As always, many myths surround Venezuela. It’s truly the land of realismo mágico. Just the other day, I read an article in El Universal where Chavez claimed that thanks to him, Venezuela’s GDP has tripled. At this point, calling Chavez out on his nonsense seems pointless: the poor man is so delusional that he genuinely believes his own fabrications. Alarmingly, aside from a few notable exceptions from the usual critics, no one in Venezuela’s mainstream media or abroad seems to have taken notice of the news and mocked the caudillo for such dubious economic ‘achievements’.
Now we face the issue of the primaries, which are fast approaching. On February 12, Venezuelans will vote in primaries aimed at selecting the opposition unity candidate who will challenge Chavez in the October 2012 presidential race. Six candidates are vying for this position: an acting Congresswoman (Maria Corina Machado), a former diplomat (Diego Arria), a former Congressman (Pablo Medina), two current governors (Miranda’s Henrique Capriles Radonsky and Zulia’s Pablo Perez), and a former mayor (Leopoldo Lopez).
Chavez’s Ministry of Elections, also known as Venezuela’s Electoral Council (CNE), will oversee the election of the opposition candidate nationwide. Venezuelans living abroad, most of whom lean toward the opposition, will presumably cast their votes at Venezuelan embassies and consulates. As with previous elections, there’s a high chance that these votes will not reach their intended destination, and that’s not just a myth.
The myth that needs debunking today is Francisco Toro’s article in Foreign Policy, titled «A real race in Caracas». Toro, a political scientist and long-time blogger who should really know better, informs his readers that what’s happening in Caracas is quite similar to the situation among GOP candidates in the US. It is quite hard to envision any reasonable framework in which to compare the two primaries.
In the US, GOP candidates raise their own funds; travel around the country facing each other in elections held on different dates; operated by state and local governments; are free to engage in fierce attacks to undermine one another; and can decide their own policy and communication strategies. Essentially, it’s a highly competitive race, defined by individualism, where communication strategies and policies are shaped by the candidates themselves, and fundraising abilities determine their spending power. Here, credibility among party members can often win the day.
Now compare that to Venezuela, a «real race» according to Toro, where the rules for engagement in the primaries were «agreed upon» by an unelected group of old-school politicians—those same figures who Toro labels as «politically toxic» when he disagrees with them but praises as «oracles» when in agreement: «…other pundits I read, but Teodoro Petkoff I follow…» It’s no surprise then that Venezuela’s opposition primary has been «remarkably free of personal attacks», as Toro argues.
Petkoff is supposedly working alongside the same cabal of unelected politicians who were responsible for electing the last opposition candidate against Chavez in 2006, Manuel Rosales. I followed Rosales during that campaign and witnessed the influence Teodoro wields over Caracas’ political ‘intelligentsia’. However, it’s important to recall: Rosales was defeated, yet Teodoro and his group are back at it, «guiding» opposition policy and imposing their will on all candidates. Those who disagree are labeled, as Toro puts it, «politically toxic». Those who desire to see Chavez held accountable for his crimes are seen as «hard right extremists». This sentiment, promoted by Teodoro, is echoed by Toro and others in the lefty «neo-intelligentsia». And it’s worth noting: Petkoff and his colleagues have yet to defeat Chavez in any election.
Petkoff, it should be noted, edits a publication called Tal Cual, which is partly owned by Miguel Angel Capriles Lopez, cousin of Henrique Capriles Radonsky. Capriles Lopez also owns Venezuela’s largest newspaper, which Chavez supporters read voraciously: Ultimas Noticias.
In this context, Foreign Policy’s Transition blog presents Toro’s flawed depiction of Venezuela’s upcoming presidential election as a «real race». The truth is, the primary is taking place under the severe and nearly absolute control of Chavez. For on February 13, Chavez will know precisely, thanks to his Ministry of Elections, the number, names, and locations of dedicated opposition voters: those who vote in the primaries. He then has seven months and limitless resources to prepare for what will almost certainly be his third presidential victory, provided cancer doesn’t claim him first.
Toro writes for an audience that leans progressive and liberal. By making comparisons where none exist, he does a disservice to Venezuela’s future and perpetuates the myth that Venezuela is a democracy. Make no mistake: this country is far from achieving a free and fair election or a «real race», which are key aspects of functioning democracies. A contest in which one candidate exploits state power without any minimal checks can’t be described as «real». Not even in the rarefied and utterly surreal realm of effete progressives.
Toro views Capriles Radonsky as the front-runner in the primaries. He’s entitled to publish favorable pieces for his preferred candidate. But to refer to it as a «real race»? That’s a cruel joke. Attacks on other candidates, whom he brands as «hard right», like Maria Corina Machado, are utterly baseless, misplaced, and false. The harsh reality is that all six candidates, unlike their GOP counterparts in the north, are faced with the very real possibility of six more years under Chavez. In this scenario, some candidates, like Capriles Radonsky, have adopted populist rhetoric aimed at winning over chavistas—a hopeless endeavor, in my view—and are pledging to maintain the status quo, despite the fact that such reckless governance has brought the nation to the edge of bankruptcy. Those seeking to define their campaigns as a clear break from the notoriously disliked past, which now embodies chavismo after 13 years, are marginalized as radicals. The others, including Capriles, Perez, and Lopez, are mischaracterized by Toro as centrists. What unsubstantiated nonsense. Capriles and Perez are, without a doubt, historically leftists and populists, openly admitting to their willingness to continue the welfare state, while Lopez can’t be categorized as anything other than right-wing.
There is no real competition in Venezuela when candidates are bound by rules that some of them were not even allowed to discuss beforehand. What we observe with the MUD (opposition coalition) resembles chavismo: the primary difference is that in chavismo, one voice barks the orders, while on the opposition side, an unelected group of obscure backroom dealers enforce «what’s best» for everyone.