Ah the old, "there's a conspiracy to suppress what my side thinks in the news".
Ten months ago, Maduro was elected president by the majority of the country.
Some of the opposition tried to create this spectacle ten months in. The whole point of staging a big spectacle blocking highways etc., with some rioting, is to get world headlines. This has been happening in Venezuela for over 16 years. If the country was really anti-Maduro, it wouldn't have voted for him ten months ago.
Also, it's not even like the opposition is united at all. It's completely factionalized, which is probably why it is out of power. It also reeks of that lazy, upper class, kind of slow and dumb Castillian Spanish aristocratic sense you sometimes find in Latin America. Like that man in the documentary "The Revolution will not be televised" who said "Watch your servants! They may be Chavistas!" Watch your servants, they may be Chavistas might as well be the slogan of the opposition. It's not something with much popular appeal, either in Venezuela, or even out.
I can't fund much about the 2013 election, but Jimmy Carter had this to say about 2012:
"""
"As a matter of fact, of the 92 elections that we've monitored, I would say the election process in Venezuela is the best in the world," Mr. Carter said, noting the center's extensive work monitoring elections around the globe.
"""
"Comparing average coverage by private and state
media outlets in Figures 1 and 2, we find imbalance
in the tone of coverage among both but find it more
pronounced among state media. On the one hand, in
state-owned television, 95 percent of reporting was
positive about Hugo Chávez, while in private outlets
this number reached 48 percent." (pg34)
"...NGOs monitoring the campaign, such
as Transparencia Venezuela and Grupo La Colina,
have indicated broad use of government resources
to support the Chávez campaign, such as vehicles to transport campaign workers and supporters to marches
and also on voting day." (pg43)
"In the Venezuelan context, safeguards to prevent the
abuses of ventajismo or to make violations of the law costly not just financially but politically, in terms of imposing sanctions against the perpetrating campaign, are crucially missing." (pg43)
So, you're okay with the president decreeing protests as illegal, military killing people and sending the opposition leader to jail? In a country where the state controls the media outlets? As long as the president is elected democratically, the guy should just shut up and put up with the lack of coverage from international media?
I think it's important, regardless of this blogger's slant, that we see in international news outlets the fact that the national guard is shooting civilians. Even if you dismiss his claims of paramilitary action as being partisan exaggeration, surely you can see why it's important to note that the government is deploying the actual military -- something you can see plainly in those videos -- against its own people? Our own President (US) just recently warned Ukraine not to go down this exact same path.
Venezuela has one of the most notoriously corrupt and likely rigged election systems out there. No sane person thinks the election results were accurate.
You will need to provide proof for this other than "I said so". The electoral system in Venezuela has been audited numerous times by international organizations and deemed to be fair. PLEASE try to understand that the Venezuela you see on the news is not close to the majority of the country. Most of the country is still quite poor, but - they have voting power!
The electoral system itself can be audited and found to be fair. However, it's unfair to:
* Abuse the State's massive control of the media in favor of the ruling party.
* Threaten people, fire them from their government positions, deny scholarships, or otherwise attack people for being against the government(see: Lista Tascón).
* Shamelessly use resources of the State for political propaganda in favor of the ruling party.
* Take power away from elected officials and create alternate institutions to replace them, when the electoral results don't favor the ruling party (see: Caracas Mayor).
* Deny audits after an election, an integral part of fair elections.
* Finally: kill, attack or detain people for opposing the ruling party, which is what's going on as of this moment while we type comments here.
So whether the voting machines work correctly is far from the only thing needed to consider elections fair.
I happen to know someone (through a third party) who grew up with Chavez and was very close to him up until the last few years prior to his death. Early elections were legit, after that they were all rigged.
Just because it's unreported doesn't mean there's a conspiracy. The media acts in their own interests. If they can't tell this story in a compelling way that sells ads then they won't. No conspiracy to suppress.
But if police are roaming around the city on motorcycles, shooting protestors then this is world news.
I am glad you watched a documentary and felt as if you now have a good understanding as to what is happening in Venezuela . Just like right-wing people get their news from conservative, mainstream media, there are those who try to justify their inner ideologies and believes by thinking that the information they get from an old-fashion group of leftys is just, fair and even objective.
"International Media Is Asleep At the Switch", only this guy somehow manages to see the truth. Yeah, right.
Interesting so many people on hn seem to be jumping on this.
So I went back to his oldest blog entries to see what his general stance is and if his judgements merit consideration or are slanted, which can be better be judged with years of hindsight, judge for yourself:
"To my mind Chávez’ hold on reality is so tenuous that he really does think that six million people poured onto the streets on April 13th to demand his return. And with a narcissist leader who’s that cut-off from reality, political miscalculation is the order of the day."
He was hugely popular then, and stayed that way until his death, if polls, which actually have received praise from international observers, are an indication. Chavez not only had the absolute majority behind him, they actually supported him.
Just compare Venezuela's voter turnout with that in your own country. Wikipedia says about Venezuela's 2012 election:
"The elections showed a historically high turnout, above 80% of the electorate, in a country where voting is not mandatory"
What I get from it in a nutshell: the protestors started by the group who was unhappy with the continuation of Hugo Chavez's government. That group has lost a lot of legitimacy after 2002's attempt coup[1], but the pro-government repression has been brutal, and that situation is brutally escalating.
it's a good description of what's happening (i know this is HN, and anything with "feminist" causes a shitstorm, but really it's just a very careful first person account that tries to explain all sides, so please skip the title).
but that was written before whatever happened today/last night.
EDIT: I googled to find the AP story, but I just now stumbled onto another article during my normal aimless coffee-break web surfing. So I think the story is picking up steam.
Just had an interesting thought when reading this article.
What if tomorrow, something similar happened in the U.S.? That is, what if government "forces" swept into a major city or cities and began arresting people on suspicion of terrorism, then sweeping them off to unknown locations? Simultaneously, what if drone strikes were called in on other "suspects"?
What in our current laws (or interpretation thereof) would prevent this or protect those who were targeted? The question may sound rhetorical or like hyperbole, but I mean this seriously: is a FISA court the only thing standing between us and such a potential reality?
Increasingly, I predict that we'll see more and more of these unreported incidents worldwide, especially as corporate media becomes more and more consolidated. Thankfully there are alternative news outlets that are available if you dig. Accurate or not.
Stuff like this happens in Africa all the time without Western media picking it up. Westerners by and large aren't even aware of the deadliest war since World War 2, despite it finishing around a decade ago in Africa (Second Congo War). It's business as usual, not a new descent into corporate ownership.
This is covered in Europe, at least by my Swedish media.
Not so much by the left winger sources. Those are too busy attacking Israel than bother with the millions of deaths, rapes etc in Sudan/Congo...
(I usually get the motivation: "You should have higher standards for democracies." Then I ask: "How many thousand times different standards is reasonable without being a hypocrite?" Never got that answered.. :-) )
The link makes no sense - if the U.S. were rooting for the protesters, wouldn't they support reporting of brutality from government forces? And if the U.S. were in support wouldn't big media be right on it?
Well, any US conspiracies seems like a waste of money, since the Venezuelan government seems to do the impossible -- running an oil country into the ground.
(But lots of people will be certain that all of that comes from more conspiracies from the US. :-) )
> since the Venezuelan government seems to do the impossible -- running an oil country into the ground.
Most oil countries are badly run; and whatever you think of Hugo Chavez and his party, Venezuela was already at least halfway into the ground before they came along, tbqfh.
Are there really other oil countries that have a hard time to even get credit?
And then there are the large social problems? A command economy that kills local business might be common, but the size must be worse in Venezuela? Etc.
To close the opposition media and using the TV is quite standard in places like that. But as much as in Venezuela?
(Libya and possibly Iraq has problems from violence and Iran has sanctions. They are a bit special cases.)
I find it very depressing that socialism gets tried over and over again with the same predictable results. Power-mad but charismatic leader, wrecked national econonmy, widespread shortages of every day items, suppression of free media and free speech and finally the government murdering it's own citizens to suppress dissent. It's the same story over and over but people still seem to think 'this time it will be different'.
If there were no socialism some other form of ideology would be used. Political or religious. Look up "the resource curse" on Wikipedia, it is just too lucrative to control an oil country and steal the money...
Also, as I understand it, things like this is especially common in South/Latin America with much populist aristocratic history.
brucefancher, your comments are "dead", i.e. you're "hellbanned".
Send an email to the admins, since it doesn't seem you should be.
(This is my own new account since I was hellbanned and don't have energy enough to send email. I got angry at an idealist idiot that might not have been a spammer/troll.)
what would YOU do if this was happening in your city? What choices does the unorganized and disarmed people have against a massive State with an army and policemen?
Take pictures of the policemen while they are murdering/raping/ransacking. Be very careful that their faces show up as clearly as possible.
Then print 100's of copies and drop them at their children's school, at their neighbors' mailboxes, at the church they attend and the gym where they train.
Let them explain how a regular day at daddy's office looks like to the people they actually care about.
Brazil television is covering.. saying the opposition is in prison (for a bunch of fabricated crimes) and that there are shooting at people.. like the girl that was a beauty queen and was shot as a example.. in cable TV GloboNews there was a special today.. all about the protests.. with journalists from Brazil, there in Caracas.. didnt see it..
Not claiming these are unbiased sources, because they aren't (especially the second link). But even so, they can provide a good balance regarding what most western media (NY Times, CNN, Guardian, etc) reports (and omits from those reports).
Some more and again, don't claim they are unbiased, but it's good to balance the coverage and these say a lot that isn't said in other places):
Regarding crime, read about the Policia Nacional Bolivariana, who controls the local polices, who is the Governor of the State of Miranda and which force controls most boroughs (Municipios) in Caracas and that in general, they refuse the that the Policia Nacional Bolivariana to act and prefer instead to keep their mostly corrupt police force (understand that they see it as another way for the Government to have more control, but the truth is the PNB reduces crime, you can read more here, but also other places - http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Americas/Latin-America-Monito...)
Also, note that before Chavez, most foreign oil companies were paying 1-17% royalties, after 20-30% (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_policy_of_Venezuela#Deve...) and that most of the oil profits go into housing, social, education, security and infrastructure (power plants - fixed and movable -, roads, ports, railways).
Just another thing, believe that according to Article 72 of the Venezuelan Constitution, after the middle of the Presidential mandate, if 20% of the voters sign a petition, recall elections are scheduled. This has happened in 2004.
Not claiming there aren't any problems, there certainly are. Not claiming I'm a fan of the style the Government adopt, I'm not. However we've all seen in the past what happens to democratically elected Governments when they don't play ball with US companies, and Latin America knows this more than anyone (but also Iran back in the first independence days, before the Shah...).
My thoughts to the innocents that are caught in the crossfire and have their peaceful demonstrations hijacked by extremists. Hopefully Venezuela can overcome all current issues, become a better country and not go back to the almost oligarchic past of poverty (which none of the wealthy opposition ever tried to change) but not become a dictatorship. In summary, a place where people of all political quadrants can live and let others live.
Ah the old, "there's a conspiracy to suppress what my side thinks in the news".
Ten months ago, Maduro was elected president by the majority of the country.
Some of the opposition tried to create this spectacle ten months in. The whole point of staging a big spectacle blocking highways etc., with some rioting, is to get world headlines. This has been happening in Venezuela for over 16 years. If the country was really anti-Maduro, it wouldn't have voted for him ten months ago.
Also, it's not even like the opposition is united at all. It's completely factionalized, which is probably why it is out of power. It also reeks of that lazy, upper class, kind of slow and dumb Castillian Spanish aristocratic sense you sometimes find in Latin America. Like that man in the documentary "The Revolution will not be televised" who said "Watch your servants! They may be Chavistas!" Watch your servants, they may be Chavistas might as well be the slogan of the opposition. It's not something with much popular appeal, either in Venezuela, or even out.