Venezuela And Russia Voting On December 2 – Worlds Apart
By Siv O'Neall
22 December, 2007
Countercurrents.orgHugo Chávez lost the referendum on constitutional reforms. But is he really the loser? Putin's party, United Russia, won the election. Sure. But at what price?
Chávez is blacklisted by the western mainstream media, in particular by the U.S., as being anti-democracy, a dictator who just wants power for himself. However, he graciously conceded defeat even before all the votes had been counted, when it became obvious that the U.S.-supported opposition had carried the day. But dictators don't lose elections, do they? So what is the reality behind all this vilifying of President Chávez?
Putin is blacklisted by nobody, but who is the real dictator? The legislative election on December 2 was made into a personal vote for Vladimir Putin. Very consciously, with huge billboards presenting the 'Father of the Nation'. Russians may love him but the world sees the election as having been seriously flawed.
Background of Vladimir Putin
Vladimir Putin was a largely unknown KGB man when he became Prime Minister in August 1999, mainly due to support from a clique of oligarchs connected to then-president Boris Yeltsin. The theory was that Putin would continue the support of the huge private wealth which had grown to enormous proportions during Yeltsin and was concentrated in the hands of a relatively small number of mob-like plutocrats.
The first Chechen war, during Boris Yeltsin's term as President, had been a disaster for the Russians, with Chechnya emerging from the war virtually independent. Now Putin did everything possible to rekindle this failed war in order to unite the Russian people behind a new presumed threat to the safety of the nation. Of course the oil and natural gas deposits in Chechnya were probably a factor in this savage war, but how much this counted in the leading up to the war has been subject to many different interpretations and it is still not clear to what extent the war was connected to the Chechen national resources.
What many people may have forgotten by now is the series of huge and very suspicious bombings that rocked Moscow and the country in the late part of 1999. The bombings were attributed to Chechen separatists, which fit Putin like a glove fits the hand. The accusation that Chechen rebels were the perpetrators of those bombings has however always remained very much in doubt, even though the authorities obviously managed to convince the Russian public that they were the victims of terrorist attacks from this rebellious former republic of the Soviet Union.
There are, however, strong indications that the origins of the bombings had more to do with an attempt at bolstering Putin's image, that it was a bold and callous move by the government to unite the people around their leaders in a time of national weakness. The bombings were made to be seen as a terrorist threat against their country.
A look back on the Yeltsin era
The economic meltdown that occurred under Yeltsin in 1998, spurred on by the financial crisis in East Asia one year before[1], had taken an extraordinary toll on the lives of most Russians and destroyed their faith in the stability of their country. During Yeltsin's entire era the Russian economy was marked by selloffs of lucrative state-owned corporations, such as the energy giant Gazprom and Yukos, the major oil company. The Yeltsin era was marked by widespread corruption and gave way to a Mafioso rule that cost the state very dear and which actually ended up controlling the government.
Vladimir Putin elected President by a landslide
Putin, who was to begin with a protégé of Yeltsin, was elected president by a landslide in March 2000 (he was the acting president after Yeltsin resigned on Dec31, 1999) and he straight away set a radically different tone in the governing of the country. The country was now faced with a man who was determined to break the power of the mafia and get the Russian economy back on track. What remained to be seen was what his means to that end were going to be. He turned out to be ruthless and extremely set on total control of the various branches of government while increasing power for himself. He took control of the media to an extent that had not been seen since the Soviet era, renationalized the big companies which had been privatized during Yeltsin and transferred power from the regional to the federal level. This restructuring of the Russian government had its apotheosis in September of 2004, in Putin's second term in office, when regional governors, rather than being elected by the local people, were now instead to be appointed by the federal government.
The Russian legislative election on December 2
The Russian people see Putin as the 'savior of their country' and, with the enormous popularity he enjoys, one wonders why the recent election on December 2 had to be so thoroughly manipulated. The personal power grab by Putin and the general repression of the media seem to be forgotten by the Russian people next to the fact that Putin, on an international level, has gotten back the respect for their country, turned the economy around after the meltdown of 1998 and that with the wealth from oil and gas Russia now ranks as one of the big powers that have to be counted with in international forums. With an oil production that ranks as the second largest in the world – after Saudi Arabia – Russia is an energy superpower and an increasingly important counterweight to the Empire in the West.
The recent election was run as a personal referendum on Vladimir Putin and his party, United Russia, won 64 % of the vote. It has been described by European monitors though as being neither free nor fair and has been referred to as the 'stage-managed' Russian election. [2]
The West sees Putin as a dictator-to-be (if not already one that is) and it is a certainty that in the geopolitical power game, Russia (as well as China and other big powers) stands out as a powerful opponent to the United States, which still seems to see itself as the unipolar behemoth. In this power play, there is also the European Union, which does not play to the tune of Washington as faithfully as some media seem to make us believe. 'Old Europe' is just basically looking out for its own piece of the pie and is not about to risk losing its stake in the Middle East where they too have economic interests.
Venezuela and the December 2 referendum
The Venezuelan president, Hugo Chávez Frías, probably made a few diplomatic errors when he included all the 33 articles in the list of constitutional reforms that his people voted on last December 2. However, by far the majority of the articles were aimed at improving the people's quality of life. The fact that he submitted all these points of reform to a referendum speaks volumes for his determination to let the people be heard in the carrying out of his plans for reforms. However, the reform concerning the appointment of regional governors by the central government instead of by regional vote, seems like a needless challenge to those numerous powers (the U.S. in particular) who see in him a dictator who is set on redrawing all of Latin America in his own image. This image is of course in stark contrast to the way the predators have forever been planning to put Latin America's wealth into their own pockets. This new and quaint idea of making the native people profit from the riches of their own country is against all colonial history, where Latin America was seen as the mountain of wealth that was there for the undisputed profit of the colonial masters.
Hugo Chávez has turned the tables around. The greedy former colonial masters will now have to pay for getting their share of the riches that are bountiful in several Latin American countries. The bourgeois opposition supported by the neocon administration in Washington and the CIA beat the drums loudly to give the entire world the impression that Chávez ' government was in for a bad fall. However Chávez supporters also showed up in huge numbers to defend their man. The privately owned media obviously kept raving against Chávez as the tyrant who was ruining the country, but their vicious U.S.-supported attacks only let them win the referendum with a 'photo-finish' victory of 1%. Chávez took the poison out of the sting by graciously conceding defeat even before all the votes were counted.
The opposition, however, clearly managed to get some of their lies about Chávez' plans for reform to be accepted by large numbers of his own base. People were made to believe that their children were going to be taken away from their homes and be brought up by the state away from their families. The rumor was also spread that private property was going to be attacked and that even poor people were to be deprived of their homes. And this is just to mention a couple of examples of the lies spread around before the referendum.
The legally elected President
Hugo Chávez Frías came to power through an election victory in 1998 as the defender of the poor people's right to a decent livelihood. He was re-elected in a landslide victory in 2006. He has been enormously popular among the majority lower income people and has managed to vastly improve the lives of peasants and the working classes in spite of violent opposition from the bourgeois part of the population.
The oligarchs own most of the media
The opposition parties own most of the media and run a never-ending campaign to paint Chávez as a dictator and a tyrant who is set to ruin the economy of the country by putting an end to the neoliberal domination of the oil wealth. This same system had impoverished most Latin American countries as the big corporations had sucked the blood out of the continent while gaining enormous wealth for themselves. According to the neoliberal credo, however, it is perfectly normal and even desirable that there must be poor masses who survive on a bare sustenance level, while the leaders of Corporation Planet amass ever more wealth in their never-ending greed and lust for power.
Chávez is changing the landscape of Venezuela
Venezuela is the fifth largest oil producer in the world and when Chávez nationalized the oil industry, it was obviously a blow to the U.S.-backed plutocrats and to the world that saw oil everywhere as the property of the huge oil companies to profit from as they saw fit.
Land redistribution has been another central project for Hugo Chávez. [3] 'The Chávez government has redistributed about 2.2 million hectares of state owned land to more than 130000 peasant families."
…"Land reform is one of the most progressive aspects of Chávez 's Bolivarian Revolution."[4] It is very important to notice here that the land that is being expropriated is uncultivated land only, land that is barren but that can feed hundreds of thousands of poor peasants, if redistributed to the poor peasants.
Chávez also has a vision for a united South America which goes straight against the U.S. age-old way of seeing the subcontinent as their backyard to draw profit from freely without being restrained by nationalistic and humanitarian considerations. He founded Mecrosur, the South American Common Market, and PetroSur to act as a coordinator of energy policies throughout Latin America.
A huge number of grass roots centers called misiones (or missions) have grown up throughout the country that give free basic health care and provide educational opportunities among the peasant population that had been entirely marginalized. The doctors employed in the misiones are often Cuban and the educational misiones that have been established deal with what were widespread illiteracy problems and also with general educational needs for adults and young people.[5] Venezuela is now declared a "Territory Free of Illiteracy" (Workers World, Nov 5, 2005).
Hugo Chávez primary goal is clearly to rescue the people from the desperate poverty that deprives millions of Venezuelans of a dignified life in spite of the fact that there is enormous wealth under their soil. His message is spreading to other countries in Latin America and, in some countries the government tries to walk the thin line between a U.S. endorsed economy and a system capable of saving the masses of miserably poor people through land redistribution and also by offering free universal education and health care. Even if social improvement occurs slowly, there is still the visible fact that Latin American governments now can see that there is another way.
The neoliberal credo of letting the masses suffer while enriching the few is not the way to solve the economic disarray that we have gotten ourselves into. The trickle-down theory that was supposed to solve all problems has been shown up for what it always was, a fraud to make the largest possible number of people subscribe to the callous theories of the Chicago school of free market economics.[6]
Putin and Chávez – different worlds
Vladimir Putin has certainly saved Russia from the oligarchy mob rule that had spread like a plague during Yeltsin's era. He has accomplished this, however, at the price of repression of several freedoms that people in the West mostly take for granted. It must also be remembered that the recent legislative election was far from an election worthy of a free and democratic country. There is ample proof that the election was rigged in order to give Putin an overwhelming mandate to run the country with a stronger hand than ever.[7] Add that to the vicious Chechen war and Putin doesn't look much like a democratic ruler.
He is clearly not intending to give up the enormous power he has over the government. He may give up the presidency but we can be sure that a system is going to be worked out where Putin will go on exerting at least as much power as he has today.
As for Hugo Chávez, the West, and particularly the U.S. Empire, never stops painting this leader, who has emerged from the non-elite part of the population, as a dictator and a tyrant and attacking him through the privately owned majority of the Venezuelan media. The neoliberal world can not tolerate the existence of a major force of peace and equality that threatens the callously capitalist system which is dominating the world.
So who is the dictator? The one who silences the media or the one who leaves them free range? Who is the dictator? The one who fights a vicious war to keep the nation united in fear of the 'terrorists' or the man whose prime goal is improving the lives of the formerly neglected people in his country?
[1] "The Russian financial crisis (also called "Rouble crisis") hit Russia in August 17 1998. It was exacerbated by the global recession of 1998, which started with the Asian financial crisis in July 1997."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_financial_crisis
[2] Nor was there any doubt that the poll was rigged. “The election was not fair and failed to meet standards for democratic elections,” concluded the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) and the Council of Europe in a joint statement. Nothing was left to chance to ensure a high turnout.
http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?
story_id=10238268
[3] Chávez keeping his promise to redistribute land (International Herald Tribune - May 16, 2007)Chávez is carrying out what may become the largest forced land redistribution in Venezuela's history, building utopian farming villages for squatters, lavishing money on new cooperatives and sending army commando units to supervise seized estates in six states. http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/05/17/america/17venezuela.php
[4] Chavez’s Agrarian Land Reform: More like Lincoln than Lenin http://www.coha.org/NEW_PRESS_RELEASES
/New_Press_Releases_2005/05.21%20Venezuela%20
Land%20Reform%20the%20one.htm[5] The cornerstone of the Bolivarian Revolution is the Constitution that mandates that the government must actually help the people, not with empty rhetoric but through tangible action. The actual implementation is accomplished through the Bolivarian Missions. The Missions are social justice, social welfare, anti-poverty, and educational programs implemented by the government to help the vast majority of Venezuelans who were previously excluded from virtually all their country's wealth by a tiny elite of U.S.-backed plutocrats.
http://www.americans-for-chavez.com/missions.html
[6] "[The Chicago school of economics] is associated with neoclassical price theory and free market libertarianism, the refutation and rejection of Keynesianism in favor of monetarism (until the 1980s, when it turned to rational expectations), and the rejection of regulation of business in favor of laissez-faire. In terms of methodology the stress is on "positive economics" -- that is, empirically based studies using statistics, with less stress on theory." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_school_(economics)
[7] "President Vladimir Putin said Tuesday that an overwhelming victory for United Russia in Dec. 2 elections would give him the "moral right" to maintain a strong influence in the country." (Wednesday, November 14, 2007)
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2007/11/14/001.html© Copyright 2007 by AxisofLogic.com
Leave A Comment
&
Share Your Insights
Digg it! And spread the word!
Here is a unique chance to help this article to be read by thousands of people more. You just Digg it, and it will appear in the home page of Digg.com and thousands more will read it. Digg is nothing but an vote, the article with most votes will go to the top of the page. So, as you read just give a digg and help thousands more to read this article.
Syndicate CC Headlines On Your Blog
