Notes to the international press interested in Venezuelan events
Emilio Figueredo
28 December 2002
Some international press representatives find it difficult to understand what
is happening in Venezuela. For many of them there is no way to explain why the
opposition cannot wait until August in order to have a revocatory referendum.
A few, also, have bought the regime¹s argument that there is a conspiracy
to oust the legitimately elected government of president Chávez. Then
there are those who no longer act in good faith and see everything as a showing
of racism.
I feel bound to clarify on each of these arguments. First, both the consulting
referendum sought by the opposition and the revocatory one, suggested yet not
proposed by the government, are contemplated in the Constitution. In fact, President
Chávez made use, on ore than a single occasion, of the consulting referendum,
when he had a solid majority backing him.
The revocatory referendum, as provided by the Constitution, has provisions
that make it hard to apply against officers having been elected with an important
volume of votes. In order to be applied, this referendum requires that the amount
of votes cast is at least one more vote than all those obtained by the officer
when elected. In other words, even if the popularity may have been reduced to
minute levels, the original figure must still be overcome. In the case of President
Chávez, this would not be a major hurdle, since according to all polls
75% of the voters would cast their votes against him. This would indeed give
a number much higher than that of his election.
One must underline a specially relevant fact, inasmuch as it has induced the
international press to say that there is now ay to understand the opposition¹s
impatience, insisting on calling for a consulting referendum a non-biding
one in February, when they may get the same results with a binding effect
in August. What the international press does not show is that there is no way
of holding the revocatory referendum in August because the Constitution provides
that it may only be held after more than half of the presidential term has gone
by and this half is not, as Chávez says, on August 19, it is in February
2004. Why do we hold this? Because if it is true that Chávez was inaugurated
in his second term on August 19, 2000, the Supreme Tribunal of Justice, in a
disputed decision added to his term five months and twelve days, alleging that
the period that it called transitory some kind of supra-constitutional
limbo could not be taken into account and ruled, accordingly that his term
ended on February 2, 2007.
Now then, if we assume that provided the government does not put any hurdles
one needs at least 30 days to gather the signatures moving for the call of the
referendum, ate least 60 additional days for the electoral body to process the
information and formally call for it, then the referendum would be held, if
everything works under schedule, on May 2. If Chávez¹s mandate is
revoked, a new election would be called (for thirty days after); some additional
30 days would be needed to register the nominations of the several candidates
and 60 more for the electoral campaign. With all these requirements met, we
would be electing a new President on September of the year 2004. As it may be
clearly seen this would imply that Chávez would be in office for 21 months.
Quite clearly, this is unbearable for most of the Venezuelan people. So, my
dear friends of the international press don¹t buy the story that we are
only talking of a six months¹ difference!
The thesis of the conspiracy has been clearly refuted by the eminently civic
and democratic of the people on the streets. A call for elections is the protest¹s
theme and in order that they may be held Chávez must resign. It is worth
pointing out that the opposition is fully aware of the fact that it will have
to face Chávez in the elections since it is not preventing him from being
once more a candidate.
The other outcomes, in the hands of the Assembly are: the constitutional amendment,
the constitutional reform or even the call for a new Constituent Assembly. What
turns out being fundamental is not only the original legitimating but also that
of his performance, one that may only be recovered through the majority decision
of the sovereign people. A true democrat is not afraid of electoral tests.
The thesis of racism is really exotic. Venezuela, after the federal war, has
never again been ruled by an economic oligarchy. The Venezuelan presidents,
in their majority, have come from popular sectors, as it was the case with Rómulo
Betancourt, Jaime Lusinchi and the very same Carlos Andrés Pérez.
The color of the skin has never been an obstacle when trying to reach any political
position. Among other presidential candidates we had, for example, Luis Beltrán
Prieto Figueroa and Claudio Fermín and neither of them may be called
an Aryan. We could also mention many ministers, ambassadors and governors. But
if we want to be sharper, even the father of our nation, Simón Bolívar
the Liberator, was a clear example of our nation¹s mixture of races.
The movement out on the street, spontaneously, waving flags, blowing whistles
and banging on pans is made of all races, all social levels, and all ages. To
believe that we are dealing just with a middle class movement, is an optical
error based on old prejudices and on the will to caricature the Venezuelan reality.
What is out on the streets is what the Venezuelan anthem proclaims: ³Glory
to the brave people thrust by the yoke, abiding to the law, virtue and honor².
© by Vcrisis.com & the author
|