The American President has a singular view of democracy. After all, look what happened in Florida
Observer Worldview
Terry Jones Sunday April 21, 2002 The Observer
After last weekend's shocking events in Venezuela, in which President Chavez was ousted in a free and fair democratic coup, only to be returned to office two days later on what seems to have been little more than the whim of the people, the leaders of the Free World have clearly been forced to reconsider the nature of democracy.
When asked whether the Bush administration now recognised President Chavez as Venezuela's legitimate President, a spokesman for President Bush conceded that although Mr Chavez 'was democratically elected' one had to bear in mind that 'legitimacy is something that is conferred not just by a majority of the voters, however' [sic].
Clearly, this involves a fundamental re-evaluation of what we understand by democracy, and I offer here some thoughts on the principles - other than counting votes - which might confer legitimacy.
Since its ground-breaking experiments in vote-counting in Florida two years ago, the United States has been universally recognised as the chief innovator in the field of democratic principles. Therefore, one of the factors that must surely confer legitimacy on any democracy would be approval by the United States.
It is no good people blindly voting in any Tom, Dick or Hugo if they are not acceptable to Washington. If this is true of Iraq, North Korea, Serbia and the UK, it is doubly true of South America and trebly true of a country that happens to be the third largest supplier of oil to the US.
It is also no good imagining that landslide victories are any guide to legitimacy. Just because Chavez has twice been elected President by the largest margins in Venezuela's history, and just because his government has twice the number of elected representatives that its opponents have, that does not mean it can go around passing any legislation it wants.
According to the 'Florida Rules', the narrower the margin of victory, the greater the legitimacy. In fact, if the victor actually has fewer people voting for him than the loser (almost half-a-million fewer in the case of George W. Bush) then that is democracy's way of awarding him carte blanche to do whatever he and his friends in the oil business want.
Another good measure of legitimacy, according to the 'Florida Rules', is the number of interesting variations that can be introduced into the voting system. Florida led the way in the 2000 presidential elections with confusing ballot design in Palm Beach County (a confusion which favoured Bush by 10 to 1) and difficulties with the punch-card system in 26 out of the 67 counties (which probably lost Gore something in the region of 30,000 votes). Then there was also the question of setting up roadblocks to prevent black voters getting to the ballot, and the novel expedient of simply not collecting some of the ballot boxes when they did.
The lack of this sort of experimentation in the Venezuelan elections must do a lot to harm the legitimacy of any so-called 'President' in the eyes of the Bush administration. Especially Mr Bush's brother's eyes.
The truth is that democracy is not really served by having elections at all. That is why the Bush administration was so prompt to endorse the presidency of Pedro Carmona Estanga, the head of Venezuela's most important business association, who promised faithfully not to hold any elections for a year.
One thing that certainly does not confer legitimacy on any democratic government is passing legislation to benefit its own people. Chavez reformed the corrupt system that he inherited. He tried to redistribute land to benefit the poorest farmers, granted titles to the self-built homes of the barrios, increased the minimum wage and enrolled more than a million students in school, who were previously excluded.
Nevertheless, 'Mr Chavez's record as President is terrible,' said one American newspaper. He has failed to end all the corruption, put his supporters into government and (at one point during the riots) blocked press coverage. But, of course, what really destroys any claims to legitimacy Chavez might have has been his meetings with Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gadaffi and Fidel Castro.
In fact, far from stifling the press and television, Mr Chavez has been foolish enough to allow it total freedom, with the result that nine out of 10 newspapers and four out of the five television stations are in the hands of vested interests who oppose his reforms.
These television stations played a big part in organising the demonstrations of 12 April, by advertising the event every 10 minutes. During the riots, they continually showed film of Chavez supporters firing rifles, while reporting that 10 demonstrators had been killed and hundreds injured. All of which has been dutifully reported worldwide and used against Chavez by the US government.
However, an eye-witness report suggests that most of the dead were Chavez supporters killed by rooftop snipers belonging to the extreme Bandera Roja party, an assertion supported by the secretary of health for metropolitan Caracas, Pedro Aristimuño, who reported that of those who died 'the most serious wounds were in the cranium and cheek... they appeared to be shots from above'.
If democracy is to live up to the high expectations placed on it by the President of the United States and his team, it will have to conform to the principles established in Florida. In the meantime, states such as Venezuela may claim to be democracies, but their words will ring hollow in the ears of George W.
<http://www.observer.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,687944,00.html> -- Yoshie
* Calendar of Events in Columbus: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar.html> * Anti-War Activist Resources: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/activist.html> * Student International Forum: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/> * Committee for Justice in Palestine: <http://www.osu.edu/students/CJP/>