Last week, the 39 year old governor of Miranda state, Henrique Capriles Radonski, was selected by the Democratic Union Coalition (MUD), a conglomerate of Venezuelan opposition parties, as its candidate in upcoming presidential elections scheduled for October. According to the election chief, Teresa Albanes, Mr Capriles won about 62% of the nearly three million votes cast by the public during the election. The elections were unprecedented being the first time an opposition presidential candidate had been chosen by open public ballot rather than the parties’ hierarchy.
The ever charismatic Capriles is expected to face the larger than life incumbent Hugo Chavez on 7th October, the date on which the presidential elections have been scheduled. Mr Capriles strongly opposes Mr Chavez’s radical nationalisation programme, which has seen several of its industries nationalised with varying degrees of success, claiming that it is a disincentive to investment.
Chavez for the most part has shrugged off the opposition’s challenge and even declared himself winner months before the identity of his challenger became known to him. His dismissal of the opposition may appear pompous to some but then again why should he entertain any fears of defeat when he has not only won three consecutive presidential polls since 1998, but his party, the United Socialist Party (PSUV), has controlled the country’s National Assembly since 1998.
Recent evidence suggests that Chavez would do well to take his challengers more seriously than he is at present. For one, the principle of “Bolivarianism” which is inherent in his government policy and decision-making has not exactly enhanced the quality of life of his country’s people. The idea of “Bolivarianism” is named after Simon Bolivar, the 19th century Venezuelan general who led the struggle for independence from Spain and Portugal throughout most of Southern America. The principles of “Bolivarianism” champion economic self-sufficiency, instilling in people a national ethic of patriotism, equitable distribution of national resources, eliminating corruption and encouraging grassroots people participation amongst several others.
In fact some say that the country has regressed in the last few years of Chavez’s rule. Evidence bears out that during his administration, homicide rates have more than doubled, and kidnappings as well as drug trafficking are now commonplace. In particular the capital city of Caracas is now classed as one of the world’s most dangerous cities. In addition, the country’s Police force has come under fire for corruption and reports of abuse of power. Press freedom has also been significantly curtailed leading to criticism from the NGO, Human Rights Watch, and the press organisation Reporters without Borders. Further the drive towards nationalisation of the country’s resources has not helped the country’s people or economy as was hoped. There are claims that many large and productive farms nationalized by the government now lay idle since the government took ownership of them. The same has been said of supermarkets seized from their private owners whose shelves now lay empty. Despite this the government is at press time making arrangements for the nationalization of the country’s gold industry.
To add to the above, Chavez is still courting controversy by using his weekly live TV programme, Alo Presidente (Hello President) to admonish opponents and the West. He also recently spoke out regarding US sanctions against Iran by declaring that it was essentially “imperialist aggression”. He has also been recently accused of undermining international sanctions against Syria by allegedly continuing to supply diesel to its government which in turn is used to fuel military machinery and armoury in the current political troubles in that nation.
2008’s congressional elections where his party lost its majority to the opposition, as well as the defeat suffered by the President in a referendum which included proposals to allow an acting President to run indefinitely for office shatters the notion of ‘invincibility’ which the President and his supporters would like one to believe. Would Capriles be able to topple Chavez in October? One is tempted to answer in the affirmative although Chavez retains the knack of proving to his critics that he remains a cat with at least nine lives.
No comments:
Post a Comment