|
aboveboard elections, on how they want to run their country, a "coup," if what they vote for are important changes that will better balance the interests of the vast majority (workers, the poor, the lower middle class, the indigenous) against those of the rich elite and its global corporate predator allies. But it's stretching the meaning of the word "coup."
You could call the American peoples' votes for FDR for his third and then his fourth term in office a "coup." The oligarchs didn't like it. It curtailed their power. And it broke with tradition. George Washington, the highly popular first president, declined to run for a third term, to avoid any monarchical associations with the presidency (a very new institution, at the time, on the world stage). The tradition then held that the president was limited to two terms, until FDR, who was elected in a time of grave economic crisis (the Great Depression), when strong measures were needed. Millions of people were starving, homeless and out of work, due to unregulated, predatory capitalism (much like the situation in Latin America in this decade, due to "free trade"). The rise of Nazism, the attack by Japan, and WW II, then further entrenched FDR's power, as an individual leader, and inspired the voters to repeatedly elect him, because his skills and his great leadership were needed. Was that a "coup"? It overturned centuries of tradition.
The Left, at the time of the Great Depression, in the U.S., was in ascendance. The majority asserted their interests against the minority, in what was also a critically necessary balancing out. Is that a "coup"? If so, I would like to see such a "coup" happen again, here. In fact, I would like to see a fundamental challenge to Corporate Rule (our biggest problem).
The parallels to Chavez are many. First, the economic ruination of Latin America, and impoverishment of its people, by rapacious first world corporations and financiers, has created a crisis that our corporate news monopolies try to hide from us here in the north, but which is becoming visible here as well (millions of jobs lost, increasing poverty, homelessness, bankruptcies, defaults on home loans, etc.). It has been much worse in Latin America (and will get worse here as well), requiring great leadership to mitigate and reverse it. Chavez's great popularity is based upon his recognition of this crisis--his sympathy with the dirt poor millions in Venezuela and the region--and his active and visionary policies in addressing it. He is very similar to FDR, in this sense. He has been elected three times (two regular elections, one attempted recall) by ever increasing margins, in highly monitored, transparent elections, and enjoys a 70% approval rating.
Another similarity to FDR that it is difficult for us to understand--because it is so hidden from us by our corporate news monopolies--is the militarism and fascism of U.S. policy in Latin America, which must appear, to the vast poor majority of Latin Americans, similar to the brutality and imperialism of nazi Germany. They have been the victims of assassinations of their legitimate leaders, of torture, of mass death (200,000 Mayan villagers slaughtered in Guatemala, during the 1980s, with Reagan's knowledge and complicity), and of oppression of every kind, at the hands of the U.S., or its corporations, or its local proxies, with very recent revelations of horrendous violence in Colombia, against union organizers, peasant farmers and political leftists--directly tied to U.S. corporations, and to the Uribe regime, upon which the U.S. has larded billions of dollars in military aid. Latin Americans have seen outright invasion (of Nicaragua, of Haiti, of Cuba). More recently, the murderous and phony U.S. "war on drugs" has inflicted them with U.S. military bases, toxic pesticide spraying (very damaging to small peasant farmers), increased drugs and weapons trafficking, rightwing paramilitary death squads, and various murderous acts and plots against democracy. They saw the Bush Junta support a rightwing military coup attempt in Venezuela, in 2002, and then saw the U.S. invade another country, Iraq, without justification, and slaughter at least half a million people, and practice torture and other violations of international law. This, after it invaded and toppled a democratic government in Haiti, and continually issues threats against Cuba.
Latin Americans justifiably see the U.S. as a threat. We--that is, our corporations, our banks, and our "military industrial" complex--have ravaged them, economically, and pose a threat to them of both constant efforts of subversion, from U.S. military bases on their soil and U.S. embassies, and potential outright military invasion.
And Venezuela is a prime U.S. target, because its people have democratically chosen self-determination and independence, and are encouraging and inspiring other Latin American countries to do so--and many have. Bolivarians have been elected in Bolivia, in Ecuador, in Argentina, in Nicaragua, and leftist governments with similar goals and sympathies have been elected in Brazil, Uruguay and Chile (and almost got elected in Mexico). There is also Venezuela's oil, of course--a magnet to U.S.-based global corporate predators.
Is it any wonder then that Venezuelans want a STRONG, FDR-type leader as president? They are trying to address the economic catastrophe of "neo-liberalism" (U.S.-dominated "free trade"), while under constant threat of fascist military coups instigated by the U.S.
And, in fact, there is similar thinking in Bolivia and Ecuador, in particular. Long term, highly corrupt rightwing rule has weakened their governments, and their recently elected Bolivarian presidents are both calling for Constitutional reform, to strengthen their hands in addressing vast economic devastation.
So, it makes you wonder about this Venezuelan military man, General Baduel, calling a vote of the people on Constitutional reforms, a "coup." Does he have a personal agenda? Was he planning to run for president himself? Is he honest? Is he a Bush/CIA tool? "Coup" is an odd word to use. Maybe that's what's on HIS mind.
A vote of the people is not a "coup"--in any normal sense of the word--even if it happens to coincide with the ambitions of a particular leader (such as Chavez) or political movement (such as the Bolivarian Revolution, which has widespread support in the Andes region). But using the word "coup" does serve the interests of the Bush Junta, Exxon-Mobile and brethren, the U.S. military/police state boondoggle in Latin America (called the "war on drugs"), and the financial puppetmasters of our war profiteering corporate news monopolies. And I think it's fair to ask, who paid this man to use the word "coup" at this particular time (the pending vote)? It does not strike me as a sincere criticism.
A sincere criticism would simply say: Don't vote for removing the two-term limit. It's a bad idea. Our democracy and social justice reforms can survive without Chavez. Trust democracy. Resist concentrating too much power in one man's hands. Etc. Etc. There are legitimate criticisms that could be made. But calling it a "coup d'etat" plays right into the hands of George Bush, Condoleeza Rice and John Negroponte, who want nothing but ill for Latin Americans. So, why did Baduel do it?
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(965 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
