Censorship or Democratization? - Venezuela, Chavez, and Freedom of Speech
June 7, 2007
Open for comments.
RCTV and Freedom of Speech in Venezuela
By GREGORY WILPERT.
As far as world public opinion is concerned, as reflected in the international media, the pronouncements of freedom of expression groups, and of miscellaneous governments, Venezuela has finally taken the ultimate step to prove its opposition right: that Venezuela is heading towards a dictatorship. Judging by these pronouncements, freedom of speech is becoming ever more restricted in Venezuela as a result of the non-renewal of the broadcast license of the oppositional TV network RCTV. With RCTV going off the air at midnight of May 27th, the country’s most powerful opposition voice has supposedly been silenced.
It is generally taken for granted that any silencing of opposition voices is anti-freedom of speech. But is an opposition voice really being silenced? Is this the correct metaphor? Is the director of RCTV, Marcel Granier, actually being silenced? No, a better metaphor is that the megaphone that Granier (and others) used for the exercise of his free speech is being returned to its actual owners–a megaphone that he had borrowed, but never owned. Not only that, he is still allowed to use a smaller megaphone (cable & satellite).
In other words, the radio frequency that RCTV used for over half a century is being returned to its original owners-the Venezuelan people-under the management of its democratically elected leadership. Still, while the decision about how to use the airwaves might be the prerogative of the government (as many critics concede), critics of the move have a point when they complain that the freedom to use the airwaves cannot be solely a matter of majority rule. After all, shouldn’t minorities (in this case a mostly relatively wealthy minority) also have access to the megaphone, so it may use it to convince the majority of its point-of-view? At least, progressives who defend the rights of traditionally disenfranchised minorities would argue that minorities should always have access to the media. [1] Even though Marcel Granier and his friends cannot be considered to be a disenfranchised minority, surely this minority deserves to be heard in the media, at least a little bit, in the name of pluralism.
Chavez supporters concede the validity of this argument in that they counter by pointing out that the opposition still has plenty of broadcast frequencies to present its point-of-view. Their argument for the justness of the decision to let RCTV’s license expire for good is that, first, the opposition still has plenty of other media outlets to broadcast its views, second, RCTV is a subversive and law-breaking broadcaster (because it participated in the coup and oil industry shutdown, among other things), and third, it needs to make way for a new public service television channel that is mandated by the constitution. Let us briefly examine each of these arguments, starting with Venezuela’s media landscape.
Venezuela’s Media Landscape
As with most questions about Venezuela, there is almost complete disagreement about what Venezuela’s media landscape looks like. According to the opposition, Chavez already controls most of the broadcast media, either directly, though state ownership or sponsorship, or indirectly, via supposedly repressive media laws. According to Chavez supporters, though, the opposition controls 95% of all media.
The problem is, there are several different angles from which one can examine a media landscape, which is why one can reach quite different conclusions about what this landscape actually looks like. First, one could examine it solely from the perspective of who owns or controls different media outlets. Second, one can look at which types of media outlets reach the population. And, third, one can look at what people end up watching or listening to.
In the first case, of who owns the media outlets-an analysis Chavez supporters tend to use-it is quite clear that a vast majority of television stations, radio stations, and newspapers are privately owned. Here, indeed, Chavez supporters are correct when they say that 95% of all media outlets (TV, radio, and print) are privately owned and that a significant majority of these are more sympathetic with the opposition than with Chavez and his government. [2]
In the second type of analysis, which opposition sympathizers tend to prefer, we look at which types of stations have the most potential to reach Venezuelans. Here it is generally said that the two stations with the largest national reach are channel 2 (formerly RCTV now TVes) and channel 8 (the government controlled VTV). The private national stations Venevisión, Televen, and Globovisión have a far more limited range, since they are broadcast mainly in larger population centers.[3] Obviously, private local channels and community channels don’t reach beyond their locality, but community TV stations are beginning to rival private TV stations in number. Looked at this way, it would seem that in terms of television broadcasting the government has acquired the definitive upper hand, with RCTV going off the air, its replacement by TVes, the strength of the government station, and the two dozen or so community television channels that for the most part sympathize with the government.
This picture shifts significantly, though, if we examine what people actually watch. According to studies that examine the audience share of the different types of television channels, only about five TV stations, a handful of radio stations, and a few newspapers are viewed, listened to, or read by most Venezuelans. That is, in television, RCTV and Venevisión are watched by about 60% of the viewing audience (RCTV about 35-40% and Venevisión about 20-25%). The remaining 40% are shared among the government station VTV (about 15-20%), Televen (around 10%), Globovisión (around 10%), cable channels, and various local channels.[4]
Given the political positions and the relative audience shares of the different media outlets, we can divide Venezuela’s media landscape into three categories of opposition, neutral or balanced, and pro-government. Before RCTV’s demise it looked as follows:
Opposition: 50-55%
RCTV: 35-40%
Globovisión: 10%
Private local: 5%
Neutral or balanced: 30-40%
Venevisión: 20-25%
Televen: 10-15%
Pro-government: 20-25%
VTV: 15-20%
Other (Telesur, Vive, Community): 5%
Now, in the post-RCTV era there is indeed a significant shift, so that the media landscape could look as follows, if, as promised, TVes (RCTV’s replacement) does not become a pro-government channel, but is neutral.
Opposition: 15%
Globovisión: 10%
Private Local: 5%
Neutral/balanced: 30-40% or more
Venevisión: 20-25%
Televen: 10-15%
TVes: ??%
Pro-government: 20-25%
VTV: 15-20%
Other: 5%
In other words, the ratio of opposition-oriented to government-oriented television changed from about 50:25 (or 2:1) in favor of the opposition to 15:25 (or 1:1.7) in favor of the government in terms of audience share. In most countries in the world, where the media is not democratically controlled, any opposition would be overjoyed by having such a ratio. In Venezuela, of course, where the opposition is used to having ruled the country for four decades, such a disadvantage is an intolerable encroachment on their “freedom of speech.”
However, there are three unknowns that could change the ratio in favor of the opposition. First, those who used to watch RCTV might very well watch more Globovisión, thus increasing their share of the audience. Second, Venevisión could very well become more oppositional, now that many opposition supporters are looking for a new home. There are already first indications that this will happen, according to a recent news report in the weekly newspaper Quinto Dia. [5] And third, many lovers of RCTV who want to continue watching it but did not have cable access, might, if they can afford it, switch to cable to watch RCTV. Thus, if Globovisión’s audience share increases, if Venevisión moves back into the oppositional column, and if RCTV continues to attract a large audience on cable, [6] then the opposition to pro-government balance in the Television media could easily swing to at last 1:1.
If you look at audience shares in the newspaper market or in radio, it is still far more favorable for the opposition than for the government. Many Chavez supporters say that the country’s largest newspaper, Últimas Noticias, is a Chavista newspaper, but if you look at the newspaper’s content and at its columnists, it is actually the most balanced newspaper in Venezuela, with government criticism and praise equally present. The second and third largest newspapers (El Universal and El Nacional), plus a good majority of smaller ones are all solidly in the opposition camp. The situation is even more lopsided among radio stations, where the pro-government share of radio audience (RNV, YVKE, and community radio) makes up a far smaller share than the opposition-oriented radio stations.
Thus, to argue that pluralism of views in Venezuela has been diminished by RCTV’s going off the air completely misses the reality of Venezuela’s media landscape. More than that, by defending the right of RCTV to broadcast, one is actually just defending the right of the country’s minority to continue its privileged place in the media landscape.
RCTV’s Rights and Responsibilities
Now that we have examined the arguments about whether RCTV’s going off the air represents a threat to media pluralism and thus to freedom of expression, we can turn to the other two arguments for and against RCTV: that RCTV deserves to lose its license due to its past actions and that it needs to make room for a new public Television Channel.
This is not the place to detail the numerous accusations against RCTV that the government has made, such as RCTV’s participation in the 2002 coup attempt, in the 2002-3 oil industry shutdown, and its violations of the country’s broadcasting regulations. [7] These facts are generally uncontested. Rather, what is contested is that these acts can justify the non-renewal of a broadcast license when another broadcaster, such as Venevisión, committed the same violations, but whose license was renewed on May 27th. In other words, on what legal grounds was RCTV’s license not renewed, but Venevisión’s license was, if they committed the same violations? According to RCTV, political discrimination is the only answer because RCTV’s hard-line opposition to the government continued, while Venevisión became neutral in Venezuela’s political conflict. [8]
To fend off this accusation of discrimination and that RCTV is being punished for crimes that have never been proven in court, the government argues that RCTV’s non-renewal is not a punishment at all. Rather, RCTV’s license expiration provides an excellent opportunity for the government to launch a public service television station, in compliance with a constitutional mandate. [9] At a later point Telecommunications Minister Jesse Chacón explained that RCTV (and not Venevisión) was chosen for non-renewal because RCTV’s VHF channel 2 is better suited for public service TV because channel 2 has the better reception throughout the country.
In theory, though, it might still be possible for RCTV to reverse the license renewal once the full Supreme Court trial concludes with a decision in favor of RCTV, on the basis that either discrimination or that due process were violated. If this is the case, then the government might have to hold public hearings in which an objective analysis is made as to which of the three channels that are up for license renewal (RCTV, Venevisión, and VTV) needs to make room for TVes.
In any case, RCTV and the opposition have once again bungled the political situation. Instead of challenging Chavez in the political arena, they focused exclusively on legal challenges, international appeals, and confrontation. They could have organized a consultative (non-binding) referendum back in January, right after it was clear that Chavez would not renew RCTV’s license. Polls indicated that the up to 70% of Venezuelans did not want RCTV to go off the air. With only 10% of registered voters’ signatures the Electoral Council would have been forced to convoke a referendum on the issue. If the polls are accurate, the opposition would have won that referendum easily, thereby embarrassing Chavez and perhaps forcing him to renew RCTV’s license. Maybe this course of action did not occur to anyone in the opposition, but more likely is that they prefer to challenge Chavez in the legal and international arenas and on the streets than politically because actions that use Venezuela’s democratic processes would legitimate a political system that the opposition continuously decries as a dictatorship and whose ultimate goal it is to de-legitimate.
Diversification and Democratization of the Media?
While the legal challenge to the non-renewal of RCTV’s license could have some merit, particularly the charge that RCTV is being discriminated against vis-á-vis Venevisión, what about the government’s goal of diversifying and democratizing the country’s media landscape? Do the government’s media policies contribute to diversification and democratization of the media?
With regard to diversification and democratization, the Chavez government has arguably done more than any government in Venezuelan history or in the history of most countries of the world. Enabling hundreds of community radio stations and of dozens of community television stations gives ordinary citizens access to the media in an unprecedented manner. The opposition, of course, calls these community media outlets “Chavez controlled,” but there is no evidence for this. Indeed, most of these media outlets (by no means all) are located in poor neighborhoods, where Chavez support is strong. However, criticism of national, state, and local governments is very common and these outlets provide a form of citizen accountability that can contribute to better governance.
Also, the creation of several new, certainly pro-government, Television outlets contributes to a diversification of the media landscape. Important in this regard is the launch of Vive TV, which focuses on communal issues and problems throughout the country, and of ANTV, the television channel of the National Assembly. ANTV allows Venezuelans (who receive cable) to observe the debates in the National Assembly, thus further enhancing democratic oversight over the country’s political processes.
Venezuela’s Law on Social Responsibility in Television and Radio has, despite opposition criticism, also contributed to the diversification of the media landscape, in that it mandates that five hours per day (between 5am and 11pm) be produced by independent national producers, with no single producer contributing more than 20% of this. [10] Thousands of independent producers have already registered with a national registry for their participation in this requirement.
Opposition critics say that the social responsibility law limits freedom of expression because it punishes the broadcasting of messages that are discriminatory, promote violence, promote the breaking of laws, or of “secret messages.” [11] However, despite all of the anti-government broadcasting that has taken place since this law went into effect, no broadcaster has been called to task for violating these provisions. Also, most of these provisions are standard broadcast regulations in most countries in the world.
Finally, the government’s most recent measure of creating Venezuelan Social Television (TVes, pronounced “te ves” or “you see yourself”) could indeed be a move towards democratizing and diversifying Venezuelan broadcast media, if the channel is truly independent of the government. So far, though, the board of directors has been named by the president and the channel’s funding comes from the central government. Even if the board does not receive any direction from the president, as long as it is named by the president, it cannot be considered independent. The government has promised, though, that this is merely a temporary arrangement and that later on the board and the financing of the channel will become truly independent. This issue notwithstanding, Venezuela’s independent television producers have applauded the new channel because it will broadcast almost entirely independent national productions–an important move that gives far more opportunity to Venezuelans to be heard on a national level than any other television channel provides.
Conclusion
While the decision not to renew RCTV’s license is still being challenged in court, [12] due to a possible violation of due process and equal treatment under the law, it is clear that the decision is legal to the extent that it is the prerogative of the state to decide which broadcasters are to receive licenses to use the airwaves, maintains pluralism in Venezuela’s media landscape, does not violate principles of freedom of speech for Venezuelans, and contributes to the democratization of the country’s airwaves by granting more Venezuelans access to these than before, via the new television channel TVes.
It is thus very disappointing to see international human rights groups, such as Human Rights Watch, the Washington Office on Latin America, the Carter Center, and the Committee to Protect Journalists condemn the government’s decision. These groups, just as Venezuela’s opposition, claim that the decision sends a chilling effect on freedom of speech. This supposed chilling effect, though, has been invoked over and over again by the government’s critics, but they have yet to point to a single instance of a story or a criticism that has not been aired due to this supposed effect. Globovisión continues to be as critical of the government as ever, just as the country’s most important newspapers and radio programs–arguably some of the most critical in the western hemisphere. RCTV, when it comes back via cable, will, no doubt, also continue to be as critical as ever. In effect, the groups that condemn Venezuela’s sovereign decision to change the way its airwaves are used are defending the right of corporate media to use the airwaves, to the detriment of the poor majority, who prior to Chavez have never had access to the country’s corporate-controlled media complex. Ideally, all broadcast frequencies should be under collective democratic and not private control. That, however, will take more time and will receive far more condemnation by the world’s establishment.
Gregory Wilpert is a freelance writer and editor of Venezuelanalysis.com. He is also the author of the forthcoming book, Changing Venezuela by Taking Power: The Policies of the Chavez Presidency, Verso Books, September 2007
Appendix: Who Controls Which Channel and What they Show
Looking only at the channels that significant numbers of people watch, it makes sense to examine the political orientations of the most widely watched outlets. RCTV clearly is/was the most popular and also one of the most anti-Chavez TV stations. In the days leading up to and during the 2002 coup, the 2002-3 oil industry shutdown, and the August 2004 recall referendum RCTV had nearly constant anti-Chavez news coverage and advertisements. However, between these periods and following the recall referendum, RCTV focused on its core business, which is entertainment programming, both from Hollywood and from Venezuela (mostly game shows and soaps). Its explicitly political programming was limited to its nightly news programs and one morning political talk show (La Entrevista with Miguel Angel Rodriguez).
RCTV is clearly part of Venezuela’s old elite, owned by one of the country’s richest families, the Phelps family, which also owns soap and food production and construction companies. Eliado Lares, the president of RCTV, is related to Henry Ramos Allup, the Secretary General of the former governing party Acción Democrática (AD). Lares played an important role in ensuring that RCTV’s concession was renewed in 1987, when it almost lost its license during the presidency of Jaime Lusinchi, due to RCTV director Marcel Granier’s fights with Lusinchi. Granier himself came into directing RCTV and its parent company 1BC, due to his marriage with Dorothy Phelps, one of the heirs to the Phelps fortune. [13]
The second-most watched channel is Venevisión, which belongs to Gustavo Cisneros, the Cuban-Venezuelan media mogul, who is one of the world’s richest men and owns about 70 media outlets in 39 countries, including the Spanish-language network Univisión in the U.S. Also, he owns countless food distribution companies. There has always been a strong rivalry between Granier and Cisneros, since both are said to have presidential aspirations. Ironically, their two families are closely linked via marriage, because Cisneros is married to Patricia Phelps, the sister of Granier’s wife Dorothy.
Venevisión itself was just as, if not more, involved in the April 2002 coup attempt because it had exclusive interviews with coup plotters and actually filmed some of the key footage that was later used to falsely claim that Chavez supporters were shooting at unarmed opposition demonstrators. It was also actively involved in the oil industry shutdown, urging people to participate in a general strike via thousands of public service announcements, just as RCTV did.
However, this channel changed its tune in June 2004, two months before the August 15, 2004 recall referendum against Chavez, in which Chavez and Cisneros agreed to a media cease-fire between the two that was brokered by former U.S. President Jimmy Carter. Officially, the two agreed to “honor constitutional processes and to support future conversations between the government of Venezuela and the media” [14] According to some reports, Cisneros had actually agreed to tone down his anti-Chavez propaganda in return for Chavez’s help with introducing Cisneros to Brazil’s President Lula. [15] Chavez, though, denied that any kind of pact had been made other than what was in the official statement. Still, Venevisión removed its political talk show “24″ with Napoleon Bravo, one of the most strident anti-Chavistas on Television and its news programs became more balanced.
The next most important channel, in terms of reaching the population, is the government’s VTV station, which has been a state channel for most of Venezuela’s democratic history. Its programming is controlled quite directly by the executive, which names its director. As such, it is not a public broadcasting channel as in many European countries, which tend to be more independent of the government. Most of VTV’s programming is quite political, with many pro-government public service announcements and political talk shows in which government representatives or supporters predominate.
Televen, is one of the country’s newer channels, broadcasting since 1988. Unlike most of the other channels, it has always been slightly more neutral in Venezuela’s media wars, except that it once employed Marta Colomina for its morning talk show, one of the country’s most strident anti-Chavistas after Napoleon Bravo. Her program was taken off the air, though, following the 2004 recall referendum and the channel became far more balanced and now strives to invite as many government supporters as opponents for its political talk shows. Its economic interests are not as well defined as those of RCTV, Venevisión, and Globovisión because, unlike the other three, it is not affiliated with quite as large private economic interest groups.
Finally, there is Globovisión, which, as a 24-hour news and opinion channel has a political importance that far exceeds the size of its audience and its potential broadcasting reach. One of Venezuela’s newest channels, it was founded in 1994 by Alberto Federico Ravell (its director), Guillermo Zuloaga, and Nelson Mezerhane, who all belong to Venezuela’s upper crust, with Zuloaga coming from one of Venezuela’s richest families (who is also related to Ana corina Machado, one of the directors of the opposition NGO Súmate). While Globovisión’s UHF reach is limited, covering only three major cities, it does have cooperation agreements with numerous local private stations, so that it does reach most larger population centers over the airwaves. Politically, Globovisión is as opposition-oriented as a Television station could possibly be, broadcasting anti-government opinions and analysis 24 hours a day.
The other pro-government channels, such as most (but by no means all) community television stations, Vive, Telesur, and ANTV (National Assembly Television) all have extremely limited viewership according to the rating studies, so that these can be safely dismissed for the purposes of this analysis. The same goes for the opposition-oriented private local stations.
Notes
[1] Although, many progressives would argue that extreme right-wing views, which are racist or fascist, should not have access to the airwaves, even if a majority were to hold them. In many places it is actually illegal for such views to be broadcast under any circumstances. This is one of the reasons some say RCTV does not deserve a license.
2] More specifically, only three or TV channels broadcast via antenna out of over 200 are state owned (VTV, Vive, and Avila TV), only two out of 426 radio stations, and no daily newspapers. In each category, the privately owned outlets are overwhelmingly (perhaps around 80%) pro-opposition and anti-Chavez.
[3] Also, there are a few national specialty broadcasters, such as Vale TV, an educational channel, Meridiano, a sports channel, Puma, a music channel, and La Tele, an entertainment channel.
[4] Audience shares found in an El Nacional article of May 27, 2007. The percentages are given in ranges because different studies have slightly different results.
[5] “This happened with journalists and actors [of Venevisión]. They decided to complain about the editorial line of the Cisneros channel and got authorization to not just attend the demonstrations or to express their solidarity [with RCTV employees] in any other channel, but could now do it from their own screen.” J.A. Almenar, “Exclusivas de última pagina,” Quinto Día, June 1-8, 2007.
[6] Information on how many households receive cable or satellite TV is difficult to come by, but judging by the number of illegal cable connections that are said to exist and the number of DirecTV dishes (many with illegal decoders) in the barrios, it could be safe to guess that nearly half of Venezuelan households receive cable or satellite TV.
[7] For information on these acts of RCTV, see: Cartoon Coup D’Etat , Venezuela, RCTV, And Media Freedom: Just The Facts, Please , and the Libro Blanco (Spanish PDF) published by the Ministry of Communication and Information
8] The May 23rd decision of Venezuela’s Supreme Court, in which RCTV’s court injunction against the license non-renewal was rejected, but a trial about the issue was allowed, could leave a challenge open in this regard. The court merely states that RCTV failed to provide evidence for unequal treatment, but does not say that there was no unequal treatment. See: Supreme Tribunal of Justice Decision of May 23, 2007 (in Spanish) or Supreme Court Allows RCTV Case to Proceed, but Station Must Go off Air for a summary of the decision.
[9] See section IV, No. 2 of the May 23rd Supreme Court decision (in Spanish)
[10] Article 14, Ley de responsabilidad social en radio y televisión (Resorte)
[11] Article 28, No. 4 u-z, Ley Resorte
[12] The decision is being challenged not only in Venezuela’s Supreme Tribunal of Justice, but will also be tried by the Inter-American Court for Human Rights.
[13] See: http://www.aporrea.org/medios/a34490.html
[14] According to the Carter Center statement released after the meeting. http://www.aporrealos.org/actualidad/n17674.html
[15] See: “Venezuela’s Murdoch” by Richard Gott, New Left Review, May-June 2006
Chavez Dismisses International Disapproval of Venezuela’s Media Policy Hundreds of Thousands March in Support of Chavez
By Gregory Wilpert - Venezuelanalysis.com ,Jun 05, 2007
As several hundred thousand Chavez supporters rallied in Venezuela’s largest avenue on Saturday, President Chavez rejected all international interference with his decision not to renew a television station’s broadcast license. Referring to the Marxist theorist Antonio Gramsci, Chavez also spoke at length about how private media maintains a cultural hegemony that must be broken.
“Go to hell, representatives of the global oligarchy, we are a free country!” said Chavez to wild applause, once marchers reached the Avenida Bolivar in the center of Caracas. The demonstration converged on the avenue from two starting points, one in the east of the city and the other towards the city’s south. Unofficial estimates of the number of demonstrators ranged from 300,000 to 500,000.
Chavez said he did not care that the world media was presenting him as a new Hitler or Mussolini. “What I do care about,” said Chavez, “is the sovereignty of the Venezuelan homeland.”
“The international elite are worried, they fear that the example of Venezuela will extend to other countries where they believe that they are the masters of everything,” continued Chavez during his relatively short one and a half hour speech. Every destabilization plan, warned Chavez, will be “responded with a new revolutionary offensive.”
Chavez also said it was sad that university students have been demonstrating in support of RCTV. “It continues to be sad that some students take to the streets - to defend what? … On whose side will they place themselves, on the side of the people or of the oligarchy, of the homeland or of the North American empire?” adding that the vast majority of students are on the side of the people. The images of student protests are just part of a “giant manipulation, a gross media spectacle.”
For Chavez, what is happening in Venezuela is very similar to what the U.S. has helped organize in eastern European countries, in the so-called “colored revolutions,” such as in Ukraine, where demonstrators succeeded in overthrowing the government.
Chavez also reminded his supporters that his reelection on December 3rd was merely the beginning of a new phase in his presidency, of creating socialism and that so far much had been achieved. Chavez mentioned that the “re-nationalization” of the oil industry had been finalized and that the new Unified Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) has been launched and announced that until now 4,735,000 Venezuelans have been registered as applicants to be activists in the new party.
Antonio Gramsci as Key for Understanding Events in Venezuela
The thought of the Marxist theorist Antonio Gramsci is fundamental, according to Chavez, for making sense of what is happening in Venezuela today. “I want to refer to the thought of Gramsci, to use his ideas, using the light of his thought, every day we understand better what is happening here today in Venezuela.”
Thus Chavez launched into one his longest and most detailed talks on the thought of Gramsci, explaining Gamsci’s concept of “historical blocs,” in which a particular class manages to acquire hegemony that is expressed in structures and super-structures. The super-structure, explained Chavez, consists of two levels, of the institutions of the state and of the civil society. The civil society, according to Chavez’s explanation of Gramsci, consists of economic and private institutions, through which the dominant class spreads its ideology.
The conflict in Venezuela can thus be understood as one between the institutions of the state, which used to be controlled by this civil society, but no longer is, and the old civil society. To this old civil society, according to Gramsci, belong the Catholic Church hierarchy, the mass media, and the education system as the principal institutions. The dominant classes use these institutions to disseminate their ideologies, explained Chavez.
This ideology of the dominant classes is disseminated in a variety of levels of abstraction, with philosophy being the most abstract. Below this level are belief systems such a neo-liberalism, the free market, the thesis of freedom of expression, of bourgeois democracy, of division of powers, representation as foundation of democracy. These are “Big lies!” exclaimed Chavez, with which for over a 100 years hegemony has been exercised.
On a third level is common sense, which is “the product of being bathed in the dominant philosophy and of the ideology in different forms, via soap operas, movies, songs, propaganda, billboards…” said Chavez.
The fourth level is “folklore,” whereby people simply express a preference as a result of manipulation, without knowing why.
According to Chavez, the Bolivarian movement has been “liberating” the state, including the judiciary, the legislature, the state-owned enterprises, from the control of this hegemonic “bourgeois civil society.”
Now this civil society is using its last remaining resources to fight for power, the Church, the mass media, and the universities. “From there is the importance of understanding the layout of the battle,” said Chavez.
Chavez also clarified that Venezuela’s oligarchy could live with the Bolivarian Revolution, because “we have no plan to eliminate the oligarchy, Venezuela’s bourgeoisie. We have demonstrated this sufficiently in over eight years,” said Chavez.
“But, if the oligarchy does not understand this, if it does not accept the call to peace, to live with us, that the great revolutionary majority is making, if the Venezuelan bourgeoisie continues to desperately assault, using the refuges it has remaining, well then the Venezuelan bourgeoisie will continue to lose, one by one, the refuges it has remaining,” declared Chavez.
Directed to Venezuela’s bourgeoisie, Chavez said, “We respect you as Venezuelans, you [should] respect Venezuela, respect the homeland, respect our constitution, respect our laws. If you do not, you will regret it, if you do not, we will make you obey Venezuela’s laws.”
The gathered crowd chanted, “This is how one governs!”
Letter from Michael Lebowitz
In the mid 70s the non aligned countries demanded a New World Information and Economic Order. Some time later, this decision led the United States to withdraw from UNESCO. For many decades only five or so monopolies controlled flows of information. It is only now that the demand to understand information as a human right and to democratize access to the media is being seen as a necessary requirement for building systems that are really democratic. The existence of media like Telesur or Al Jazeera, the proliferation of community radio and television stations, the expansion of computer networks and free software and the efforts states are making to take back control of their airwaves are all part of this effort to democratize the airwaves.
This is why we respect CONATEL’s (The National Telecommunication Commission of Venezuela) decision to not renew the broadcast license of the private television channel Radio Caracas (RCTV) which was taken in complete accordance with Venezuelan domestic legislation and international standards. Far from being an argument in favour of renewing its license to broadcast, the biased manner in which RCTV used this frequency for 53 years was an invitation to find an alternative use for it. Besides, RCTV still has the option to continue broadcasting on cable and satellite, if it so wishes.
Similarly, we are concerned to note that the attacks to which this sovereign decision by the Venezuelan government is being subject are related to the attempts –started by the FAES foundation and repeated by other right-wing organisations in Europe and America– to “democratically defeat the socialism for the 21 century project”. The Venezuelan government’s fair decision not to renew RCTV’s broadcast licence can be explained by what RCTV did during the April 2002 coup d’état in Venezuela –to wit, giving airtime to the coup backers, distorting the facts and ignoring acts which were an attack on freedom of expression. The events RCTV ignored included the violent take-over of the state TV station, thus silencing and disrespecting its journalists (RCTV also ignored the people’s reaction to the massacre in the streets). What the station did during the coup also permits us to understand why, today as yesterday, right-wing forces all over the world are closing ranks with the Venezuelan right.
Democratising the media is something our democracies have yet to do. The information given out abroad about Venezuela and President Chávez clearly demonstrates the manipulation of information that affects all of our peoples. We unflinchingly defend our peoples’ freedom of expression and their right to be informed but we do not confuse this with the freedom of media companies –and the political and economic conglomerates who are their allies– to manipulate information to suit their interests and aims.
So, for all of the above reasons and while once again repeating that the Venezuelan government has the legitimate right to decide on the use of the airwaves that belong to all of its citizens, we demand that an urgent debate be started on the means of communication to put an end to the exaggerated manipulation that we see today which seeks to attack a legitimate decision taken by the democratic government of Venezuela.
1 de junio de 2007
Caracas,
Luis Bonilla Molina, Escritor, Presidente del Centro Internacional
Miranda, Venezuela.
Marta Harnecker, Escritora. Chile.
Michael Lebowitz, Profesor Emérito Universidad Simon Fraser, Canadá.
Fernando Bossi, Congreso Bolivariano de los Pueblos (CBP), Argentino,
Monica Saiz, Argentina, Congreso Bolivariano de los Pueblos (CBP)
Haiman el Troudi, Escritor, Venezuela.
Víctor Álvarez, Economista, Venezuela
Juan Carlos Monedero, Profesor Universidad Complutense. Madrid. España.
Maximilien Arvelaiz, Venezuela.
Janet Duckworth, politóloga, Reino Unido
Gilberto Giménez, Venezuela.
Selma Díaz, Arquitecto, Cuba.
Jorge Gantiva, Educador, Colombia
Miguel Sanchez, Educador, (Chile)
Pedro Luis Gonzalez, Politologo, Venezuela
Jonathan Montilla, Venezuela.
December 28th, 2007 at 12:29 am
rctv-r licence renew na howa-ta, spashtoti or telecast atkanor ekta cheshta. (specially chavez-er ana last referendum tar por aro beshi kore or authoritarian nature exposed, jodio seta satweo markin samrajyobaader birudhde chavez-er protirodh chhoto hoyna). ebar article-tay jebhabe ei step-take mediar ganatanrikaron dekhano achhe, taar sange amader porichito cpm-intellectualder party-ke defend korar bhishon mil spashto.
December 28th, 2007 at 12:32 am
A complex and radical social transformation is being attempted in Venezuela under what is known as the Bolivarian revolution. One needs to look at the unfolding events and the class struggle underlying those events in some detail before passing judgements. Otherwise, we unconsciously repeat/accept the propaganda of the international media, which is understandably against all that the Bolivarian revolution stands for. We must not forget that the on-going experiment Venezuela, which is attempting to build socialism for the 21st century, is a process which has been opposed tooth and nail by local Venezuelan elite (backed by the US establishment) right from the start. This opposition became especially serious once Chavez made the move to start using the oil revenues for the poor of the country, encouraged the movement towards radical land reforms, made large expenses for social development and made legal changes to encourage co-operative forms of economic organization. Missing this context of the RCTV episode will be highly misleading.
There is a documentary film on the Venezuelan coup of 2002 called “The Revolution will not be Televised”; it was made by a team of Irish film
makers. Here it is:
video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5832390545689805144
(This documentary clearly shows the role of the established media in the coup where the Bolivarian revolution was attempted to be subverted by use of force; Chavez was imprisoned, etc.)
Some more articles about the whole process:
1)
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=45&ItemID=13065
2)
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=45&ItemID=13145
3)
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=45&ItemID=13182
4)
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=45&ItemID=13229
December 28th, 2007 at 12:35 am
thhik ei logic guloi bahubaar dekhano hoyechhe freedom of speech curtail korte. kintu, ekta sustho ebong proper transformation tokhon i aste pare, jokhon political process-er modhye diye opposing voice ke counter kora hoy. sei sahos ta jodi chavez governement dekhato, tahole RCTV taader ‘opoprochar’ satweo okinchitkor hoye uthhto, venezuellar manush-i eke barjon korto. er ultodike je step ta newa hoyechhe,seta budhdher ‘bartoman amra chailei bandho kore dite pari kintu chhnucho mere haat gondho korchhina’-r ekta enhanced porjay bole mone hoy. state power-er byabohar kore opposing view ke domon kora chhara ar kichhui na.
er pichhone logic o counter logic dui i toiri kora jaay. kintu, amar mote jekono dharoner censor-i asole sei space-ta toiri kore, jekhan theke opochhonder sab kichhu thamiye dewa jaay… ar rctv ban kora taar ekta podokhkhep. ‘complex and radical social transformation’ eong taar biruhddhe chakranto jatiyo 1910 marka jukti ele cpm-er bibhinno hasykor jukti (media manei chakrantokari) emonki iran-er islamic ruling, taslima ke bangaldesh theke ber kora sab-i justify kore dewa jaay. the very problem is in the basic principle, jeta holo political debate o process na chaliye ekta prochar ke forcefully atke dewa.
‘detail-e lina ba quote koreo bola jaay, ei article-ta chavez-er step ke justify korchhe, media-r freedom-er proshnota address na korei.. hence eta propaganda chhara kichhui na.
December 28th, 2007 at 1:11 am
i broadly agree with what somnath says in the first part.
sanhati is about dialogues within the left
again, concensus building is imporant, but also, non-binary progressions are important
discordsant niktes are not necessarily bad..
anywhere any utopia that claims to have to do anything with humans also has to reflect human mind itself
and also build into it seeds of its destructiion
socialist projects (of european vinatage) like chavez and other such elements before him suffer from this shortcoming- of not having any element of self-destruction built into it
this may be a broad statement I am making but this is my perspective
December 28th, 2007 at 1:18 am
Somnath,
ami tomar general line of argument er sathe ekmot, jeta hochhe je ekta birodhi rajnaitik motamot-ke rajnaitik-bhabei, prashashanik- bhabe noy, birodhita kora uchit. ebang ei motamot-er takkar theke sesh abdhi manush-i beche nebe konta theek aar konta bhool. Kintu, Venezuela aar RCTV-r byapare katogulo tathya amader mathay rakhte hobe, jeta naa korle amar mone hoy je amra ekta corporate media-r tairi kora phande paa debo. Ami ingreji-tei likhi, karon kono naa-bangla-bojha sadasya-o porte agrohi hote paare.
I reiterate that I agree that political opposition coming from a newspaper, or of any other form, should be countered politically, rather than administratively. But the issue of RCTV in Venezuela was way beyond the political, and was actually criminal under the legal framework of any system of government. This is not what I think, or what Chavez thinks, but what is borne out by facts.
RCTV had openly supported the coup leaders of 2002, and had acted as their main media arm. They had been indicted for this by the Venezuelan supreme court. But they went on telecasting for 5
years after that, because there is no provision in the Bolivarian constitution of Venezuela (adopted under Chavez) to ban a media outlet. This I think wouldn’t happen anywhere in the world, just imagine ABC or CNN participating in a coup against the US government and continuing to telecast after that (I know this is a hypothetical question, because CNN etc. represents the same corporate interests which the US government does, but just think of the scenario).
So, what the Chavez government did was to decline to renew the license of RCTV when the time came for renewing it. It should also be clear that this is not the same as banning, as it has been put out everywhere. RCTV is just denied the license of using Venezuelan state owned bandwidth to telecast, they can, and continue, telecast on cable. There is also a policy question involved here, why would a state system tolerate that a private entity uses resources provided by the state, to act against the state itself. We can try to think whether a lab in an US university would get federal funding if its research was demonstrably against the interests of the US
government. Under all legal norms, any agency, state or private, retains the discretion of allowing the use of bandwidth provided
by it to media providers which it chooses. In USA the choice is based on who is the highest payer (which effectively shuts out small, and alternative, media outlets) and in Venezuela the
government can very well claim that it is providing the bandwidth previously available to RCTV to other media service providers which it thinks are more appropriate. These, I think, are purely administrative questions, which have been politicized because the context is Venezuela, and the news channel is in opposition to the Chavez government. So, although I oppose such a move
politically, I cannot disagree with the contention that there are valid arguments for this being based on administrative grounds.
Coming to the question of why Sanhati put this up on the website (although I wasn’t aware that it was put up, just as I am not aware of all the articles that are uploaded), if you go through
the mainstream media coverage of that time when this entire issue was going on, can you find a single article which provided the viewpoint of the Chavez government, or provided arguments supporting the non-renewing of the license for RCTV? 100% of media coverage was condemning the move as a sign of the dictatorial nature of the Chavez government. If one of the aims of sanhati is to provide alternative views of such issues, when the mainstream view is much more easily available and is instrumental in shaping public opinion in the absence of a debate, then it is important for Sanhati to present such views to
the public. Again, the public can read both the views, one available widely and the other only through outlets like Sanhati, and come to a conclusion for themselves.
Coming to your other contention that the recent referendum in Venezuela has more exposed Chavez’s authoritarian nature, the least I can say is I’m surprised about it. We should try to think for ourselves rather than just repeating what the corporate media says ad nausem. I thought that a referendum, especially where a government decision is rejected, is the greatest sign of democracy in action,as opposed to authoritarianism. In which
other system are policy decisions, taken by an overwhelming majority of elected members of parliament, put to the general public for their assent by referendum? This is done in Venezuela
because again the Bolivarian constitution, adopted under Chavez builds in such a provision. And then the public defeats those decisions in the referendum, and the government accepts it. I
don’t understand how this exposes authoritarian nature. Not a single news item mentioned this fact, while crowing about a “triumph of democracy”. The provision that major policy decisions can only be taken by popular referendum is, in my opinion, a major step towards participatory democracy, and a great check on
authoritarian government. More such government decisions come under the purview of referenda, more will be the democratic nature of a system.
December 28th, 2007 at 1:20 am
1.) state power-e theke oi referendum anatai ekta authoritarian step bole amar dharona.
venezuelar manush ke abhinandan je tara sei step taake rukhe dite perechhen,
ei topic taay onyotro detail-e alochona kora dakar
2.) RCTV-r bodole ekta left media ekta capitalist state-er birudhdhe prochar chalate giye ei sanction ta pele ki bhumika hoto tomar?
mane, US byaparta allow kortona, tai chavez-er na koratao justified… eta adbhut rokomer jukti laage amar kachhe.. rather cpm-cpm jukti ( ie.bidhan roy-o to jomi adhigrohon korechhilen, amra korbona keno ).. ei jukti dile jekono state power jekono khetre nijeke justfy kore felte pare.
3.)
There is also a policy question involved here, why would a state system tolerate that a private entity uses resources provided by the state, to act against the state itself.
ekhane duikhan kotha achhe. i) provate media state-er space use korbe ki korbena.. eta ekta policy question hote pare, kintu seta rctv na hoye, je channeltay roj chavez ke dekhay sei channel-er jonneo projojyo
ii) state-er against-e kotha bolte parar adhikaarta bhishon important adhikaar.. seta america iran india-teo jemon ekta impprtant adhikar, venezuela china north korea-teo.
amar byaktigoto stand jekono somoyei sei adhikar tar pokhkhe.. administrative ground-er chhuto dekhie sambhabato je kono power-i ei right take curtail korte chaibe, taai venezuela hok ba britain, state power-er birudhdhe protibaader jayga thakei
December 28th, 2007 at 1:22 am
perhaps the debate on this particular article is provocating enough for all of us to participate.
i understand that all or at least most of us have sympathy for (or, support towards) the war cry given by chavez against US imperialism. but i think that given all the reasonings in favour of chavez, these moves do not augur well for a movement aiming at emancipation of people.
a) lets start with the referendum. i think that partho has missed the main point and I reiterate what Somnath has already asserted. Bringing of this referendum (for whatever good reason one may have) is an attempt to establish one man show. The ideology should lead to a proper movement and the movement should decide the leadership and collective leadership should emerge from within. Trying to establish/retain a leadership from the top is an attempt to bring in totalitarian regime.
b) about the RCTV: its no denying about their past role. But in my opinion, Partho’s example is a very weak example to justify the action. If US is doing (or not doing) something, can we say that it is acceptable to us? If in the US scenario, community radio or some such efforts are very weak and CNN & ABC channels are strong, it only shows the problems. If tomorrow a strong alternate broadcasting attempt is made and the US Govt (or any other govt for that matter) stops that from being aired, won’t we oppose that Govt? I think that if we are trying to achieve a better tomorrow, then we should have our principles first fixed and then apply those case by case. Otherwise, if we decide our friends (or enemies) first and then decide on the principle, then we may end up contradicting ourselves.
if Chavez govt wants to isolate and minimize the effect of RCTV, then it should carry out active political campaign and ask people not to watch that. politics is one and only one weapon to win over an ideology. failure to do so can not be covered up by administrative measures, whatever good intention one may have.
in the light of the above principle, i differ with partho. but i think that somnath by opposing the hosting of this article, you are making a wrong judgement as well. to the best of my understanding, sanhati is a broad-based platform and so it is okay to publish this document in the website. even if i take this article to be mere propaganda (which it is not), then this article should be countered by publishing another article written by someone elsewhere or by anyone of us who strongly believes that he/she has the data and information to write an analytical piece. and not by preventing it from being viewed. this very debate shows that the write up has served one purpose: to bring out some intense debate and enhance our knoweldge.
December 28th, 2007 at 1:29 am
I would like to add to what Partho has already said in his post about Venezuela. The first question that needs to be addressed is this: what
was the referendum all about? Was “Bringing of this referendum … an attempt to establish [a] one man show” as Somnath and Dhiman has asserted? Here are a few details that needs to be considered.
The referendum of 2nd December 2007 was about amending 69 articles of the 1999 Constitiution. The various amendments are part of the attempt
to build what Chavez and his followers have called 21st century socialism; the amendments can be seen to relate broadly to the following five areas: participatory democracy, social inclusion,
socialist (or non-capitalist) economic development, politico-territoria l reorganization, and a more effective central government. More concretely, the proposals for reform included those meant to:
(a) deepen participatory democracy by bringing into existence a new level of government, the “popular power”;
(b) deepen social and political inclusion, (for instance by prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and health status or by reducing the voting age from 18 to 16);
(c) deepening non-capitalist forms of economic development based on land reforms, anti-privatization moves (especially of the state oil company PDVSA), political accountability of the Central Bank;
(d) reduce the power of the corporate sector by encouraging a new form of property (collective, social and communal property)
(e) increase the power of the working class by reducing the working hours, by bringing in social security, etc.
The proposals also included:
(a) removing the limit on the number of re-elections of the President;
(b) extending the presidential term from six to seven years;
(c) provision for the use of censorship during states of emergency.
It is important to realize that there have been both right and left citiques of the referendum. The right critique, which has flooded the
mainstream media right from the New York Times to BBC, has picked up on the last three of the proposals and have used them to dub the whole
referendum as “authoritarian” , thereby attemting to de-legitimise the Bolivarian movement. Needless to say, the institutional set-up, corporate & state backing and financial resources of the mainstream media ensured that most of the population in the world would see the referendum as another Latin American dictator. It is also clear that the right does not have so much of a problem with authoritarianism as with the socialist content of the referendum; they have merely used the label of authoritarianism as a pretext for attacking the progressive content of the referendum.
The left critique first and foremost asserted solidarity with the general content of the referendum, it’s attempt to construct socialism
in the face of enormous opposition, to offer a non-capitalist model of development and then voiced concern about the last three proposals.
The concern of the left emerged from a COMPLETELY different perspective, in fact a diametrically opposite perspective. The left critique was concerned that these proposals would hamper the unfolding Bolivarian movement; so the content of the left critique was to suggest alternatives to DEEPEN the revolution and not to derail it.
My concern with what Somnath and Dhiman have asserted is that by merely pointing towards “authoritarianism” while NOT talking at all
about the other aspects of the referendum, they are repeating the mainstream arguments. Probably they will clarify their positions on the other aspects of the referendum too.
One thing that probably needs to be kept in mind is that the so-called “authoritarian” proposals cannot be separated from the other proposals. This is important because removing the limit on the number of re-elections and entending the presidential term are born out of the Bolivarian movement’s need to implement it’s long-term goal of 21st centurty socialism. There can conceivably be many other ways to ensure the long-term viability and existence of the movement, but this
is certainly one of them. There are many who have voiced concern at this proposal while affirming the broader goals of the Bolivarian movement. I also share their concerns but when I juxtapose these moves against the other proposals in the referendum that relate to participatory democracy, worker’s direct control of the production
process, participatory and inclusive economic development, I see that the whole proposal is not a move towards unbridled authoritarianism.
There are important checks and balances that the movement is trying to work out for itself, the most important of which, in my opinion, is
creating institutions of self-management of the working class. As long as these are safe, the democratic content of the movement remains
unquestioned in my mind.
With regard to the RCTV episode, let me just suggest that we read (or re-read) the article that was posted on Sanhati and that has kicked
off this debate. Because in that article, the author has convincingly argued why the move to not renew the license to RCTV cannot be understood as a move of censorship, of a diminution of the space for a plurality of views in Venezuela. It would be more fruitful if, instead of making blanket statements about “freedom of speech”, arguments and facts in that article could be referred to because the author has taken pains to argue (and not just state) his points. Some arguments to consider:
1. Not renewing the license for RCTV has worked towards democratizing the media landscape of Venezuela; the author makes this point by
looking at the “media lanscape” from three different angles: ownership or control of media outlets, types of media outlets that reach the
population, and what people end up watching and listening to. The monopoly control over the media of the privileged minority elite has been loosened a bit by not renewing the license to RCTV.
2. Newspaper and radio is still largely dominated by anti-Chavez forces; there have been not even a hint of a move towards censorship there. So, not renewing RCTV’s license does not come merely from the fact that it is anti-Chavez nor can it be seen as a move towards censorship and curtailment of the “freedom of speech”.
There are several similar arguments, backed by facts, in the article but let me just quote the conlusion (which sums up the authors arguments):
“While the decision not to renew RCTV’s license is still being challenged in court, due to a possible violation of due process and equal treatment under the law, it is clear that the decision is legal
to the extent that it is the prerogative of the state to decide which broadcasters are to receive licenses to use the airwaves, maintains pluralism in Venezuela’s media landscape, does not violate principles of freedom of speech for Venezuelans, and contributes to the democratization of the country’s airwaves by granting more Venezuelans
access to these than before, via the new television channel TVes.
It is thus very disappointing to see international human rights groups, such as Human Rights Watch, the Washington Office on Latin America, the Carter Center, and the Committee to Protect Journalists
condemn the government’s decision. These groups, just as Venezuela’s opposition, claim that the decision sends a chilling effect on freedom
of speech. This supposed chilling effect, though, has been invoked over and over again by the government’s critics, but they have yet to
point to a single instance of a story or a criticism that has not been aired due to this supposed effect. Globovisión continues to be as
critical of the government as ever, just as the country’s most important newspapers and radio programs–arguably some of the most critical in the western hemisphere. RCTV, when it comes back via
cable, will, no doubt, also continue to be as critical as ever. In effect, the groups that condemn Venezuela’s sovereign decision to
change the way its airwaves are used are defending the right of corporate media to use the airwaves, to the detriment of the poor majority, who prior to Chavez have never had access to the country’s
corporate-controlle d media complex. Ideally, all broadcast frequencies should be under collective democratic and not private control. That, however, will take more time and will receive far more condemnation by the world’s establishment. “
December 28th, 2007 at 1:30 am
I overall agree with Partho and Dipankar. I think there is a difference between dissent and actively inciting people to carry out assassination of the country’s leader, as RCTV did, during the attempted coup. Incidentally, Bill Richardson openly called for this in his show “why does not somebody get rid of him”, in reference to Chavez. Of course, one cannot imagine any newspaper / tv anywhere in the world calling for the same in the reverse direction. We can see how Ahmedinajad’s mis-translated comment about “wiping Israel off the map” is used to bash him. The fact that RCTV operated for so long afterwards seems to be an act of leniency. Nobody censured Bill Richardson. He was not kicked off the air, like Don Imus, though the racist comment of the latter at least did not call for bloodshed.
However, it might be that shutting down only one channel, when the vast majority of the media both inside and outside Venezuela is actively opposed to Chavez, did not serve any useful purpose. In fact, the Venezuelan media played a significant role in mobilizing support for defeat of the referendum. While the pro-chavistas campaigned on the basis that people should vote for the referendum out of love for Chavez http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/2955 (I agree that is a pro-Chavez site)
those against used insidious arguments to gather support. Not to mention there were rumours, apparently spread by people funded by the cia, that the children of the mothers will be taken away, etc.
Regarding the actual result of the referendum, I have some questions.
Firstly, with many abstaining, could the result be used to conclude that there was a vote against Chavez? It does not appear the the opposition to Chavez received many additional votes. Many of the poor in the barrios of Caracas and in the other places of Venezuela did not vote. It seems that they were tired with a chronic lack of supply of essential commodities. Possibly, this was something that was deliberately created by people against Chavez, to foster discontent. However, the poor and the marginalised did not vote against the referendum, as they perhaps realize that the alternative to Chavez is much worse. Would this section just become apathetic to the politics and do not vote, as is the case of 21 million single women in US who work multiple jobs and do not vote? Could it be that, if there is an exploitative regime in place instead of Chavez, they might rise up, like the rebels in the Niger Delta or the slum-dwellers in Brazilian cities - and the fear of this keeps the opposition from toppling Chavez?
Secondly, there were clauses which were parts of the referendum, which did not require constitutional change, and will be pushed through anyway. Why were they there? Was it just a show of strength, or was it an effort to highlight the reforms? If it was more a show of strength, this could be interpreted as a sign of totalitarianism.
Finally, I am not certain if the Western media would have been so interested in the referendum were it not for the fact that US imports a large amount of oil from Venezuela. While the interest in the West was to see the referendum fail as a whole and thus undermine the Bolivarian process, the Venezuelan opposition were against mainly the proposal of extended rule, and in fact agreed to some of the other reforms. If the Western dependence on Venezuelan oil is gone tomorrow, say due to the ethanol deal that was signed with Brazil’s Lula, Venezuela could quickly disappear from the radar of the international media.The opposition to Chavez in Venezuela do not seem to be against everything Chavez is doing, because in that case the opposition might have declared autonomous zones, as the rich have done in several portions of Bolivia to protest Evo Morales’s recent decree. Quite likely they the opposition in Venezuela is not so well organized, as in Bolivia (though the incidents in Bolivia could be just posturing by both parties). If the Western interest in Venezuela disappears, the opposition could lose one of their major cheerers, and hence lose steam. Meanwhile, the reforms that are taking place there at the grassroots level will carry on.
December 28th, 2007 at 1:35 am
Thanks to Dipankar for bringing out the important issues in the referendum. Would you please explain why you think that the referendum was an “attempt to establish a one man show” or “exposes Chavez’s authoritarianism” ? Did you all read anywhere in
the media that the referendum was about voting on 69 amendements which were directly aimed at deep democratization and socialization of Venezuela’s political and economic system? Most of these measures are actually unprecedented in their extent of democratization (except possibly to some extent in Cuba).
Moreover, these amendments, after being passed by an overwhelming majority in Venezuela’s parliament, could easily have been implemented, or Chavez could have even passed them by decree.
Instead, they were put to the people for a referendum. And all this was reduced by the corporate media to the issue of removing the limit on the number of times someone can stand for election as president (something which is very much allowed in England, India, Australia etc.)Telling that all this boils down to the
attempt of establishing a one man show is a sign of total gullibility to the propaganda by corporate media.
On the issue of RCTV, I think that a level playing field did not exist in the world of Venezuelan media, as it doesn’t anywhere in the world, because most of the media is owned and operated by
private corporate interests deeply tied to the oligarchic elite against whom the entire Venezuelan revolution is directed. These media companies have disproportionate extent of access to resources to propagate their views, which is still evident in Venezuela. By denying the telecasting license to RCTV on state-owned frequencies, the Venezuelan government had just
attempted to level the playing field somewhat. RCTV has enough resources to reach its audience by cable. In this battle, corporate media like RCTV has disproportionate economic power. I think it is expected that a state, which professes to be based on popular will, should use the only power available to it, legalistic power, to weigh in on the side of the people. The situation is somewhat analogous to a case where there is a dispute between a big industrialist and the workers of the
industry over wages or something and the owner is going to lock-out the factory. Do you think that a popular, leftist government should just wait for political consciousness to develop among all the workers so that they finally go and occupy
the factory and start production or use the legal power available to it to expropriate the industry and help the workers own it and start production? This entire issue of RCTV cannot just be
brought down to the question of media freedom, it involves questions of ownership of means of production and distribution (of information in this case), with which the Venezuelan revolution is grappling.
December 28th, 2007 at 1:39 am
One thing seems clear - the fact that RCTV did not
have their license renewed has cost Chavez more than he could have possibly gained. If the presence of corporate media is not diminished much, as Dipankar says, then it is hard to see why Chavez would engage in this fierce issue at all. Why not let RCTV ply its trade anyway, as it will do on cable and as other media sources are doing, and fight a fierce political war instead of a debatable administrative one?
Chavez must have been smart enough to realize that the big media would never let this one slip. Never, no way. Neither would leftists, with the long shadow of dozens of left movements which have started with progressive outlooks, and then been bureaucratized and fossilized time and again. This was an issue that was bound to invite gleeful attack from the right and the center, as well as serious, engaged, acrimonious debate from the left.
It just wasn’t worth it, I feel. Chavez either
incredibly didn’t realize this, or realized this and still felt that such a gesture needed to be taken as a piece of moral resistance. In doing so, he has turned the spotlight from the various other issues he stands for, much to the glee of his detractors.
How did this make sense from a purely TACTICAL point of view? It must have had some effect in weakening the push on the referendum issue…if this larger battle was already looming large, why fight a damaging smaller one just months prior?
It reminds one of the Democratic capitulation to Karl Rove’s focus on Bush’s war record during the 2004 elections. Democrats labored for weeks over summer on that, Republicans head-faked them, then suddenly it wasn’t an issue anymore and all anyone knew was that Kerry was a flip-flopper.
December 28th, 2007 at 1:41 am
erpor, referndum-er point-e asi, jodio amar dharona, je eta akta alada alochonar jayga rakhe. referendum-er economic clause gulo-i sab ar political aspect ta seta fulfill korar process-er ekta mere part, ei dharonatar sange ekmot hote parchhina. presidential power-er enhancement ba censorship, purotai ekta authoritarian byapar, jeta asol economic demand-er lorai-take aro gono bichchinno kore tole, power to people-er bodole power to burocratic circle-e porjobosito hoy. sei ak i bhul ja bibhinno bhabe goto sottor bochhor dhore kroe asa hoyechhe, setai chavez repeat korchhe. anyway, kichhu boroboro kotha chhnure dilam matro.. eta niye detail-e alada alochona chalano hok. amra web_sanhati kimba blog-e ei discussionta chalate pari.
RCTV prosonge asi, corporate media-r haat thek air time soriye democratization kora hochche.. ei analysis take amar otyonto juktihin mone hochche, karon RCTV baad diye, baki private media gulo ekhono exist korchhe.. ekta common prionciple jodi sab kota media-r jonye khaat to seta onyo issue hoto.. kintu, RCTV-ke alada kore airtime na dewa ta ekbhabe RCTV-r opor censorship chhara ar ki?
ekhono logic thakchhe je cable use kore rctv samproochar korte parbe.. kintu airtime-er aotay anek beshi darshok ase.. sapshtoto rctv-ke ekta boro section-er audience-er kachhe pouchhote dewa hochchena., fole sei autdience-er kono role thakchhena je tara konta grohon korbe.. state thhik kore dichche.
spashtoto, rctv-r birudhdhe je rajnoitik process chalano jeto seta avoid kore ekta chapiye dewa porcess cholchhe.
December 28th, 2007 at 1:42 am
There seems to be a consensus that putting most of the existing power (power of capitalist state) in one man’s hand is bad. Why? This may weaken burgeois parliamentary democracy/ western capitalist state structure at most. But if it comes along with a comprehensive plan of providing a space for people’s power (as one can argue is happening in venezuela, as per the information obtained from various sources), then why should it be considered bad? Moreover, distribution of exploitive power among 2 or 200 or 2000 doesn’t make significant difference. As far as I understood, the concentration of executive power of existing power structure to chavez was neccessary as communal councils (the organization of people’s power) and other experiments were facing bureaucratic obstacles from EXISTING state mechanism. {One may look at the law of communal council: Only formation and funding is related to president, head of existing state power. But the functioning is independent of every node of existing power}. Venezuela appears to be a very good experiment of socialism as defined before the 2nd international. We may observe it closely and relook at the conceptions we carry before criticizing it.