Correcting Eva Golinger On Venezuela
Educate! Maduro, Media, Propaganda, Venezuela
By Stansfield Smith, www.dissidentvoice.org
August 20th, 2017
Above photo: From Venezuela Solidarity.
As the class struggle heated up in Venezuela this year, fueled by
interventionist threats by the pro-US Organization of American States (OAS)
bloc, many former supporters of the Bolivarian revolution have remained
sitting on the fence. Fed up with these fair-weather friends and their
critiques which recycle corporate news propaganda, some defenders of
Venezuela such as Shamus Cooke, Greg Wilpert, Maria Paez Victor, have come
with articles clarifying the stakes and calling the so-called left to
account.
Among the disaffected is Venezuelan-American lawyer Eva Golinger, the author
of The Chávez Code: Cracking US Intervention in Venezuela and self-described
friend and advisor to Hugo Chávez.
The day after Trump threatened to militarily intervene in Venezuela, Jeremy
Scahill posted his interview with Eva Golinger on The Intercept, one
reinforcing some corporate press distortions of Venezuela under President
Maduro. Golinger hardly goes as far in this anti-Maduro campaign as Scahill,
who more clearly fits what Shamus Cooke characterized as the intellectually
lazy pox on both houses approach that has long-infected the U.S. left.
To her credit, Golinger does emphasize the real class issue ignored by pox
on both your houses liberals like Scahill: Washingtons and the Venezuelan
right-wings goal is to crush the heart and backbone of the Chavista
revolution, the grassroots, the social movements, the workers, the
community organizers, the people who are actually the ones trying,
struggling to hold on to anything thats left of this movement that they
have been building and empowering themselves with now over the past fifteen
years or so.
And, counter to claims of Maduro authoritarianism, she correctly notes in
her recent article:
Imagine if protestors were to use lethal weapons against security forces in
the U.S., even killing some of them. In Venezuela, the anti-government
protestors have even burned innocent bystanders to death because they
suspected them of being chavistas. Were that to happen in the U.S., the
repression and forceful action by the state would far exceed the leniency
exercised by the Venezuelan government in the face of these deadly
demonstrations.
Yet within her valuable analysis, and precisely because of her valuable
analysis, both in the interview and in her article Golinger makes some
statements that require correction.
(a) Golinger writes: The demonstrations arose from the massive discontent
throughout the country as food shortages, lack of access to medications,
skyrocketing inflation and erosion of democratic institutions have
intensified since Maduro won office by a slim margin in 2013.
In fact, the violent demonstrations arose as part of a coordinated effort by
OAS General Secretary Luis Almagro, the US government, and the right wing
MUD opposition to generate a chaos in the streets that demanded OAS
humanitarian intervention to restore order and displace the Maduro
government. While there is massive discontent due to food and medication
shortages and inflation, those most affected by this, the working classes
and poor, are not the ones participating in the anti-government protests.
(b) Golinger defends Attorney General Luisa Ortega, [the judicial
maneuvering by the countrys highest court to silence critics should
cease.] who was eventually removed by unanimous vote of the Constituent
Assembly after recommendation by the Supreme Court. The issue was not simply
being a critic; Ortega had failed to prosecute violent protesters and their
financial backers, and lied to the public.
(c) Golinger writes: A growing number of Venezuelans who supported Hugo
Chávez and his policies have distanced themselves from his successor,
dismayed by the countrys turn from a once vibrant participatory democracy
towards a closed one-party state, intolerant of critics.
She, as with other fair-weather friends, sees a divide between the Maduro
and Chavez eras, when, in fact, the fundamental problems of oil dependence,
corruption, bureaucracy existed throughout this period, in part overshadowed
by Chavez charisma and high oil prices.
That the majority of opposition MUD parties are participating in the coming
October regional elections clearly proves Venezuela is not a one-party
state, intolerant of critics.
(d) She writes: President Maduros convening of a constituent assembly to
rewrite the nations constitution has been vehemently rejected by the
opposition and has caused severe internal rifts within his own movement.
Events have shown severe internal rifts to be false. The July 30 vote was
a major victory for the Chavistas and a major defeat for the right wing. Now
the violence has mostly ended and opposition parties say they will
participate in the upcoming elections.
(e) Scahill dishonestly claimed the July 30 vote for the Constituent
Assembly was held after an order issued by Maduro. Why that was necessary
was baffling even to former supporters of Chavez, as the Bolivarian movement
has often celebrated its constitution as a revolutionary and meticulous
document. For many seasoned observers, the whole affair reeked of an effort
to consolidate power.
Scahills seasoned observers is a euphemism for professional corporate
media propagandists.
To clarify, Venezuelas constitution Article 348 states:
The initiative for calling a National Constituent Assembly may emanate from
the President of the Republic sitting with the Cabinet of Ministers; from
the National Assembly by a two-thirds vote of its members; from the
Municipal Councils in open session, by a two-thirds vote of their members;
and from 15% of the voters registered with the Civil and Electoral Registry.
In other words, rather than being an act that violated the constitution, a
little fact-checking would show Maduros action followed the constitution to
the letter.
(f) Scahill claims: The vote for the assembly was boycotted by many
Venezuelans and when the official results were announced, it was clear that
the tally had been tampered with.
Like the claims of no doubt Russia interfered with the US election,
Scahills it was clear comes with no evidence attached.
Golinger, who is not as hostile as Scahill, still says: Theres a lot of
indication that it wasnt a free and fair vote that the tallies are not
accurate. But she likewise gives no evidence for this indication.
In fact, international election observers have vouched for the validity of
the vote, and the agreement of opposition parties to run in the upcoming
regional elections implies they accept the integrity of the National
Electoral Council.
(g) Golinger says the government chose the candidates for the Constituent
Assembly, so it would have won regardless of how many voted. In fact, people
were free to nominate anyone, and in the end, there were 6120 candidates for
545 seats. She does not mention that Chavista candidates won for the simple
reason that the opposition boycotted the Assembly election, having planned
to have overthrown Maduro by then.
(h) Scahill asserts: Maduros forces have also conducted raids to arrest
opposition figures and both government forces and opposition forces have
been involved in lethal actions during protests. It must be pointed out that
Maduro controls the countrys military and intelligence forces and those far
outgun all of the combined masses of government opponents.
Is he actually surprised that a country has armed forces that can outgun the
civilian population? Scahill does not mention that army and police members
have also been charged with killing opposition protesters.
(i) Golinger makes a series of misleading statements comparing the present
Constituent Assembly process to the one that took place under Chavez. The
Chavez one was put to a vote after he was elected, to whether or not people
actually wanted to proceed. More than 70 percent of those participating said
yes. Then they elected the members. Then it was done in this extremely open,
transparent way. You know, there were drafts of the constitution passed
around and discussed in communities. And then it was put to another vote to
actually ratify it by the people on a national level. So I mean, were
missing almost all of those steps this time around and it lasted four
months, it had a mandate of four months. And it wasnt all-supreme, that it
could be a legislator and an executor and an enforcer, which is what were
seeing now.
No mention that the Chavez era turnout to convoke an Assembly brought out
37.8% of the population (92% voted yes, not 70%). This July 30 voter turnout
was higher, 41.5%. No mention that now, just as before, proposed changes to
the constitution must be made public, discussed and voted on by national
referendum. No mention that the present Assembly is all-supreme even over
Maduro unlike the previous Assembly, because this is what the present
constitution states, not the case before.
Article 349:
The President of the Republic shall not have the power to object to the new
Constitution. The existing constituted authorities shall not be permitted to
obstruct the Constituent Assembly in any way.
It is hard to believe Eva Golinger does not know this. She claims the
present process is a major rupture from the Chavez era, when, in fact, the
government and Constituent Assembly are simply following the Chavez 1999
constitution.
(j) She says: I wish that they hadnt moved forward with this rewriting of
the constitution and creating this sort of supra government, because it does
make it more difficult to find a solution to the crisis.
We see that the opposite is the case. The vote for the Constituent Assembly
has made it easier to find a solution.
Maduro did not act in an authoritarian manner. He did not quell the violent
protests by declaring a national emergency and resorting to police and
military repression. He did not use death squads, or torture, jail and exile
the opposition. Instead he called for a Constituent Assembly, and with the
mass show of support in the election, the violence has died down, and most
of the opposition has returned to the electoral field.
We should call this for what it is: a humanitarian example for other
governments when faced with social unrest.
With the July 30 Assembly vote, the US, the OAS Almagro bloc, and the
opposition MUD have suffered a serious defeat, as even the hostile New York
Times has noted. This gives the progressive forces an opening to resolve the
serious problems the country faces. The extent it will make use of this
opportunity to break out of the unresolved social, political and economic
conflicts of the last few years remains to be seen.
Stansfield Smith, Chicago ALBA Solidarity, is a long time Latin America
solidarity activist, and presently puts out the AFGJ Venezuela Weekly. Read
other articles by Stansfield.