos por donde van. Don't try to tell me Chavez is “all talk, he'd never go that far”. He has, and will again at the first chance.

I don't want Quico, Katy, or Whatshisface to stop writing. Hell, I don't want them to stop writing critically, at that. But I do want them to stop mourning the living. Prepare to storm the beach, kids, 'cause the fight hasn't even begun. If we lose, I want to lose after running our opponent bloody ragged. I want him to hit the mat right after us. If he beats us, let it be the worst Pyrrhic victory of all time. Throwing in the towel before the fight begins is not an option. Atrevete.

Maracaibo and Rosales hit the big time

Katy says: There are several reasons I just had to reprint this latest article from The Economist. One, it recognizes the enthusiasm of the Rosales campaign and acknowledges some of the governor's best traits, including his endearing wife. Two, it is realistic about his chances but nevertheless sees this campaign as an important step in regrouping the opposition. And three, it mentions Maracaibo in the title. How cool is that?

----------

Venezuela

The Man from Maracaibo
Nov 9th 2006 | CARACAS
From The Economist print edition

At last, the opposition to Hugo Chávez finds a star of its own

JUST a few months ago, Venezuela's opposition was divided, apathetic and nervous. With a presidential election due on December 3rd, Hugo Chávez, who is seeking a fresh six-year term, was flush with petro-dollars and riding high in the opinion polls. The dozens of small political parties and pressure groups that make up the opposition could not even agree on a method for selecting a candidate. Many thought the election was so heavily rigged in Mr Chávez's favour that the only sensible option was to boycott the whole process. A similar ploy in December last year had left the 167-member National Assembly without a single opposition member.

Step forward Manuel Rosales, the governor of the western state of Zulia, whose capital is Maracaibo, the country's second city. He has never lost an election since becoming a local councillor 27 years ago. As a provincial politician with his own power base, he was freer than most rivals to cut through the backroom deal-making, heavily influenced by media bosses, that has blighted opposition politics in recent years. He skilfully outmanoeuvred the abstentionists, securing the candidacy and the support of almost 40 political groups.

Since then he has criss-crossed the country, striding through poor neighbourhoods from the Colombian border to the Orinoco delta, hugging old ladies and kissing babies. On November 4th several hundred thousand supporters accompanied him on a 26km (16 mile) march across Caracas. That was reminiscent of the mass rallies against Mr Chávez between 2002 and 2004. The opposition's troops are in good heart. Even Mr Chávez, used to dictating the political agenda, has been forced partly on to the defensive.

So can the president be defeated? Probably not. Many of the polls are biased to one side or the other. But the best guess is that Mr Chávez retains the support of at least half the electorate, with Mr Rosales probably 20 points behind. Since the president, a former army officer who led a failed coup in 1992, was first elected in 1998 the voters have consistently split about 60:40 in his favour. With abundant oil revenue at his disposal and no budgetary restraints or institutional checks on his power, Mr Chávez is a tough opponent.

But Mr Rosales has landed some punches. Mr Chávez spent much of this year touring the world doling out gifts in a failed bid for a seat at the United Nations Security Council for Venezuela. Rather than the “anti-imperialist” struggle abroad, says Mr Rosales, what needs attention is rampant crime, a housing shortage and persistent unemployment at home. His campaign features a debit card which he says he would use to distribute 20% of oil earnings directly to the poorest members of society. “That's much less than what this government has given to other countries,” he claims.

The card could be a vote-winner. Polls show big majorities against the foreign handouts Mr Chávez uses to gain allies for his crusade against the United States. That, in the view of his opponents, was why Mr Chávez this week snubbed London's mayor, Ken Livingstone, cancelling his planned trip to Caracas at the last minute. The British leftist was to sign a deal that would swap cheap diesel for London buses for advice on crime, waste disposal and the like. Venezuela's foreign minister will now sign the deal in London.

Mr Rosales lacks Mr Chávez's skill as a communicator. But like the president, he comes from a humble background. Unlike him, he is happily married. Several of his ten children are adopted. His wife Eveling is an accomplished campaigner. The government derides him as a typical product of the discredited pre-Chávez era. But he broke with the dominant party of that era in the early 1990s. If he can create a strong enough organisation to hold the opposition together even in defeat, he will have achieved more than its last two presidential candidates. There will be opportunities ahead. With deepening social discontent and falling oil prices, Mr Chávez's “revolution” is likely to run into trouble.

An update on the Chavez reelection blog

Katy says: For those of you who are interested, I've posted some new pictures in that other blog. Thanks to my super-secret spies, boldly documenting government abuse all over Venezuela. Keep those pictures coming!

Things you learn from watching Globovisión at high altitude

Katy says: Last weekend, my family and I rented a cabin high in the Andes to get away from it all. What the picture from the brochure didn't show was that the cabin had a satellite dish, so one of the channels on offer was Globovisión.

So much for getting away from it all. I hadn't watched Globo in ages, so I decided to take in their coverage of Saturday's 26x26 walk-a-thon.

The enthusiastic, racially diverse crowd was impressive. Globo's broadcast was not.

For starters, the march got non-stop, wall-to-wall coverage all afternoon. All they did was show the crowds all the time, which is great if you're a Rosales supporter like me. But what's a NiNi to think? That Globovisión is spoon-feeding them their chosen candidate. What a turn-off.

From the studio, Alba Cecilia Mujica kept referring to Rosales, mantra-like, as "the national unity candidate, Manuel Rosales..." with a smile as wide as the Cheshire Cat's. Poor Alba Cecilia, you got the sense that covering this march is the most fun she's had in years. She really should get out more.

And while she's at it, she should try and be just a tiny bit more professional. I mean, when you use political catch-phrases like "the candidate of national unity," you play right into the hands of chavistas who allege outrageous media bias on the part of private TV stations. What is Globovisión up to? I thought. Is it that desperate for a whipping? Do they think they do us a favor by being so blatantly pro-Rosales?

I tried to picture a Fox News anchor talking about George Bush as "reformer with results George W. Bush", or "compassionate conservative President George W. Bush..." Not likely...even Fox News shows some restraint when whooping it up for their guy.

Hour after hour, it just kept getting worse.

"Ma'am, what's your name, what do you think of this march?" one reporter kept asking.

"My name is Beatríz, Beatríz Martínez, I walked from La Castellana, and I'm here because I'm happy, because we are finally going to get rid of this totalitarian, authoritarian regime!" Whoa. So much for fear. The only thing missing from her statement was her cédula number and the name of the woman who does her toe nails, but you can probably find that in the Maisanta list under Martínez, Beatríz, La Castellana.

"Sir, what's your name, what do you think of this march?"

A 65-year old man who had obviously walked a lot - God bless him, I can barely make it to the bathroom some days and I'm half his age - answered "My name is Luis Méndez, and I'm happy because this march is the biggest since April 11th!" Oh great, just what we need, more references to April 11th. Keep that up and NiNis will be lining up en masse on Dec. 3rd...to vote for Chávez!

"Ma'am, what's your name, what do you think of this march?"

"My name is Sofía Pérez, I'm marching from Chacaíto and I'm really happy because the march is very organized." Uh huh. Wait, how much "organization" does a march actually require? It's hundreds of thousands of people walking from one end of the city to the other. Cops just have to stop traffic, street vendors do the rest. Oh well, I guess just making it home alive is a sign that it was a good march. Lots of marchers agreed, "excellent, very well organized." Opposition unity indeed!

A dozen or so of these interviews left me pining for a commercial break. Eventually, it came.

An ad for Rosales, "Atrevete te te", with a woman taking money out of an ATM using Mi Negra. In fact, all the ads I happened to catch were about Mi Negra. Funny how Rosales decided to focus his campaign on the issue Chávez is least vulnerable on, social policy. Wait, what were Rosales's proposals on crime and jobs, the two issues that all voters care about the most and rate the government's performance worst? Easy to forget...

Then it was back to the march. A shot of a very, very sweaty Rosales with an even sweatier Carlos Ocaríz, making their way through a crowd somewhere in Petare. He tried to give a speech but Globovisión didn't have the sound and their camera was blocked by a string of plastic flags. Amateur hour at the OK Corral...

Oh well. Maybe they'll show some políticos. Here comes one... it's... it's... it's Antonio Ledezma! Ugh. The man is like a vapid drivel factory. I really can't recall the last time I heard him say anything smart, a fresh thought, a non-cliche. Does he even have a job? How does he support himself? Politicians...

Next up, the ineffable Liliana Hernández, or Ledezma with a wig. A VTV reporter had been asking her tough questions at the beginning of the march, and she was quite rude to him, telling him that "my taxes paid for your salary." Wait, Liliana, isn't that what we want, journalists who ask politicians tough questions? Why so prickly?

I mean, I hate VTV as much as the next gal, but do you have to be so rude, so intolerant, so... chavista? The guy was simply doing his job, the fact that VTV reporters don't do it when questioning chavistas is another issue. Why not take advantage of the opportunity to show that we are different, that we can handle the tough questions? I thought Rosales did that brilliantly the other day. But that's just beyond her. On second thought, Liliana is Iris Varela with a better hairdo.

More people from the march. The Chairman of the Teacher's Federation (who apparently didn't get the "fear" memo), an old man who kept harping on our poor reporter on the street, telling her that "Rosales was going to save Venezuela for beautiful women like yourself," a poor guajira woman originally from Municipio Mara who was now living in Caracas. And all through, Globo kept up the same tone of breathless, misplaced boosterism. It was kind of sad.

I had to turn it off. The march was impressive, the enthusiasm of the people contagious. But Globovisión is shameful. This march did not merit uninterrupted coverage, and it sure as hell did not merit uninterrupted conter-productive inanity. Instead of asking marchers smart questions, it was like watching somebody else's vacation video. "This is me in El Escorial... this is Juanita at the Eiffel Tower, remember Juanita? That was so funny when you..."

Hours and hours of coverage geared to one type of voter only: the convinced Rosalista who is afraid of losing hope.

Fear itself
Why this tone? I think the answer comes down to fear. The fear of fear makes us fall into artificial highs, and it makes us lash out at unsuspecting passers-by.

I've been thinking a lot about the reactions to Quico's recent posts, and about the ones I am sure to get to this one, and I've concluded that part of our problem is that we fear Chávez.

When we turn away from people who are saying something we don't want to hear, when we say that we need a kleenex handy to read a discouraging poll, when we build up our hope on the basis of something as hard to gauge as a march, when we accuse people of being chavistas if they express the possibility that the country may, perhaps, actually be about to vote for Chavez, we are simply acting out on fear.

Chávez knows we fear him. That's why his speech is so hateful, so full of incitement. He works to ignite our fear and makes us appear... well, fearful, or to use another word, squalid. It's a show put on for the benefit of poor voters who get a kick out of watching us tremble. It's like their own little French Revolution is playing inside their head; Chávez's tongue playing the part of guillotine.

For all his authoritarianism, his corruption and his incapacity, for all the hate that spews out of his jeta, I don't fear Chávez. If the country does indeed have a chavista majority, so be it. I don't need my values confirmed by a majority of Venezuelans. I know I'm right to oppose this thug, I know what he's doing is deeply wrong and dangerous, and 6, 8 or 10 million people will not change my mind.

Democracies are like that, sometimes a majority of people make mistakes for the best of reasons. For the best of reasons, a majority of gringos gave the presidency to a bumbling oligophrenic like George W. Bush, and for the best of reasons they just handed the House of Representatives to a dim-witted snob like Nancy Pelosi yesterday. Does that make them right? Probably not.

Me? I'm in this for the long-haul. I'll be working for Rosales from now until the election. But if Chávez wins another term, we'll have other chances, there will be other battles. We have to be careful and watch his every move, but we must remember that he has absolute power now, and if re-elected, he will continue having absolute power. Democracy will continue circling the drain, as Quico says.

I know I will live to see the end of this, and the end will probably not be pretty given how emotionally invested his supporters are in Chavez. I'm not scared of his stupid referendum proposing the end of term limits. Bring it on! It will be that much sweeter when, finally, be it in 2010, 2012 or 2021, we defeat chavismo by defeating the man himself.

Courageous Venezuelans

Katy says: (Note: What follows is a translation of an article Tal Cual published yesterday. Ana Julia Jatar is a brilliant Venezuelan economist, political analyst and fellow blogger. I came to know and admire her back when I was in college, and my career owes more to her than she will probably ever know. Let's hope this book makes waves. It was probably prompted by her own experiences in the unsavory ways of political discrimination, Chávez-style...)

------

Ana Julia Jatar undresses chavismo's apartheid

Through the rigorous compilation of documents, photographs, newspaper stories and testimonies, the analyst disentangled the history of the use of the Maisanta and Tascón lists as instruments of political discrimination.

by Carmen Victoria Méndez

------

If it weren't for political travails, Ana Julia Jatar would probably not exist. That's how former Foreign Minister Simón Alberto Consalvi began his presentation of the book "Apartheid in the 21st Century - Information technology at the service of political discrimination", by the Cuban-born analyst Ana Julia Jatar. Consalvi, who is also a historian and an essayist, was obviously referring to the active role Jatar has played in the current political debate through NGOs like Súmate, but also to a fact that is more pedestrian than ideological: the author was conceived in Havanna, during the political exile of her father Braulio Jattar Dotti, one of Acción Democrática's founders.

Several decades later, the same political segregation that made her birth possible moved her to write this book, a documentary investigation of the Venezuelan government's use of the Tascón and Maisanta lists to reward or punish citizens depending on their allegiance to President Hugo Chávez.

For over a year and a half, Jatar compiled documents and testimony that prove "how the Venezuelan State made possible one of the most cherished fantasies of dark characters such as Joseph McCarthy, Adolph Hitler or Benito Mussolini: to have a database with precise information about the political and electoral behavior of each citizen, including their home address, their occupation, their fingerprint and even a detailed register of their shopping habits."

She was assisted in her research by Sumate's Unit against Political Discrimination, and their conclusions were presented yesterday in an act that was more political than editorial. Jatar claims the lists have been used against govenrment workers in at least 45 State entities, but yesterday she chose to let some of the victims of discrimination take the stand and tell their stories.

One by one they appeared: María Verdeal, a former lawyer for the People's Ombudsman, fired for signing the petition for a recall referendum against President Chávez after 18 years of service to the State; Thaís Peña, Magali Chang and Rocío San Miguel, former counsel for the National Council for Borders; Ana María Diles, fired from the Ministry of Finance; Jorge Luis Suárez, fired from the National Electoral Council; Yadira Pérez, fired from FOGADE, the Venezuelan institution in charge of handling the banking system's reserve requirements; Trina Zavarce, a former oil worker and member of NGO "Gente del Petróleo"...

But the most dramatic moment came when a current government worker, his face hidden by a ski mask, stepped forward to talk about the pressures he suffers for "belonging to the counter-revolution."

Jatar stated that "his fear is perfectly explained, because discrimination and fear are now a systematic policy of the State. It begins with the lists, but it goes beyond that. He can't even say what entity he works for, because the lists were not buried - they were planted, fertilized and watered in the ministries and other State entities."

According to the author, the most difficult thing was getting people to talk, "because a lot of people are afraid. However, little by little they began opening up. I think this helped people, it gave them courage, they felt they were represented, accompanied and they recovered a little bit of their hope."

The book, which follows rigorous methodological guidelines, was designed by Shimmy Azuaje and was illustrated by Weil. It provides an historic compilation "that has to reach both common folks and international organisms, so that they run out of excuses for Chávez once and for all."

"And this December 3rd, people should transform their fear into a liberating force," she added.

No surprise at all...

Quico says: I guess the part I found most interesting about that Evans/McDonough poll was not so much the horse-race questions as the mood-of-the-electorate questions - the ones aimed at measuring the structural, socio-economic conditions against which the campaign takes place.

Start off with that old pollster-favorite: "is the country on the right track or the wrong track?" (here Venezuelanized into "is the country on the right path or going off a cliff?")

Upsetting though we may find it, more people think the country is on the right track now than 2 years ago, and more think the country is on the right track than going off a cliff:


The reason is not hard to figure out: incomes for Sectors D and E have been rising far faster than inflation since 2004, as even that hardcore antichavista (but intellectually honest) magazine VenEconomy acknowledges. So people are better off, and, more relevantly, they feel better off:


More relevantly still, most people expect to be even better off in the future...


...all of which translates into positive adjectives when people describe how they feel about the country's situation...


No surprises here: I'm sure if you'd asked these questions in 1974 or 1979, after the first and second oil booms, you would've gotten similar responses. And I'm sure if you asked them today in Sudan, or Russia, or Kazakhstan or any other petrostate, you'd hear a broadly similar story.

After all, there's nothing specifically Venezuelan about the situation we're in: oil gets sold, dollars come in, money flows through the economy, most people see some benefit, and so they're satisfied...maybe not ecstatic, imaginably not particularly enthusiastic, but at any rate satisfied.

Numbers like these certainly blunt the appeal of any pitch for a change in leadership. For sure we are very far away from the situation in 1998, when oil was selling for $10/barrel, incomes dropping, and a mass of very angry people ready to vote for the most radical departure from the status quo on offer. The kind of pocketbook-led, broad-based arrechera that fuels demand for new leaders is just not there.

None of this is Manuel Rosales's fault, and very little of it can be credited to Chavez. But those are the structural facts, the socio-economic backdrop the campaign is taking place against.

All the passion in the anti-Chavez campaign comes from people like us: middle class, educated, class A/B people worked up over ideological, abstract issues. Which is not to say those issues aren't real, and important, but to point out that we're 15% of the electorate and the stuff that keeps us up at night no sube cerro.

Just about any challenger in just about any petrostate would have a hard time making headway in this context. So it really shouldn't come as a surprise that a not-very-charismatic candidate running against a broadly well-liked leader should have trouble broadening his appeal beyond his base constituency.

I realize there's enormous resistance out there to this message. But striking out on our own and believing what we want to believe has done the anti-Chavez movement terrible damage in the past. It's better to face up early on...these realities don't stop being real just because we don't like them...

Para sacar un pañuelito...

Quico says: Well, a new Evans/McDonough poll is out. They talked to 2000 people at home, in 20 states, between Oct. 26th and Nov. 3rd. It's not pretty...



EMC gets top marks for transparency: in contrast with so many other pollsters, they're publishing their complete results from the start, with exact question-wording and everything. No cross-tabs, though.

26 X 26: Brilliant!

JayDee says: First off, sorry for the delay. I'll tell you, though: Saturday's march was impressive. I say this having been thoroughly underwhelmed by last month's "Avalanche", as well as the official presentation of the Rosales platform: "26 KM's for 26 million" was brilliant.

The march had a nice populist touch to it, with Rosales working his way through the streets of Caracas, shaking hands with anyone who walked up to him. There were moments when the crowd crashed in on him, with everyone vying to touch the man or shout a word of encouragement into his ear.

Still, from what I could see, Rosales never lost his cool, and looked genuinely comfortable.

It was a festive affair, and the people I talked to were happy, wearing wide smiles that suggested faith in the righteousness of their cause, and a belief that the country is on the verge of change for the better.

It stood in direct contrast to, say, last month's presentation at the EuroBuilding, which had musicians-on-the-deck-of-the-titanic feel to it.

Not Saturday, though.

What surprised me most was the relative passivity of the Chavez supporters who decorated the sidewalks near the City center. The mass of Policia Metropolitana placed at strategic locations seemed there for decoration. Sure, there were a few Chavistas who flashed the finger, screaming obscenities as we passed. But most of the folk in red stood by the side of the road, clutching pictures of their leader, smilling and dancing to the reggeaton blasting from truck-mounted speakers. I even saw a few opposition marchers stop for a friendly chat with a Chavista and hand out a bit of campaign literature.

The show was a startling reminder to those who would claim that Venezuela, at this moment, has become an Authoritarian or Totalitarian state.

What I liked best about the march was the implicit contradiction it drew between the challenger and the incumbent. Chavez has been leading a sheltered existence these days. Not that it seems to be making much of a difference, but the incumbent hasn't been waging a very impressive campaign.

He spent all summer overseas, campaigning for a Security Council seat that he didn't win. Since returning, his speeches have been mostly devoid of his trademark charisma and filled instead with abstractions about fighting the Devil and his Evil Empire.

Yesterday, Rosales was out there, on the street. Yes, he had a good deal of protection around him, but still, anyone who wanted to get close to him could.

This is the sort of campaign stunt that has the chance to cut into Chavez's base.

Why?

My reasoning is tied up with what I have learned from people such as, yes, José. Some would criticize him for being "facilista" - too lazy to inform himself and vote for change. To label Jose in such a way, however, is to fail to see the state of this country from his perspective.

Jose is a working class man from the barrio. He votes defensively: not to see things get better, but to keep them from getting worse. Above all, the man wants to avoid a repeat of 2002-2004, of 1992, of 1989.

Now, some might rightly protest that if Chavez wins on 3D, this country has a whole lot worse in store a few years down the road. But most Venezuelans from the barrios don't worry about a few years from now. They worry about tomorrow.

And for someone who lives and works in a Chavista neighborhood where looting and unwanted police attention are a real worry, keeping El Presidente in power is the best way to insure that your bodega doesn't get burned to the ground on December 4th.

What is the solution, then?

More days like Saturday. More live, grassroots attempts to show that there is an alternative, and it just shook your hand.

Dept. of why-didn't-you-make-that-clear-from-the-get-go?

Quico says: According to El Universal:

Keller says he was misunderstood when he explained that the size of Chavez's market is 52% while Rosales's is 48%: "I wasn't referring to voting intentions, but to political segmentation." He believes that such underlying market conditions, basically half-and-half, "lays out a basic situation where anyone could win."

"Revolution" as conceptual bulldozer

"If anyone forgets we're in the middle of a Revolution, we're going to beat it into them: this company stands with Chavez."
-Rafael Ramírez, PDVSA chairman and Minister of Energy and Mines

Quico says: More and more, Rafael Ramírez's speech to PDVSA management has made me think about the way chavismo uses the word "revolution" to flatten the distinctions between state, government, homeland, pueblo and leader - conceptual distinctions vital to a free society.

"Public employees are at the service of the State and not of any partiality," the constitution tells us. But a Revolution cannot think of itself as a "partiality" - it must think of itself as the quasi-mystical political incarnation of the people, its essence and its interests. The Revolution is the state.

It makes no sense, within a revolutionary mindframe, to posit a distinction between Chavez's interests and the interests of the people, the homeland or the state: they're one and the same. In fact, that unity is what the word denotes, its deep meaning.

Which explains why chavistas, when they read Article 145, don't see what you or I see. They read the same words we read, but what they understand is different: "public employees are at the service of the Revolution and not of any partiality."

In a Revolution, state = government = homeland = people = leader. If you accept that, it follows that dissenting from the leader is tantamount to treason against the state. Once you've conflated these ideas into a single, undifferentiated soup, you pull out all the conceptual stops that restrain a government from tyranny. In this way, the word "Revolution" has become a trump-card, a conceptual bulldozer plowing over all spaces for legitimate dissent.

Ramirez is explicit about this: "we were put here by the Revolution, we were put here by the pueblo, we were put here by President Chavez." You can't pick and choose between them, because they're basically the same thing - a kind of revolutionary Holy Trinity. There's no room in this vision for NiNis, for "light" supporters. To be "a little bit revolutionary" is to be a little bit of a traitor. It just won't do.

Anything short of total, unthinking support for the Revolution makes you an enemy of the people. Your conscience doesn't belong to you, it belongs to us...well, to him. And if you hold back, even a little, if you don't quite surrender your will in its entirety, you become suspect, an enemy to be liquidated.

It's a road that leads to tyranny, and nowhere else.

"The new PDVSA is red, very red, from top to bottom"

Quico says: Normally, I don't translate humor pieces - jokes so seldom make it unharmed from one language to the other. But it's a measure of how far gone the country is that even Laureano Marquez has stopped writing funny pieces. His front page editorial in yesterday's Tal Cual struck me as uncommonly eloquent, so here you have it...

Unlike most of you, I think the Minister of Energy and Mines is one of the few decent people who remain in the country. He doesn't go around spewing half-truths, fooling people. He tells it like it is, and that deserves respect, because it demands a kind of courage the rest of us don't have. Other public officials keep beating around the bush, trying to hang on to established norms and turning their discourse into a juggling act. Dr. Ramirez's sincerity deserves, at least, some appreciation.

"We've come here to talk about politics." Not about the company's policies, but about politics. About who you stand with, compañero.

If we get oil out of the ground or don't get oil out of the ground, that's not a problem the new PDVSA is much worried about. What matters is our absolute support for the candidate-president. The transcendent goals of the nation are none other than the will of its leader. My respects, Mister Minister. What's this I hear about having to apply this rule or that regulation? Straight up, clear as day, he said it: there is no regulation other than loyalty to the chief.

If something like this had been said before the Chavez era, all hell would've broken loose. But, for sure, nothing will happen. We're coming to grips with our national character. It's no joke that Venezuela has changed. It's become more honest about its dishonesty, more coherent with itself. Yup, I ignore the laws, I do whatever I feel like, so what? Isn't that our most authentic face?

Isn't that what we all do in the morning with the stoplight down the street?

"PDVSA is red, very red, from top to bottom." It's a crime to slow down people's political expression with the old wife's tale about how the company, since it belongs to the state, belongs to every citizen.

Oh no, this is our sandbox, it belongs to those of us who think in a certain way. The others don't count, they're enemies, people who sooner or later we shall have to exterminate in one way or another. Otherwise, it'll have to be like that crowd shown on State TV in Petare was chanting during one of the candidate-president's recent rallies: "oppositionists, leave." ("Los escuálidos que se vayan.") It's the same thing the minister says, drowned out by cheers, applause and "Uh-Ah"s...

"We shall not waver...we already tossed 19,500 enemies of the country out of this company." I personally know some of those enemies: they're people who thought that thinking, studying and training yourself might do you some good around here. Turns out they were wrong; the only thing that does you any good around here is supporting someone unconditionally, "or do you idiots (he didn't say the word, but you can intuit it) think you are here because you're smart, because you're capable?"

No. You are here because he put you here, just like he put me here, because he felt like it. Your will doesn't exist, your conscience belongs to us...well, to him. And they applaud...confirming.

This is all stuff you can understand the nice way, or you can get it beaten into you. And that goes for everyone. That's what I call an election campaign, minister, a good one! Not that mixed message about how we have to hate because we love, which people just can't wrap their minds around.

We have to hate because we hate, and obliterate the Other. The path followed by Pinochet, Fidel, Mao, Hitler, Stalin, Franco and so many others. The stadiums will come, sooner or later.

You have given us the true measure of what we're debating as we lead up to December 3rd, of the crossroads history has placed in front of us. Of course it's tough what you're saying. But it's honest. I don't know what the other enemies of the homeland think but I, at least, believe you.

Sobering stuff.

Can you spot the difference?

Quico says: Remember those "compare and contrast" essays they'd assign you to write in high school? Ah, the nostalgia! Here, lets do another one just for fun.

Compare and contrast:

Item 1. Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela of 1999, Article 145:

Public employees are at the service of the State and not of any partiality. Their hiring and removal cannot be determined by political affiliations or orientations.

Item 2. Speech to PDVSA management by Rafael Ramirez, PDVSA chairman and Oil Minister:

I want our management to help us erase from our rules, from our internal communications, from any element that runs the company, anything that could cast doubt on our support for President Chavez. We have to say clearly...that the new PDVSA is red, very red, from top to bottom...

You need to shake out of your heads the idea that anyone might sanction us, that anyone might criticize us if we express to our people that this is a company that supports President Chavez 100%...

It is a crime, a counterrevolutionary act, for any manager here to slow down our workers' political expression in support of President Chavez. Here, we back Chavez, he is our leader, the paramount leader of this revolution, and we will do whatever we have to do to support our president. Anyone who doesn't feel comfortable with that should yield his spot to a bolivariano...

We had to get rid of one guy, a man from our Operations Division, who allowed candidate Rosales to land and move around our company, "bloody hell, what's that about?" (coño pero ¿qué vaina es esa?) we said, "what is happening here? are they going crazy? are we really infiltrated by the enemies of the revolution?"

Let it be clear that we won't allow it, when we find out about that sort of thing we're going to liquidate it decisively.

It outrages me...to find out we have "NiNis" working here, "light" people working here, saying we need to open up to company. No way. If anyone forgets we're in the middle of a revolution, we're going to beat it into them: (se lo vamos a recordar a carajazos) this company stands with Chavez.

Keller's poll is not a voting intention poll

Quico says: Well, a kind soul leaked Keller's slides to me. As suspected, the 52-48 number is not the result of a standard, "if the election was today, who would you vote for?" type question.

What Keller does is segment the electorate according to their views on issues related to the government's line. This slide gives you a sense of the line of questioning he's using:


Based on the answers people give to these kinds of questions (e.g. "should Venezuela be made into a Socialist country? Should Venezuela strike an alliance with Cuba and Bolivia?) Keller assigns voters to one of four segments: hardcore chavista, softcore chavista, softcore opposition or hardcore opposition.

He finds that 22% of the electorate are "hardcore chavistas" and 30% are "softcore chavistas" - hence, he concludes 52% will vote for Chavez. And he finds 21% are "softcore opposition" and 27% are "hardcore opposition" and so he concludes 48% will vote against Chavez.


Thing is this is really a screwball, non-standard methodology. When you ask people the long-established voting intentions question ("if the election was today, who would you vote for?") you find that many people who Keller classifies as "softcore opposition" do not say they would vote for Rosales.

It's more realistic to think of that 48% as the universe of "persuadable, potential Rosales voters." It takes some bravado to just assume all of them will automatically line up behind Rosales.

The people Keller is tagging "softcore opposition" seem to be the people most other pollsters define as NiNis. It's far from certain they will end up voting for Rosales. In the end, what Keller shows is what all the other pollsters have been showing. About half the electorate will vote for Chavez, about 30% will vote for Rosales, and the rest are to-be-persuaded. The Josés of the world.

The overall story hasn't changed: Rosales has to sweep that "to-be-persuaded" demographic and win over a few softcore chavistas to have a chance. Keller's poll does nothing to persuade me he's getting there.

Is the CNE back where it belongs?

Katy says: One of the refreshing features of this electoral campaign has been that Venezuela's electoral authority (the CNE) has not been the center of discussion. Electoral conditions are undoubtedly improved from last December's elections; the infamous Jorge Rodríguez is no longer in the spotlight he so relished; and the opposition seems better organized to tackle with any eventualities that may occur.

Conditions are not ideal and problems persist (see that other blog for a sample), but is it enough to claim that this election is completely unfair? It's unfair alright, but is it totally, over-the-top, Mugabe-like, Carrasquerically unfair?

Suppose Chávez wins in December and Manuel Rosales claims there was fraud. Will you believe him? There is one month left and nobody (not even Súmate) is making much noise about how adverse the conditions are this time around. Are we headed for a (gasp) somewhat fair electoral process?

The commentariat flips out!

Quico says: Just a note to those of you who read the main blog but skip the comments...yesterday's thread in response to JayDee's pulpero follow-up was one of the most heated and entertaining we've had in a long time. Tempers sort of flared, and Katy almost got a hernia erasing inappropriate stuff, but what was left behind strikes me as really worth reading.

ps: I've overhauled the comments' template. Tell me what you think...

Manuel who?

JayDee says:Finding myself in El Valle yesterday with little to do, I swung by José’s bodega again for a beer.

Surprisingly, the man recognized me as soon as I walked in the door, even though it had been 4 months.

“You’re the journalist,” he said with a warm grin, handing me a Tercio before I had even asked for one.

The store was filled with the same variety of characters as before. Two men sat shirtless in the doorway, cradling empty bottles of Malta and smoking Belmonts. A women stood at the counter, awaiting her five slices of queso amarillo.

“When I was here last, we talked about Chávez and the elections, remember?”

He nodded, accepting the women’s money and turning his attention to me.

“Last time you said you would vote for anyone but Chávez. So, is it Rosales next month, then?”

Jose sighed and threw up his hands.

“I don’t know, I haven’t decided. I don’t even know who Rosales is. I might vote Chávez,” he answered.

“Really – That’s surprising,” I said. “What changed your mind?”

“I don’t think Chávez can loose, so it doesn’t really matter,” he continued, “But I am scared of what would happen if he lost. This area is pura Chavista, and I think there would be rioting and a lot of problems for my family, my store. Looting and violence and police and all sorts of stuff I don’t need. Besides, who is Rosales? I don’t know anything about him.”

I asked him if he was scared for his personal safety if he voted Rosales. Did he feel intimidated to vote Chávez?

“Not at all,” he said with a wave of the hand.

And criticizing Chávez to an international journalist?

“Tampoco, you can use my name in any report you want.”

“So what happened?” I pressed on. “Last we spoke, you were angry at the damage the Mercals have done to your business.”

“Oh, I still am,” he replied, “I don’t like how this government gives away everything for free. We are not instilling the people with a good work ethic in Venezuela. Everyone thinks they are automatically entitled to something without working, and that is the source of so much trouble.”

“Look, I like that Chávez wants to help the poor,” he continued. “But some of his ideas aren’t very well thought through.”

“Have you considered turning your bodega into a co-venture with Mercal?” I asked. “Wouldn’t that help you out?”

“Ahh the paperwork and the wait,” he sighed, rolling his eyes while handing me another beer.

“It takes forever, the bureaucracy. And the products are inferior quality. The rice and the pasta aren’t very good. But this is my store. I am 73 years old. I have been running this place myself for 30 years. Why should I be forced to suddenly take the government on as a partner in order to survive? I’d rather sell my beer and cigarettes.”

“And you don’t think Rosales would change things?” I tried one more time.

“You keep asking me about this Rosales guy,” he answered with a chuckle. “And I keep telling you; I don’t know him. I’ve never been to Zulia.”

Zogby goes down

Katy says: Some of our loyal chavista readers are very upbeat on a recent poll by Zogby International that gave Chávez a big, big lead over Rosales. An anonymous reader wrote something about this, and I have offered to post it.

Our reader says: "On August 21st of this year, forty days before Brazil's Presidential elections, Zogby International gave President and candidate for reelection Lula da Silva a margin of 33 percentage points over his leading rival, social democrat Gerardo Alckim.

In essence, Zogby gave Lula 53% of the vote, and Alckim 20%. But the reality on the day of the vote was quite different: Lula got 48.6% of the vote and Alckim got 41.6%.

Was Alckim able to mount a 22 percentage-point climb in preferences in less than six weeks, or was Zogby wrong in its analysis?

This question is important for Venezuelans, because a few days ago Zogby unveiled the results of a poll done in Venezuela between Oct. 1 and Oct. 16, giving Pres. Chávez 59% of the vote, and unity candidate Manuel Rosales 24%.

It seems as though Zogby is wrong again, because the data underlying its poll puts their reliability in serious doubt.

In the Presidential election of 2000, 43.6% of voters abstained from voting. 32% of registered voters voted for Hugo Chávez, and 21.3% of them voted against him.

According to the underlying cross-tabulated data released by Zogby, of the 800 people they polled, 55.4% of them declared having voted for Chávez, 34.4% of them declare having abstained, and only 10.3% declare having voted against Chávez.

How can a poll presume to shed light on the political reality of the country, when the answers of the people polled are not representative of the Venezuelan electorate? How can Zogby release a poll without cross-checking their results with historical data?

And the worst part is...

Zogby says most Venezuelans live well!

68% of those polled say they are making enough money to ward off economic problems, while only 32% declare having at least some financial problems because of insufficient income.

This is an astonishing result given that the majority of the country is living in poverty.

We do not know who Zogby works for. We know "their" poll was subcontracted to DATA Opinión Pública y Mercados, S.C., a Mexican firm, and that this firm hired a Venezuelan firm whose name has not been revealed.

Smells fishy, no? This is not the first time Zogby has screwed up. Slate also took a shot at debunking Zogby's prestige in this terrific piece by Joshuah Micah Marshall. (Katy's note: the .gif image is from their piece)

The moral of this story is that elections are not won by polls, they are won by votes."

(PS from Katy: I apologize for not being able to link the article to the underlying Zogby data. If anyone would like a copy of Zogby's cross tabs, please email me. I'd be happy to send it to you as an attachment.)

Danilogate goes International

Quico says: Finally, a high-profile foreign paper picks up on the ongoing mystery of Danilo Anderson's murder.

I'm so elated somebody cares, I'll let Diehl's couple of factual mistakes slide.

Rosales SUDANdo la gota gorda...

Quico says: This article in the New York Times more or less blew my mind:

To understand Sudan’s defiance toward the world, especially the Western world, check out the Ozone Café.

Here young, rich Sudanese, wearing ripped jeans and fancy gym shoes, sit outside licking scoops of ice cream as an outdoor air-conditioning system sprays a cooling veil of mist. Around the corner is a new BMW dealership unloading $165,000 cars.

“I tell people you only live this life once,” said Nada Gerais, a saleswoman.

While one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises continues some 600 miles away in Darfur, across Khartoum bridges are being built, office towers are popping up, supermarkets are opening and flatbed trucks hauling plasma TV’s fight their way through thickening traffic.

Despite the image of Sudan as a land of cracked earth and starving people, the economy is booming, with little help from the West. Oil has turned it into one of the fastest growing economies in Africa — if not the world — emboldening the nation’s already belligerent government and giving it the wherewithal to resist Western demands to end the conflict in Darfur.

Why do I bring it up? To underscore a couple of things.

First, how murderously easy it is for petrostates to finance a consumption boom in the middle of an oil bonanza. It really doesn't matter how criminal or incompetent the government is: even Sudan's modest 500,000 barrels/day are enough to finance a major economic boom when oil prices shoot up. You don't need a coherent development strategy, an actual plan for the future, or even a minimally functioning institutional system...all you need is oil.

Second, just how much petrostates can get away with when oil is in short supply. So long as oil is scarce, there's virtually no limit to what the international community will overlook in its thirst for it. We think the Tascon List is going to spark international outrage? These people are orchestrating a no-kidding genocide, and the international community still queue up to line their pockets. Let the good times roll.

Things for Rosalistas to ponder. A perfect candidate running a perfect campaign would still have a hard time beating Chavez in the middle of an oil boom. And what we have is far from a perfect candidate and far from a perfect campaign.

The state of play...

Quico says: So, with 36 days to go until December 3rd, where is this election campaign? Basically, it's one of two things. Either:

• All the recent polls are roughly right, and Chavez is beating Rosales by somewhere between 15 and 30 points.
  or
  
• People are too scared to tell pollsters the truth, and the race is actually neck and neck.

Which one is it? Frankly, the polling news is so incredibly awful, I can see how it beggars' opposition supporters' belief: if DATOS, Consultores 21 and Zogby are more or less right, it would mean that, through mid-October, Rosales had managed to consolidate the anti-Chavez base and that's it.

His numbers are below even the what a "generic anti-Chavez candidate" had in May and June polling. That would mean Rosales has not even managed to consolidate the support of all the non-Chavistas who said they were willing to vote against Chavez six months ago. Now, a bunch of them are "undecided"! Not good news for a candidate whose only path to victory, demographically speaking, is to sweep essentially all undecideds and win a few soft-core chavistas as well.

DATOS tracking poll: OUCH!

So can Rosales really be running so far behind? Or are the polls screwed up somehow? I tend to think we really are getting whooped. As Lucia - who, contrary to popular belief, is NOT me - posted in a recent comments section:

Every day, surveys are conducted in nations where voters face substantially more danger or political repression than they do in Venezuela. Whether it's the Gaza Strip or West Africa or Nepal -- polling is happening. Pollsters who work in such places have developed methods for determining whether/how fear affects their ability to take an accurate survey, and for making the necessary adjustments.

But ask Luis Vicente Leon, Luis Christiansen, Saade, Keller et al if they're finding it harder than usual to get people to agree to participate? Once they agree, are more interviews (than usual) terminated once people realize political questions are included?

They'd tell you: nope, nothing out of the ordinary on that front.

Nor would any other of the normal indicators be present -- or, again, not present in sufficient size to warrant throwing traditional methods (and their results) out of the window.

But even if the slew of recent polls are all way off because people are fibbing to pollsters, I don't really see how that's good news for the opposition. If folks really are so scared of getting on the wrong side of the Bolivarianos that they won't even talk honestly to a pollster, what are the chances they'll feel emboldened enough to put their finger on a fingerprint scanner, get their names ticked off on a cuaderno electronico, and then go cast a vote for Rosales on a Smartmatic machine? That, my friends, is a much, much scarier proposition.

We should be honest here: unless something dramatic happens in the next month and a half to change the dynamics of the race, we're going to lose, and we're going to lose by a lot.

Admittedly, it always seemed likely that we would lose simply because most people vote with their pocketbooks and we're in the middle of an extravagant oil bonanza. But losing by 5 points is not the same thing as losing by 25 points...and what's staggering is that we seem headed for 25-point country.

A more eloquent candidate, one less visibly tied to the traditional opposition political class, a more effectively communicated Mi Negra...we can all start making our little pet lists of what the opposition might have done differently. But then, even the perfect oppo candidate running the perfect oppo campaign would find it hard to beat Comandante Moneybags and the $60/Barrel Brigade.

Surely I'll eat my words with a spoon if something dramatic happens in the next five weeks to change the dynamics of the race. But at the moment? It's grim...

A surplus of half-truths

Katy says: Venezuela's Finance Minister unveiled the government's budget for fiscal year 2007 recently. Venezuelan consultancy Veneconomy recently published an op-ed piece, for subscribers only, that sheds some light on what the document contains.

One of the main features of the budget is that both income and expenses are under-estimated, as is usual in Venezuelan budgets. But Veneconomy argues that the Chávez administration is grossly under-estimating earnings for next year with the sole purpose of lowering their obligations to state and local governments through Constitutional Allocations.

In Venezuela, state and local governments have very few tools to tax the population. Instead, they are automatically entitled to a percentage of the government's "ordinary income" as defined in each year's budget. This proportion is distributed among the different governments according to their population.

The 2007 budget assumes the price of oil will be $29. It also assumes inflation will be around 10-12%, contrary to Veneconomy's estimates of 17-19%. Finally, the budget assumes the exchange rate will remain at 2,150 Bs/$. Veneconomy thinks it is unlikely the exchange rate will remain in that range, predicting that it will have to change to 2,400 Bs/$ before 2007 is out.

The outcome of all this is that income and expenses are under-estimated. For example, any oil income stemming from a price of oil higher than US$29 would be considered "extraordinary income" and would therefore not be part of Constitutional Allocations. Any extra income from a depreciation of the exchange rate is also considered "extraordinary income" and would not be part of the allocations to state and local governments either.

Expenses are also under-estimated. The budget assumes, according to Veneconomy, that both income and expenses will remain constant relative to this year's budget. This implies that, in real terms (i.e., after taking into account an inflation of more than 15%), budgeted real spending and budgeted real income would be lower next year than this year. Likewise, if inflation leaps above 10-12%, state and local governments would not be entitled to compensation to cover the higher costs of the public goods they wish to provide.

The true story behind this, according to Veneconomy, is that both income and expenses are under-estimated in the budget because every year, a higher portion of both is going to special accounts in PDVSA and Fonden, which are handled outside normal budgetary rules. This allows spending to be more discretional and for there to be much less oversight.

Although the National Assembly has become a mere formality due to the total absence of forces contrary to the government, the formality of budget discussions still left room for independent economists and the press to exercise a bit of oversight. This task becomes practically impossible when up to 25% of government spending and income, according to Veneconomy, are not included in the budget but rather in obscure accounts that the Executive manipulates at will and with little to no scrutiny.

Budgets are important because they reflect a government's priorities. Without a formal budgetary discussion, politicians cannot be held accountable by the citizens whose money they are spending. The more obscure the budget becomes, the more discretionary its allocations, the less oversight we will have. In the end, it's democracy that suffers.

Atrévete te te te...

JayDee says: Manuel Rosales made a formal presentation of his Government Program yesterday in the Caracas Eurobuilding. There was no Q&A session for journalists, and he left right after the speech.

Here are some of the highlights:

“Mine will be a completely new government, run by talented professionals.”

“On December 4th, we will have a new opposition, one that will play a role in the decision making process of whichever government.”

“On December 4th, we will have a new Assembly National, and it will respect the necessity of minority representation in the government.”

“I don’t want to be a government that controls all the power; I want my government to have limits on its authority.”

“We should have elections every four years, with a single re-election. 8 years is more than enough for a President to carry out his vision.”

“We will respect private property, from the smallest homes, to the largest businesses.”

“We will respect the professionalism of the armed forces.”

“Our first act will be to de-centralize the authority of the President, so that the Governors and Mayors of Venezuela have more of a say.”

“We will have a foreign policy that encourages regional integration while it defends the interests of Venezuelans.”

“I will be the first Venezuelan President to really preoccupy himself with the well being of our environment.”

“We will construct 1.5 million homes in my administration.”

“We are going to eliminate all politics from our schools.”

“I am going to subsidize the agricultural sector, so that our farmers stop giving away what they grow to other countries.”

“I don’t have any owner; I am free of any previous attachments. I will govern myself, as my own boss.”

Why corruption isn't working as an issue for Rosales...

Quico says: One baffling, infuriating puzzle about this election is why Manuel Rosales isn't getting more traction on corruption. According to Keller's 3rd quarter survey, 52% of respondents think corruption is getting worse, and 30% think it's as bad as it's always been. Only on crime and drugs are people more critical of the government. So why can't Rosales get a lift out of it?


I think the answer is that corruption only riles people up when the economy stinks. During bad times, Venezuelans make a direct link between their pocket-book and corruption. They figure if they don't have any money, it's because people in power are stealing it. This is why Chavez managed to get so much traction out of the issue back in 1998...when oil was selling for 10 bucks a pop.

But now? The country is awash in petrodollars, people have more money in their pocket than they used to, times are good. In that setting, corruption becomes an abstract issue. Surely they know that the chavista elite is stealing a bucketfull - that's what they tell Keller. But that realization doesn't sear with the intensity of rage it would engender if people perceived that they can't afford lunch because somebody in power stole their money.

It's one of the screwy features of petrodependency. Corruption, as an issue, only "works" in Venezuela when the oil market tanks.

Mi Negra: It’s not about growth!

You know, the dangest people seem to read Caracas Chronicles. Today, we have a guest post on Mi Negra by Omar Zambrano, a Venezuelan economist working in Washington, DC

Omar says: Mi Negra, Manuel Rosales' flagship social policy proposal, has generated an intense electoral debate. Unfortunately, discussion on its potential economic and development impacts has been rather scarce and shallow. With some crucial features of the scheme still unclear or unrevealed, particularly those related to the ultimate beneficiaries and the conditions attached to the handouts (as well as some still fuzzy financial sustainability issues), I'd say we can reasonably characterize the Rosales' proposal as a Venezuelan variant of a Conditional Cash Transfer (CCT) mechanism, which is a handout to a targeted set of households (e.g. the poor, the poorest of the poor, the unemployed) contingent on a given behavior (e.g. children's education and health, home improvement, etc.).

The question of who will benefit is an important one: the economic impacts of more targeted mechanism like a CCT, can differ radically from proposals like the one presented earlier by Julio Borges.

Just for background, this sort of anti-poverty program has been used with considerable success in the region since the early 90's. The idea has been replicated elsewhere in the developing world. As trivia, I was surprised to find out that a program whose earliest precedent can be traced in Venezuela (the Beca Escolar, 1989), now is being considered even in the most conspicuous city of Mr. Danger's empire.

First off, lets be clear: I really don't think we should judge Mi Negra in terms of its effects on growth. Don't get me wrong. I'm sure that Mi Negra would have huge growth implications, and I'm pretty certain those effects would be positive. But growth considerations should not take center stage in discussing an instrument designed to achieve something else: to fight poverty and exclusion.

As I told Quico privately, we economists are trained to think you need as many public policy instruments as you have public policy goals. In a world with multiple objectives, you will need multiple instruments. Policy makers should aim to maximize social welfare, not growth rates. If we agree that Mi Negra is the best instrument for poverty alleviation, we still have many other instruments to tackle growth objectives like the trade policy, exchange rate policy or oil producing policy, etc.

Having said that, I still think Mi Negra would have a positive impact on growth.

Inequality and growth
The record so far shows conditional cash transfer mechanisms (CCTs) are very effective tools in alleviating poverty and improving equity. And measures that help lessen inequality help to spur growth. Here the evidence is quite robust: in a world of highly imperfect markets, those who do not have enough wealth or social status tend to under-invests or to invest in relatively unproductive activities.

Think of a buhonero using Mi Negra cash to finance the transition from being an informal employee (of the buhonero mafia) to a micro entrepreneur (a buhonero who sell his own stuff). An equity improving mechanism like Mi Negra would be efficiency enhancing in the sense of helping to reallocate resources from low-productivity activities to high productivity activities (see World Development Report 2006, Ch.5).

This idea may also hold at the aggregate level. Some authors find evidence that decreased inequality may be related to improved growth rates in poor countries. The argument, in brief, is that Mi Negra could help to raise investment rates, and better investment rates can lead to better growth rates.

Human Capital Accumulation
Provided handouts are attached to some conditions, CCTs have been highly effective increasing the, acquisition, accumulation and access to human capital (which is more education and better health) for the children of beneficiaries. Rigorous studies of Mexico's Progresa/Oportunidades program, Brazil's Bolsa familia and Colombia's Familias en Accion, among others, show clear improvements in the educational achievement and health levels among those targeted by the programs. The effect of human capital accumulation on growth is a well studied and verified phenomenon, now in the mainstream of growth theories. In the 1980s, this theoretical advance was called the endogenous growth revolution - but I can assure you, it's exactly nothing at all like the Nucleos de Desarrollo Endogeno.

Empowerment, transparency and accountability
For certain, the effects in this area are the more important ones. I will paraphrase here my friend Rei, another loyal Caracas Chronicles reader: Mi Negra is the first public policy idea we've seen that openly challenge the distributive model that has been in place in Venezuela since the discover of the Barroso II dwell in 1914. The proposal is absolutely liberal: it gives control over oil rents over to the individual, not the state apparatus.

So the proposal will enhance the incentives for the public to closely monitoring the actions of the State and the oil industry, and generate demand for transparency and accountability in the oil industry, strengthening the checks and balances over the system. Empowerment is the name of the game. As long as Mi Negra leads to a more efficient, transparent and accountable state, we can expect gains in the growth perspective of the country. The evidence here is quite robust as well.

So, can Mi Negra serve as the desperately needed growth engine for the Venezuelan economy? Probably but, perhaps not. If it doesn't, does that make it a bad proposal? Not at all.

Putin heads for the door, Leopoldo stirs the pot

Katy says: Two quick notes:

1.Russian President and elected autocrat Vladimir Putin announced today that, contrary to expectations, he will not attempt to modify his country's Constitution, which imposes a term limit on the Presidency. So he will be leaving office in 2008, even though he is very popular.

Putin's term has been marked by sky-high oil prices, a booming economy, growing presidential control of all of Russia's institutions, a controversial war in Chechnya, hostile attitudes toward weaker neighbors and increasingly heavy-handed restrictions on democratic freedoms.

Despite all of this, Putin has decided to show some democratic colors and is stepping down. Let's hope that our own petrocrat follows Putin's lead - that is, if voters decide to give him another term.

(Note: Russia is a big, complicated country; pardon the simplification.)

2.Leopoldo- Alek Boyd has an interesting interview with Chacao Mayor Leopoldo López, undoubtedly one of the opposition's brightest political stars. I take issue with some of López's positions regarding the Recall Referendum, but the interview is good in that it highlights the fact that the defense of the vote requires such a huge volunteer force, it becomes a task for all of us, not just the politicians. It is up to us to defend our votes.

The problem is that the Rosales campaign is not doing a good enough job of convincing people that voting itself will be secret. There is still a lot of fear in the general population about this point, and it should be addressed from now until the end of the campaign.

That is, of course, assuming it will be secret, which it will be... right?

Being obnoxious as raison d'état

So, it turns out that silly oppo commentators like me had it all wrong: the reason Chavez spent the last few months visiting some 30 capitals and handing out over a billion dollars sweetening up developing country governments was not to get a UN Security Council seat at all. Heavens no! The point, it turns out, was to demonstrate we could block a US-backed bid if we wanted to, to teach the empire a lesson. An objective, you'll agree, that "we have fulfilled."

Sigh.

So is this a sign that Chávez is ready to declare victory and move on from this embarrassing episode? Not at all. His acknowledgement that Venezuela will not get a rotating UN Security Council seat was followed not by acceptance of the need for a consensus candidate, but by a vow not to give up.

Pardon me if I fail to see any logic in this one. Once you've fessed up that you're not going to get the UNSC seat, what possible point is there in "not giving up"? To make sure they've learned their lesson extra good? Or to annoy the shit out of 192 UN ambassadors?

It's almost churchillian, the sentiment...

We shall annoy them on the seas and oceans, we shall annoy them with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall annoy them on the beaches, we shall annoy them on the landing grounds, we shall annoy them in the fields and in the streets, we shall annoy them in the hills; we shall never surrender.

What's the UNSC vote really about?

Those of us focused on Venezuelan affairs will tend to examine the UN Security Council election this week for clues about Chavez's international standing. Probably, though, the vote tells us more about the way the world's governments feel about US hegemony. In a way Venezuela has done the world a service this week by giving states a chance to vote on the overarching strategic issue of the day:

Is international peace and security advanced if you counter the power of the United States at every turn, or does it make more sense to work pragmatically with the hegemonic power, at least sometimes? Is US power a purely negative force in the world? Or is the US, at least on some matters, a benevolent hegemon, one able to work constructively towards international peace and security?

These were the questions states were answering when they chose between Venezuela and Guatemala this week, and the answer has been clear: about 80 countries want a voice in the UN Security Council that will oppose the US on everything, always, and about 105 countries do not.

Certainly that such a lot of countries stand ready to back a policy as radical as Chavez's gives a strong indication of how badly the Bush administration has damaged the US brand in world affairs. A bigger group of countries, though, feels less threatened by the US than by the forces the US is trying to contain. Which is why they prefer a functioning UN Security Council to one bogged down by rhetorical grandstanding by a rotating member.

When you elevate "anti-imperialism" to the status of sole principle underpinning your foreign policy, you jump in bed, ipso facto, with forces far, far scarier than the US. How many UNSC votes did Venezuela lose to Chavez's flirting with North Korea? To his embrace of Ahmadinejad? To his solidarity with FARC? Certainly more than a few, probably more than he gained.

When anti-imperialism is interpreted, Chavez-style, in the most primitive and unreflexive way possible - as an imperative to side with every enemy of Washington, all other considerations be damned - some governments may line up to applaud, but many more will write you off as an ideological zealot.

Because it should be clear that it's Chavez's lack of sophistication, his utter tin-ear for the sense of the ridiculous that ultimately doomed Venezuela's bid. A loud and firm voice meant to balance US hegemonic power? Probably most countries in the world would love a country like that in the UN Security Council. But when you call George W. Bush the devil, a genocidal drunk, when you say he makes Hitler look like a suckling baby etc. etc. you cross that fateful border between the corageous and the ridiculous. Reducing diplomacy to the level of vaudeville act, you manage only to discredit the cause you claim to champion.

Ironically, by intensifying the link in international policy-makers' minds between "anti-US hegemony" and "comedically unhinged lunacy," Chavez has probably bolstered the legitimacy of US power more than he has undermined it. In a world where "only folks as nutty as Chavez" strike anti-imperialist postures, posing a strong challenge to American power makes you look like a nut. In the wake of Chavez's "devil" speech, the perception that Venezuelan foreign policy is just not serious has hardened. And that's an own-goal Chavez has scored all on his own, with no help at all from his myriad enemies, real or imagined.

The Dignity of Venezuela's UN Security Council Bid

This gobsmacking tidbit courtesy of the UK daily The Independent:

Not content with building runways in the Caribbean, sending aid to Africa and striking an oil deal here and there - not to mention calling George Bush "the devil" - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has resorted to more conventional means of convincing foreign statesmen that his country deserves a seat on the UN Security Council.

Venezuela gifted chocolates to delegates, and has now imported a crack team of Latin lovelies to charm those in need of a little gentle persuasion.

"They're not quite scantily clad," says a bag-carrier in the corridors of power, "but there is a bit of brushing of thighs with the older delegates.

What remittances tell us about Mi Negra

One important question in considering Manuel Rosales' plan to distribute a portion of oil revenues directly to poor families is how much of the money is likely to be invested and how much to be consumed. Some intriguing clues can be found in a recent Inter-American Development Bank report on how Latin American families spend the money their relatives in the US send back.

The research finds that 73% of Latin American immigrants in the US regularly send money back to their families. The average remittance - $300 per month - is actually at the low end of what Rosales proposes to give poor families each month (Bs.600,000/month.) Remarkably, the IADB finds that some 15-20% of the money sent back is invested rather than consumed, most of it on housing.

In some ways, remittances are a good approximation to the likely impact of Mi Negra. Like oil money would be under the Mi Negra plan, remittance money originates from economic activity abroad and is delivered directly to poor families.

The parallel also suggests some caution about the development potential of Mi Negra. In El Salvador - nobody's idea of an economic powerhouse - 22% of households receive remittances totalling $2.9 billion each year. It's the country's biggest source of foreign exchange earnings, and for a country with a population under 7 million, a hefty chunk of cash (17% of GDP, to be precise.) Yet, while remittances have doubtlessly made life much more comfortable for many Salvadoreans with relatives working abroad, there's little sign that remittance money is leading to the kind of productive transformation of Salvadoran society that could really end poverty there. And, I think, the same goes for Mi Negra-type proposals.