The Algebra of Occupation
Sunday, December 23, 2007
The Algebra of Occupation...
Another awesome article...Very historical, well-researched, well written...Check it...
The Algebra of Occupation
November 29, 2007
The Algebra of Occupation
November 29, 2007
Hoover Planned Mass Jailing in 1950...
| |
Hoover sent his plan to the White House on July 7, 1950, 12 days after the Korean War began. It envisioned putting suspect Americans in military prisons.
Hoover wanted President Harry S. Truman to proclaim the mass arrests necessary to “protect the country against treason, espionage and sabotage.” The F.B.I would “apprehend all individuals potentially dangerous” to national security, Hoover’s proposal said. The arrests would be carried out under “a master warrant attached to a list of names” provided by the bureau.
The names were part of an index that Hoover had been compiling for years. “The index now contains approximately twelve thousand individuals, of which approximately ninety-seven per cent are citizens of the United States,” he wrote.
“In order to make effective these apprehensions, the proclamation suspends the Writ of Habeas Corpus,” it said.
Habeas corpus, the right to seek relief from illegal detention, has been a fundamental principle of law for seven centuries. The Bush administration’s decision to hold suspects for years at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, has made habeas corpus a contentious issue for Congress and the Supreme Court today.
The Constitution says habeas corpus shall not be suspended “unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it.” The plan proposed by Hoover, the head of the F.B.I. from 1924 to 1972, stretched that clause to include “threatened invasion” or “attack upon United States troops in legally occupied territory.”
After the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, President Bush issued an order that effectively allowed the United States to hold suspects indefinitely without a hearing, a lawyer, or formal charges. In September 2006, Congress passed a law suspending habeas corpus for anyone deemed an “unlawful enemy combatant.”
But the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the right of American citizens to seek a writ of habeas corpus. This month the court heard arguments on whether about 300 foreigners held at Guantánamo Bay had the same rights. It is expected to rule by next summer.
Hoover’s plan was declassified Friday as part of a collection of cold-war documents concerning intelligence issues from 1950 to 1955. The collection makes up a new volume of “The Foreign Relations of the United States,” a series that by law has been published continuously by the State Department since the Civil War.
Hoover’s plan called for “the permanent detention” of the roughly 12,000 suspects at military bases as well as in federal prisons. The F.B.I., he said, had found that the arrests it proposed in New York and California would cause the prisons there to overflow.
So the bureau had arranged for “detention in military facilities of the individuals apprehended” in those states, he wrote.
The prisoners eventually would have had a right to a hearing under the Hoover plan. The hearing board would have been a panel made up of one judge and two citizens. But the hearings “will not be bound by the rules of evidence,” his letter noted.
The only modern precedent for Hoover’s plan was the Palmer Raids of 1920, named after the attorney general at the time. The raids, executed in large part by Hoover’s intelligence division, swept up thousands of people suspected of being communists and radicals.
Previously declassified documents show that the F.B.I.’s “security index” of suspect Americans predated the cold war. In March 1946, Hoover sought the authority to detain Americans “who might be dangerous” if the United States went to war. In August 1948, Attorney General Tom Clark gave the F.B.I. the power to make a master list of such people.
Hoover’s July 1950 letter was addressed to Sidney W. Souers, who had served as the first director of central intelligence and was then a special national-security assistant to Truman. The plan also was sent to the executive secretary of the National Security Council, whose members were the president, the secretary of defense, the secretary of state and the military chiefs.
In September 1950, Congress passed and the president signed a law authorizing the detention of “dangerous radicals” if the president declared a national emergency. Truman did declare such an emergency in December 1950, after China entered the Korean War. But no known evidence suggests he or any other president approved any part of Hoover’s proposal.
Saturday, December 22, 2007
White Liberals Have White Privilege Too!
White Liberals Have White Privilege Too!
By Alex Jung, AlterNet
Posted on December 21, 2007, Printed on December 22, 2007
http://www.alternet.org/story/71290/
It often seems that the only way liberals can talk about race is to encircle the "racists" and point at them -- either for a laugh or a morality tale. The former is one of the many tricks that faux news personality Stephen Colbert employs in his caricature of a conservative. His racist schtick makes fun of racists, and there's a comfortable distance between the satire and the show's mostly liberal viewers. The critique goes down easy because it represents something the viewer isn't.
On the other hand, the website www.blackpeopleloveus.com, featuring a liberal white couple, Johnny and Sally, enters murkier territory. Well-intentioned Johnny and Sally hang out with their black friends, who, as the namesake indicates, love them. Part of the site's subversion -- and subsequent confusion -- comes from the fact that its humor is not so separate from liberal Americana. We could meet a Johnny and Sally at a cocktail party, and maybe already have. One black "friend's" testimonial -- "Johnny is generous enough to remark upon how 'articulate' I am! That makes me feel good!" -- carries a zesty punch in light of Joe Biden's recent remarks on Barack Obama.
At these satires' roots is a distinction between challenging a Don Imus-type racism and the investment in something called white privilege. In the 1980s, a white feminist, Peggy McIntosh, came up with the metaphor of an "invisible knapsack" to analyze white privilege. It's unconscious, elusive, pervasive, and white liberals have as much of it as white conservatives do. McIntosh listed some ways she has white privilege. Her list ranges from the broad: "I can, if I wish, arrange to be in the company of people of my race most of the time," to the supposedly trivial: "I can choose ... bandages in 'flesh' color and have them more or less match my skin."
Jonah Peretti, co-creator of blackpeopelloveus.com (and also of Nike Sweatshop E-mail fame) said that the Web site's purpose was to "draw attention to the unintentionally offensive comments made by well-meaning white folks."
I've met Johnnys and Sallys at political events, house parties, and through friends of friends, who have an unnerving belief in their own righteousness -- their "downness" with the cause. The issue, though, is not the occasional off-color remark, but rather the framework that comment stems from.
Growing up in the company of white people, I was unaware of systems of whiteness. I knew that, as an Asian American, I looked different (and was unhappy about that), and that my parents faced linguistic and financial barriers (which I blamed them for). I did what "good" Americans did, and I individualized my struggles, believing that if I had enough gumption and know-how, I could rise to the pinnacle of society regardless of my starting point. I was an acolyte of the Temple of Ayn Rand. I didn't connect my experiences, or those of my parents, with larger institutions (i.e., capitalism) or cultural biases (i.e., white is right!), and blamed myself for failing to meet those standards rather than critique the systems that generated those standards. I had internalized whiteness, and if I had, then white people certainly had. As I began to develop what W.E.B. Du Bois called a "double consciousness" -- the perspective of "always looking at one's self through the eyes of others," I could not stop looking. Race (which in its fullness includes gender and class) was impossible to ignore, and I could not believe I had perpetuated racial hierarchy as much as I had.
Moving out of a parochial town in Florida to the cosmopolitan mecca of New York City, I did not experience the radical shift in racial awareness that I had expected. Contending with the racial bias of liberals proved to be more difficult because these urban sophisticates sheathed themselves in worldliness and benevolence rather than outright ignorance. Critiques of whiteness slid off their backs as though they were protected by a Teflon body armor. And so I offer the following list of misunderstandings that many white liberals have about race because I think they can do better -- and because we need to rethink our understanding of race and its relationship to U.S. democracy. The commentary does not encompass all white liberals nor does it solely apply to white people. But the frequency with which I encounter these misunderstandings makes the posture of liberal enlightenment seem halfway farcical and all the more crucial to confront. A critique of whiteness should extend beyond electoral politics and cut through every "issue" area because it's not just about how we vote, but rather about who we are.
1. White supremacy? You mean white men in white sheets?
Contemporary images suggest that white supremacy is a white man driving a pickup with a noose trailing from the back and a Confederate flag tattooed on his arm. Rather, it is simply the idea that white people, neighborhoods, concerns, beauty and self-worth are more important then nonwhite ones.
This system is one people of color imbibe as well, albeit to their detriment. For an extreme example, Michelle Malkin as a token Asian-American conservative hurts people of color despite being one. Even beyond conventional politics, internalized white supremacy often permeates communities of color, perpetuating whiteness as a desired standard. Those standards are the most visually arresting when they relate to expectations of beauty. It's not uncommon, for example, to see communities of color awash with lighter-skinned, rounder-eyed and thinner-haired images.
White supremacy gives white individuals a special racial privilege, be it through economic policies, law enforcement, schooling or magazine covers; consequently those people of color who seem whiter -- whether it is in appearance or action (the two often go hand-in-hand) -- receive special treats for their excellent performance.
White supremacy more accurately describes racial hierarchy in a way that "racism" doesn't. Racism is generally individualized -- e.g., What Bill O'Reilly said was racist! -- and doesn't describe the institutionalized systems that engender those moments. Anyone can be a perpetrator or a victim of racism, but that leaves out the reality that people live in a world with unequal claims to power -- a racial epithet directed at a white man is not the same as its opposite because a nonwhite person does not have the institutional power to pack her verbal punch. Racism has a mutability that white supremacy doesn't.
2. I'm not racist, but ...
Nobody is racist anymore. Liberals are often scared of calling other white people racist. Even Frank Rich of the New York Times defended the Republican candidates' snubbing of a debate at a historically black university as not racist but, rather, as "out of touch" (then again, Rich admitted he was a frequent guest on Don Imus' radio show).
But perhaps instead of using "Am I racist?" as our cultural litmus test, a more provocative question would be: "Am I anti-racist?" as in, do my actions overturn racial hierarchy? Such a question is far more complex because an affirmative answer affects every area of life -- what your job is, what bars you go to, the neighborhood you live in, where you send your kids to school, and with whom you surround yourself. The personal is as crucial (if not more so) than the political. Developing an anti-racist consciousness means recognizing the individual privileges we have and the larger context in which they exist. Such an assessment can be as uncomplicated as paying attention to (1) who is at the table and (2) who takes up the most space at said table.
Too often, "not racist" is equated with not conservative and not Southern; by thinking in binaries, liberals excuse themselves from criticism by pointing to the greater evil. Rush Limbaugh is really just an overly medicated red herring to the privileges of white liberals. The liberal establishment -- everyone from the Democratic Party to Daily Kos -- fails the anti-racism test by merely paying lip service to racial oppression while maintaining a predominantly white constituency. They remain complicit with the belief that white men know better and therefore should talk louder and much more often.
3. Colorblind as a bat.
On Bloggingheads Video , the Nation columnist Eric Alterman whines about how talking about race is ruining liberalism (and of course, the Democratic Party). He tells the other talking head (who basically agrees with him): "Liberalism has paid an enormous price for bringing race to the fore, destroyed the Democratic party ... Everything in this country would be better, if we could leave race out of it."
Alterman's belief is a class-not-race argument, and from a generous perspective, he could be suggesting that racial subject matter is inherently divisive. But he's essentially spewing the same colorblind rhetoric as Justice John Roberts did with the Seattle/Louisville cases, when the conservative majority ruled that the schools' use of race to achieve desegregation was unconstitutional. Roberts said, "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."
Alterman seems to believe that Jim Crow laws existed during a time when race was unavoidable. But how is racial oppression not a problem now? The continued xenophobia against immigrants, the racial profiling of black and Arab peoples, police brutality, soaring incarceration rates and vast educational inequities result from complex racial, class and gender structures. Moreover, even if there is no overt racial discrimination written into a certain law, that law's effects can still be discriminatory. For example, what editorialist Sylvester Brown Jr. calls the "walking with sagging pants while black" laws currently sweeping the nation, is according to the lawmakers, not about reigning in black masculinity, but rather about propriety. It is easy to make up laws that eschew the word "race" while only targeting one group. In the case of Alterman, it's not just about "class" as much as he yearns. (Couldn't I argue that slavery was just about class too? But more on that later.) It is a suspect attempt to excise race from class when they are inherently interwoven.
His desire to ignore race reinforces the dominant discourse. Alterman's vision of political discourse effectively invalidates people of color and prevents them from articulating their political concerns and personal experiences. In other words, who is this white man telling me how to talk about race?
4. Kumbaya, multiculturalism!
A popular perspective favored by many college admissions officers is the "It's a small world" multicultural approach. When celebrating "diversity," everything is positive, and nothing is unsavory. We can admire an African mask, hit a piñata with verve and gobble down a steamy bowl of pho -- all without political concerns. Stanley Fish calls it boutique multiculturalism. But it's just food. Or earrings. Or music. It reduces culture to benign, apolitical trinkets.
Boutique multiculturalism is most obviously inappropriate when it happens to domestic people of color, in the form of "ghetto fabulous" parties, where white college students -- or government officials -- don their favorite imitation of blackface. But the most uncriticized suspects are hipsters, hippies or other variants of alterna-whiteness. Their faddish diets often consist of keffiyehs (a symbol of Arab solidarity), dreadlocks (originally from Rastafarianism and black self-empowerment in Jamaica) and trips to Asia or Latin America -- all of which are part of their post-modern, post-cultural and post-political philosophy, where discrete cultures no longer exist, and everything is fair game. The consumer gains a "cool" credibility and some self-improvement, -discovery or -awareness.
Take New Age orientalist guru, Deepak Chopra. In the book Karma of Brown Folk, Vijay Prashad, writing in the legacy of Edward Said, says Chopra is "a complete stereotype willed upon India by U.S. orientalism, for he delivers just what is expected of a seer from the East."
Multiculturalism, according to Prashad:
Each cultural community is accorded the right to determine its destiny, as long as it does not clash in some fundamental way with the social construct of the state and its citizens ... The problem with U.S. multiculturalism as it stands is that it pretends to be the solution to chauvinism rather than the means for a struggle against white supremacy.
So it's easy to adopt Chopra's philosophy because he is Ayn Rand lite. And it's easy for white hippie-hipsters to wear keffiyehs, because they would never be mistaken as a terrorist. Or groove to Tupac's music without ever fighting against poverty or the prison system. But what, both literally and figuratively, are we buying into?
5. It's not a "[insert racial group here]" issue as much as it is a "human" issue.
Last year, the outreach program Keep a Child Alive ran an AIDS awareness campaign featuring headshots of Western celebrities adorned with facepaint and large block letters proclaiming, "I Am African." The high-profile roster included such human rights luminaries as Gwyneth Paltrow, Sarah Jessica Parker and only one person who could actually claim to be African: supermodel Iman. There was a rapid backlash to the campaign and its asserted motives: "Each and every one of us contains DNA that can be traced back to our African ancestors ... Now they need our help." Its flaws were easily exposed by a deft parody that reversed the roles portraying an African woman with the tagline, "I am Gwyneth Paltrow."
The campaign fit neatly into a framework of universal humanism, where a Westerner, with enough knowledge and/or empathy, could speak for another. Universalism, as it has existed, has refused to allow nonwhiteness to exist in any real or multifaceted way, and while Gwynnie can stand in for Africa, a nameless African woman could never replace her, or the "West" for that matter. This is yet another permutation of colorblindness that denies those who most experience racial oppression the right to speak to it. In the introduction to Notes of a Native Son, James Baldwin writes, "When we talk about color, we are not merely speaking about phenotype, but experience, oppression, and livelihoods -- things that inform our humanity."
Even Toni Morrison (and she's not the only person who said this) made an egregious error when, in a New Yorker article, she said Bill Clinton was the first "black president." She said his background and the potshots directed at his sex life were indicative of the black experience. Not really. Nothing can stand in for having dark skin. It's also especially ironic because policies he espoused resulted in higher incarceration rates for black people.
6. One of my best friends is [insert nonwhite group here]!
Earlier this year, I was at a bar in the liberal bastion of Berkeley with a group of Asian-American girls. A white male sidled next to us and offered to buy us a round of drinks. Not the types who refuse free drinks, we accepted (of course, I forgot my mother's warning that nothing in life is free) and began chatting with our new friend, and self-identified liberal, "Sam."
Everything was dandy until Sam made a derogatory remark about Asian-Americans. Our irritated expression elicited a swift defense: "No, no! It's OK! I dated a Chinese girl."
In Thinking Orientals, historian Henry Yu discusses the Chicago sociologists and their work on Asian Americans. Robert Park, among others, wanted to measure "social distance," which was "whether a person cared about another or could imagine the other's point of view." Park quantified empathic ability on a scale from zero to five, where zero represented marriage (and sex, naturally) and five a desire for a group to leave the country. But Yu wonders, "Why was sex and intermarriage to be the ground zero of social distance?" For Park, the "possibility that someone could at the same moment abhor and desire a person of another race was counted an impossibility."
But how does a white person having sex with a nonwhite person -- or having a nonwhite "best friend" for that matter -- necessarily make her less racist? Strom Thurmond managed the contradiction fairly well. For example, analyzing Asian-white sexual relationships, the U.S. Census Bureau reports that Asian females are twice as likely to marry a white male, than if the racial roles were reversed. The disparity fits neatly into a narrative that has belittled and desexualized Asian-American men (note that the most famous Asian-American American Idol contestants were William Hung and Sanjaya Malakar) and eroticized Asian-American women (in contrast, look at American Apparel ads or take a trip to the "adult" section of the video store). Private bedroom acts are, in this way, as political as declaring which candidate we champion in an election.
7. How could I have white privilege? I'm poor/female/gay/Polish/disabled!
Another liberal technique is to eschew a discussion of race in favor of one of "class." The implicit, and sometimes explicit, argument is that race (or "identity politics") holds the Left back from what actually oppresses people and furthermore assumes that constructions of class and race are separate, rather than dynamically intertwined. Historian Robin Kelley critiques such an either-class-or-race construction in Yo' Mama's Disfunktional!: Fighting the Culture Wars in Urban America:
The idea that race, gender and sexuality are particular whereas class is universal not only presumes that class struggle is some sort of race- and gender-neutral terrain but takes for granted that movements focused on race, gender or sexuality necessarily undermine class unity and, by definition, cannot be emancipatory for the whole.
Race determines how class (and gender) is experienced and vice versa. (Isn't that what this conversation about immigration and a "guest workers" program is about?) Furthermore, there is a failure to integrate racial analysis on the parts of mainstream feminist and gay rights organizations. A cursory look at mainstream gay and lesbian and feminist commentators reveals that while a gender analysis might be a part of their ethos, anti-racism is not. Arguing for primacy of dismantling one hierarchy over another, or simply leaving one out, is a limited and ultimately doomed strategy for liberation.
8. The white savior complex.
Saving Africa is a hot trend, especially for consumers. U.S. shoppers can buy a (red) iPod Shuffle or (red) T-shirts from the Gap, which recently got caught employing child labor in India to manufacture its world-saving goodies. Celebrities like Madonna are taking some personal initiative and trailblazing the "save African babies" trend. But, maybe it's not actually about the babies.
Western countries perpetually exploit the people and resources of the Global South, which, in turn, conveniently places them in a prime position to be saved either economically or morally. (For example, on the issue of colonial Britain's attempt to illegalize "suttee," or widow-burning in India, scholar Gayatri Spivak called it an example of "white men saving brown women from brown men." This is not to collapse moral indignation with economic and colonial repression, but rather to suggest they have a complex relationship to each other.
The exploitation of domestic exotics is linked to human rights abuses abroad because the disregard for lives of color operates from the same logic. Furthermore, neighborhoods like Chinatown, the projects and barrios are considered the results of those people not being able to get it together or something regressive about their "culture," rather than something unequal about the "system." It creates a dynamic where the wealthy, and/or the well-intentioned can begrudgingly, condescendingly or magnanimously save the black, brown, and yellow people from themselves. It's the difference between social service and social justice, where the former works to alleviate hardship, while the latter aims to eradicate the root causes of that hardship.
9. "Good" people of color
At the beginning of Obama's candidacy for president, Joe Klein of Time observed that white people were "out of control" at a rally for Obama, while the black folks were decidedly reserved. Chris Matthews gushed that, with Obama, there was "no history of Jim Crow, no history of anger, no history of slavery. All the bad stuff in our history ain't there with this guy." Indeed, in a speech at Selma, Ala., commemorating the march in 1965, Obama himself stated that in the struggle for equality, the Civil Rights leaders had brought black people "90 percent of the way." Just 10 percent to go!
Obama is a portrait of calm amicability -- so much so that his own supporters have urged him to ramp up the heat. Walter Shapiro described Obama's debating style as "smooth jazz" for its mellowness (a racialized characterization for sure, but we'll leave it be). Gary Younge has noted that his cadences are also unlike the oratorical styles of black politicians like Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson. The New York Times has also had a recent orgy of articles calling Obama "post-racial," "post-feminist" and "post-polarization." White liberals have gleefully projected their fantasies (delusions?) of a post-race society on a man who looks black but doesn't "act" black. But what about those who do?
Any group of color -- Asian American, black, Latino -- is incredibly heterogeneous, but experiences a bifurcation of their community into "good" and "bad." And what happens when the "good" start misbehaving? Take Nina Simone: She rose to popularity in the late '50s with her hit I Loves You Porgy, and her music took a political turn in the mid-'60s. On a live recording of Simone singing "Mississippi Goddam," the predominantly white audience laughs initially at her introduction of the song but, listening to the lyrics, slowly grows quiet and uncomfortable. She quips, "Bet you thought I was kidding."
In "The Souls of White Folk," W.E.B. Du Bois, describes the separation:
So long, then, as humble black folk, voluble with thanks, receive barrels of old clothes from lordly and generous whites, there is much mental peace and moral satisfaction. But when the black man begins to dispute the white man's title to certain alleged bequests of the Fathers in wage and position, authority and training; and when his attitude toward charity is sullen anger rather than humble jollity ... then the spell is suddenly broken, and the philanthropist is ready to believe that Negroes are impudent, that the South is right, and that Japan wants to fight America.
"Good" and "bad" come down to the extent to which a person challenges the hierarchy, whether it is through action or style. I wonder, if Obama started sporting an afro and talking about black empowerment, would white liberals suddenly lose their affection for him? And if Bill Richardson's last name were in the Spanish style of taking both parents' last names, with his mother's maiden name following his father's surname, would he be as successful as Bill Richardson López?
10. All that guilt.
An attack on a white supremacist system is not a personal insult. Anti-racist critiques seek to dismantle a system that gives different groups unequal power. No one chooses her/his skin color, but people can change the values assigned to those differences.
This conversation about race is an easy one to ignore (Hi, Alterman!). Privilege, by its nature, can choose what it wishes to engage with. Being critical of white supremacy is not designed to make white people feel bad about being white and replace the knapsack of white privilege with one of white guilt. Rather, it is asking white people to take off the knapsack and chuck it down the river. White people not only need to acknowledge their individual advantages, but also build a resistant collective consciousness that privileges marginalized peoples. But the question remains, can they do it?
Alex Jung is an editorial intern at AlterNet.
© 2007 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Understanding Today's Elections and What We Do About Them...
This is another election to watch (along with today's others South Africa, Ukraine...or those still upcoming like Serbia... etc.)...Not that the outcomes are in doubt or there are any politico's to be particularly hopeful about but why the outcomes in each of these elections, what this means for the future, and most importantly how we fight the reactionary forces represented in almost all (if not all) of these cases...
Stay tuned to Democracy Now!, ZNet, Commondreams, and the World Socialist Web Site for more information updated daily...
P.S. Anyone who is interested in knowing more about South Africa's politics and current day socio-political situation should read Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism (and especially the chapter on South Africa). Of course, EVERYONE should read Shock Doctrine regardless ;) but yeah has a very informative chapter on South Africa among all the others...
By John Chan
GNP softens image
Copyright 1998-2007
World Socialist Web Site
All rights reserved
Stay tuned to Democracy Now!, ZNet, Commondreams, and the World Socialist Web Site for more information updated daily...
P.S. Anyone who is interested in knowing more about South Africa's politics and current day socio-political situation should read Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism (and especially the chapter on South Africa). Of course, EVERYONE should read Shock Doctrine regardless ;) but yeah has a very informative chapter on South Africa among all the others...
WSWS : News & Analysis : Asia : Korea
South Korean presidential election: right-wing candidate poised to win
By John Chan
18 December 2007
Back to screen version | Send this link by email | Email the author
After a more than a decade of so-called “democrats”, the candidate of the right-wing Grand National Party (GNP), Lee Myung-bak, appears poised to win tomorrow’s presidential election in South Korea. The GNP is the party most closely connected to the military dictatorship that dominated the country for much of the post-World War II period until the late 1980s.
Opinion polls have consistently shown Lee with over 40 percent support, or some 25 percent ahead of his two key rivals: the right-wing independent and former GNP chairman, Lee Hoi-chang, and Chung Dong-young, from the United New Democratic Party (UNDP). The UNDP is a breakaway from the Uri Party, which backed the current president Roh Moo-hyun in the 2002 presidential poll. Roh is ineligible for a second term in office and is due to step down in February.
Lee Myung-bak was the former mayor of Seoul and former CEO of Hyundai Construction and Engineering—one arm of the huge Hyundai conglomerate. Earlier this month, he was cleared by South Korean prosecutors of charges involving share manipulation that threatened to derail his candidacy. The scandal is still hovering over the election, however, after Roh ordered a new investigation this week.
If the GNP does win the election tomorrow, it will be primarily because of widespread hostility to Roh, rather than positive support for Lee. Roh has presided over five years of pro-market policies, maintained South Korean troops in Afghanistan, and committed over 3,000 to support the US-led occupation of Iraq.
The rise of the “democrats” followed a series of strikes and protests in the 1980s, which forced the former military regime to make concessions. In the election of 1992, the “democrat” Kim Young-sam defeated the last military-backed president. He was followed in 1997 by Kim Dae-jung who had narrowly escaped assassination in 1973 by the Korea Central Intelligence Agency for his criticisms of the junta.
The so-called democrats championed free market reforms against the “corruption” and monopoly of large conglomerations like Hyundai. But they did not hesitate to use repressive methods to stifle strikes and opposition from workers. In the midst of 1997-98 Asian financial crisis, Kim Dae-jung imposed the IMF-dictated “reforms”, including the effective abolition of South Korea’s life-long employment system.
As the social gulf between rich and poor deepened, hostility to Kim intensified. His successor Roh, a former labour lawyer, only narrowly defeated the GNP candidate in 2002 by riding a wave of opposition to the US-South Korean alliance and fears that Washington was provoking a new war on the peninsula. Early in 2002 President Bush had branded North Korea as part of an “axis of evil” with Iraq and Iran and escalated tensions over Pyongyang’s nuclear programs. Roh pledged to continue President Kim’s “Sunshine Policy” of easing tensions and opening up North Korea to foreign investors.
Roh’s popularity began to slide almost immediately as he imposed harsher labour laws, deployed police against striking workers and pushed for free trade deals despite widespread opposition. His approval rating plunged even further after he dispatched South Korean troops to boost the US-led occupation of Iraq. The GNP attempted to capitalise on the hostility by moving to impeach Roh on charges of corruption and incompetence. Opposition to Roh, however, did not automatically translate into support for the right-wing GNP and Roh’s Uri Party won a landslide victory in parliamentary elections in 2004.
Support for Roh continued to slide as disillusion and alienation with his pro-business and pro-US policies grew. In 2005, the Uri Party lost its majority in the National Assembly to the GNP. In 2006 regional elections, the party suffered a devastating defeat, winning just one seat and leaving the GNP in control of 13 of the country’s 16 provinces.
In August, Roh loyalists broke from the Uri Party to form the UNDP in a bid to salvage the upcoming presidential election. The UNDP candidate Chung Dong-young was Roh’s former unification minister in 2004-05 and strongly supported reconciliation of the two Koreas. His campaign, however, has been completely compromised by the widespread dissatisfaction towards the Roh administration.
Antiwar sentiment was further fuelled this year by the kidnapping of 23 South Korean missionaries in Afghanistan. Widespread alienation is expressed in the anticipated low turnout rates, especially among young people. Analysts forecast the figure will be far lower than in 2002—already a record low of 70 percent—despite an additional 2.6 million eligible voters, mainly due to the lowering of the voting age from 20 to 19.
The Yonhap news agency commented on December 11: “There are more younger voters this year... but their traditional debating ground of the Internet has been comparatively quiet compared with the election of 2002, when a storm of Internet support for underdog Roh Moo-hyun helped propel him to office.” The reason is obvious: large numbers of young people are hostile to the UNDP, but have no intention of voting for the GNP and so will abstain.
The disaffection is also expressed in a sharp rise in the number of presidential candidates—12 as compared to just 7 in 2002.
The GNP’s candidate Lee Myung-bak has also been seeking to broaden the party’s appeal by softening its hard-line stance, particularly towards North Korea. In 1960s, Lee participated, once, in student protests against the military rule. He earned his nickname of “Bulldozer” through his connections to construction tycoons and real estate speculators but then made a reputation as Seoul’s “green” mayor (2002-06) by revitalising the city’s Cheonggyecheon River.
Lee won the GNP candidacy in August by defeating Park Geun-hye, the daughter of South Korea’s dictator Park Chung-hee. As the heirs of the US-backed anti-communist dictatorship that fought the Korean War, the GNP has never recognised North Korea and previously denounced the “Sunshine Policy” as a betrayal. Lee, however, has promised to continue aid to North Korea as along as it completely dismantles its nuclear programs and opens up to the “international community”.
Lee has pledged to triple North Korea’s per capita income to $US3,000 within a decade, help North Korea set up 100 export firms each with annual sales over $3 million, and to train 300,000 skilled workers. He would also donate $40 billion to Pyongyang as a “cooperation fund” to expand infrastructure in North Korea, including networks of communication and industrial zones. It is no accident that Lee has close connections to Hyundai which has been in the forefront of South Korean businesses seeking to exploit cheap labour opportunities in North Korea.
Lee’s stance has provoked opposition within the GNP’s ranks. Lee Hoi-chang, who was the GNP’s presidential candidate in 1997 and 2002, is running as an independent and a “real conservative”. He has called for the scrapping of the “Sunshine Policy”, an end to all aid to the North unless it completely dismantles its nuclear programs and has criticised Lee Myung-bak’s policies as “ambiguous”. Lee Hoi-chang has also called for the strengthening of the US alliance and opposes Roh’s plan to dismantle the US-South Korea Combined Forces Command by 2012. The North Korean state press has warned of a “war calamity” if he wins the election.
The GNP and Lee Myung-bak have been aided by the easing of tensions between Washington and Pyongyang this year. Preoccupied with the war in Iraq and an escalating confrontation with Iran, the Bush administration reached a deal with North Korea at six-party talks to dismantle its nuclear programs in return for economic aid and a normalisation of relations. This month Bush sent a letter to North Korean leader Kim Jung-il for the first time. Lee Myung-bak has called for a continuing alliance with the US, but also stressed the importance of close ties with Beijing, now South Korea’s largest trading partner.
Sections of big business back Lee’s economic policy known as “747 Vision”—to achieve 7 percent annual economic growth, double per capita income to $40,000 and make South Korea the world’s seventh largest economy. He has proposed a massive canal project from Busan to Seoul and promised to boost business investment and end “excessive labour disputes”. At the same time, he has made empty expressions of concern over the country’s growing poverty and young unemployment. Joblessness is 8 percent among young people aged 15-29 and 20 percent among recent college graduates.
Lee has been able to capitalise on growing fears of an economic downturn. The Bank of Korea has forecast that economic growth will fall from 4.8 percent this year to just 4.7 percent next year—down from an average of 6.4 percent for the period 2000-2002. With rising oil prices and inflation, South Korea is projected to have a current account deficit of $3 billion in 2008—the first since the economic crisis of 1997. Far from helping the poor, Lee’s 747 program of “reforms” is aimed at imposing the brunt of the crisis on working people.
A Dong-A Ilbo editorial on December 11 warned: “The Bank of Korea and the Korean Chamber of Commerce and Industry both emphasise that bold and continuous deregulations measures and improvement in the labour environment are needed to increase facility investment. That is the solution that even the public is aware of. Presidential candidates are advised to come up with practical pledges that will bring about a favourable business environment rather than waste taxpayers’ money to curry favour with voters.”
Other commentators have expressed concern over rising social discontent. Huh Chan-guk of Korean Economic Research Institute told AFP: “Young people who supported the liberal government in the previous elections feel frustrated. They are now more interested in growth practical issues as they find it harder to get jobs”. A recent government survey found that 8 out of 10 Koreans believed social wealth was distributed unfairly. The number of household heads who are jobless and rely on income from other family members had increased to a four-year high of 2.56 million or 15.6 percent of the total.
If Lee Myung-bak does win tomorrow’s poll, his administration will rapidly come into conflict with working people as it implements its pro-market policies and continues to support the militarist policies of the US administration.
Copyright 1998-2007
World Socialist Web Site
All rights reserved
Monday, December 17, 2007
Four of Bolivia’s Wealthiest Regions Declare Autonomy in Protest of New Constitution
December 17, 2007
Four of Bolivia’s Wealthiest Regions Declare Autonomy in Protest of New Constitution
Bolivian President Evo Morales formally received a copy of the country’s new draft constitution on Saturday, as tens of thousands of supporters marched through the capital of La Paz. But four of Bolivia’s wealthiest regions have declared autonomy in protest of the plans. We speak with Jim Shultz of the Democracy Center in Cochabamba, Bolivia.
Guest:
Jim Shultz, executive director of the Democracy Center in Cochabamba, Bolivia. He writes a blog on Bolivia that can be found at Democracyctr.org. He joins us on the line from Cochabamba.
Rush Transcript
This transcript is available free of charge. However, donations help us provide closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing on our TV broadcast. Thank you for your generous contribution.Donate - $25, $50, $100, More...
Related Links
AMY GOODMAN: The Bolivian President Evo Morales formally received a copy of the country’s new draft constitution Saturday, as tens of thousands of supporters marched through the capital La Paz.
The new constitution would increase the power of Bolivia’s indigenous majority. But four of Bolivia’s wealthiest regions have declared autonomy in protest of the plans. The four lowland provinces contain much of Bolivia’s natural resource wealth and most of its large natural gas deposits. In Santa Cruz, tens of thousands of people marched to celebrate their self-declared “autonomy.” They object to the new constitution, which would redistribute wealth to the poorer highland areas of Bolivia.
Opposition leader and president of Santa Cruz Civic Committee Branco Marincovic spoke at a rally on Saturday.
BRANCO MARINCOVIC: [translated] Mr. President, Evo Morales, stop discrediting this autonomy. I propose you read our statute. I propose you read our statute, so that you can realize that this is an autonomy of unity and not a separation.
AMY GOODMAN: Meanwhile, President Evo Morales opposed the autonomy move and has vowed to defend Bolivia’s unity, saying, “We’re not going to let anyone divide Bolivia.” All the legislation has to be submitted to referendums that are expected to take place early next year.
Jim Shultz joins us now, executive director of the Democracy Center in Cochabamba, Bolivia. He writes a blog on Bolivia that can be found at democracyctr.org. He joins us on the phone from Cochabamba. Welcome to Democracy Now!, Jim.
JIM SHULTZ: Good morning, Amy. Thanks for having me on.
AMY GOODMAN: It’s good to have you on. Can you tell us what’s happening?
JIM SHULTZ: Well, I think as your listeners and viewers know, Bolivia has been going through a huge political transformation for the last year and a half with the election of Evo Morales, the country’s first indigenous president. One of the big initiatives that that movement has been pushing has been to rewrite the constitution through a constituent assembly elected by the people just over a year ago, to rewrite the nation’s Magna Carta.
And that’s all come to a head in the last few weeks, and the opposition to Morales and MAS has worked for over a year to try to sidetrack that process. They don’t want most of the things that Morales has been pushing for and that MAS and the indigenous groups have been pushing for in that constitution. The meetings that were held in Sucre were disrupted to the point where for two months, the constituent assembly wasn’t able to meet. Finally the backers of Morales and MAS actually met in a military facility behind police guards to initially approve a constitution in a session that the opposition boycotted. All of this has just snowballed into what we have this last weekend, which you described, which is the highland areas, where the support for the new constitution is very strong, delivered the constitution symbolically to Evo Morales in La Paz, and the lowlands, where opposition to Morales is equally strong, on the other side, have declared autonomy.
It’s about a lot of issues all at once. It’s about race. There’s certainly a racial divide between the highlands and the lowlands. It’s about oil and gas. By the luck of geology, the oil and gas wealth in the country is in the eastern lowlands, and the people in the highlands, where there isn’t oil and gas, want that to be a national resource, and the people in the lowlands, in the same way that you see in Chad or Cameroon or all over the world, are looking for the oil and gas to be within their control. So it’s about race, it’s about power, it’s about oil and gas, it’s about regional divisions. And it’s all come to a head in this endgame over the new constitution.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, with these four areas declaring autonomy, do you see the breakup, a possible breakup of Bolivia?
JIM SHULTZ: I think that there’s certainly a fear of that here. I think that’s unlikely. I think that there is a lot of tension. I think that there’s some very hard negotiations to happen in this country. But remember, Bolivian politics always plays out in two forms at the same time. It always plays out simultaneously in political institutions and negotiations and on the streets, as people flex their street muscle.
I think there are two big issues that autonomy relates to. One is land, and one is oil and gas. On land, I think that the autonomy movement is potentially very strong. I mean, the national government is not going to send in troops to enforce land reform. So I think the autonomists there have a strong hand to play. On the other hand, the oil and gas contracts the Bolivia has are largely with the governments of Brazil and Argentina. You know, the governments of Brazil and Argentina are not going to suddenly cut side deals with these conservative governments in Santa Cruz to deliver the gas and oil revenue. So that revenue is still going to go through the national government.
AMY GOODMAN: Jim Shultz, are any foreign governments or corporations backing these four states declaring autonomy?
JIM SHULTZ: Well, certainly, overtly they’re not. There is always suspicions here that there are some foreign oil companies with their hands in the movement to try to get more autonomy for these eastern regions. But again, the players are the governments of Argentina and Brazil. I think it’s highly unlikely that Lula is running around behind the scenes to try to topple the Morales government or weaken it. There’s certainly always, you know, conspiracy theories here about whether the US government and the US embassy has a hand in this, and Morales has certainly made that accusation. My experience with the US embassy here is that they’re a lot more incompetent than they are conspiratorial.
AMY GOODMAN: And the draft constitution, what does it give to the indigenous people of Bolivia?
JIM SHULTZ: Well, it’s very important for the indigenous people here in a lot of ways. And it’s important to remember, Amy, that this dream of a new constitution and of a constituent assembly did not get born with Evo Morales and it did not get born in 2005. This goes back two decades with this vision of, you know, really trying to write a constitution that rises above the history of colonization here. So, for the first time, this constitution recognizes the thirty-six indigenous peoples that are a part of Bolivia. It includes things like the recognition of community justice, in which indigenous pueblos in the highlands, for example, instead of bringing cases of theft and that kind of thing to a court system far away, communities can have systems of justice where people have to make amends through helping build a school or that kind of thing. It also grants other kinds of autonomy to indigenous communities so that people, for example, can elect their leadership through traditional means, as opposed to just adopting a quote/unquote “Western model.”
AMY GOODMAN: And so, what happens now with the draft constitution?
JIM SHULTZ: Well, we’re going to have a lot of elections in 2008, that’s for sure. The draft constitution has to go to a vote of the people. It has to be approved by a majority of 50% plus one. There will be a separate article of the constitution that did not receive the approval of the full assembly needed, that’s on land reform, that will be voted on. As part of the standoff between the regions, President Morales has called for a referendum, in which there would be an up-or-down vote on whether he and the governors would continue in office past 2008. So I think we’re headed for an awful lot of elections. I frankly think that the MAS government is in a politically weak position to win approval of this constitution.
AMY GOODMAN: Jim Shultz, we’re going to leave it there. I want to thank you very much for being with us, executive director of the Democracy Center in Cochabamba, Bolivia, writing a blog on Bolivia that can be found at democracyctr.org.
democracynow.org
. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.
American Atheists - An Oppressed Minority...
Believe It Or Not
----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Socialist Standard
Date: 17/12/2007
Interesting article from the Economist website:
Believe It Or Not
Feel free to repost or forward on (I did ;-)
cheers,
Darren
Inveresk Street Ingrate Blog
No, The Economist has sadly not suddenly become a journal advocating revolutionary socialism, but I did think the following article was of interest. We non-believers really are an oppressed minority. ;-) Hat tip to Keith for bringing the article to my attention.
A frustrated group of Americans
Dec 11th 2007 | NEW YORK From Economist.com
MITT ROMNEY hopes to become America's first Mormon president. But, if he pulled off an unlikely victory, he would not be the first Mormon to take high office: his father was a governor and five current senators are Mormons. Nor would he be the first to break a religious barrier. John Kennedy was the first Catholic president; Joe Lieberman, an Orthodox Jew, was Al Gore's presidential running mate in 2000. And a Muslim congressman took his oath of office on a Koran in January, another first.
Mr Romney recently gave a speech extolling religious liberty, decrying religious "tests" for office, and invoking the faith of some of America's founding fathers. All this, naturally, was designed to help his quest for the presidency. The speech thrilled many religious conservatives, and plenty of pundits thought it served him well politically too. But members of one minority with virtually no political success in America were left sputtering with frustration. America's atheists and agnostics felt excluded when Mr Romney said that "freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom…freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone."
According to figures compiled by the American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS), almost 30m people claimed "no religion" in 2001, a doubling from 1991. This dwarfs America's 2.8m who describe themselves as Jews according to the same survey (although other estimates suggest that the Jewish population is much larger, at about 6m). Catholicism, the country's largest Christian denomination, boasts 51m followers. In other words, irreligion claims a surprisingly large number of adherents. Mr Romney's attack on disbelievers prompted Christopher Hitchens, a well-known polemicist and the author of "God Is Not Great: Why Religion Poisons Everything", to describe him as "Entirely lacking in dignity or nobility (or average integrity)". Others cited Thomas Jefferson's ruder comments about religion. Even some conservative columnists chided Mr Romney for not saying, as George Bush has, that people of no faith at all are Americans too.
And yet those with no religious beliefs are shut out from political power. Earlier this year, a secularist group offered $1,000 to the highest-ranking politician in the land who would publicly proclaim no belief in God. This turned out to be Peter Stark, a Democratic congressman from the San Francisco area. He is the only congressman, of 535, who professes no belief in the Almighty.
Mr Stark suspects that many of his colleagues secretly agree with him. But they dare not do so publicly, even Democrats. And every one of the Democratic presidential contenders has talked about God; they even submitted to an awkward debate on religion, in which they were asked about their biggest sin and their favourite bible verses. The Republicans were not put through a similar inquisition; their religious bona fides are apparently not in any doubt.
What accounts for the failure of atheists to organise and wield influence? One problem is that they are hardly a cohesive group. Another issue is simply branding. "Atheist" has an ugly ring in American ears and it merely defines what people are not. "Godless" is worse, its derogatory attachment to "communist" may never be broken. "Humanist" sounds too hippyish. A few have taken to calling themselves "Brights" for no good reason and to widespread mirth. And "secular" isn't quite the word either; one can be a Christian secularist.
But another failing of the irreligious movement has been its tendency, frequently, to pick the wrong fights. Keeping the Ten Commandments out of an Alabama courthouse is one thing. But attacking a Christmas nativity scene on public property does more harm than good. Such secular crusades allow Christians—after all, the overwhelming majority of the country—to feel under attack, and even to declare that they are on the defensive in a "War on Christmas". When a liberal federal court in California struck the words "under God" from the pledge of allegiance, religious conservatives rallied. Atheists might be tactically wise to accept the overwhelming majority's comfort with such "ceremonial deism".
If atheists, agnostics and secularists could polish their image they might prove powerful, and increasingly so. If the number of people declaring "no religion" can double over the ten years to 2001 who know how many more there are now or might be in years to come. Polls have shown that eight years of Mr Bush's mix of piety, divisiveness and incompetence have pushed young people towards the secular in higher numbers than before.
If these growing ranks concentrate on areas where American religiosity can do harm—over-aggressive proselytising in the armed forces, undermining science or AIDS programmes, alienating minorities at home and Muslims abroad—they could wield the sort of influence that any other minority representing 10% of the country might do. An unbelieving president still seems an unlikely prospect. On the other hand, only 53% of Americans still say they would not vote for an otherwise well-qualified atheist.
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
On the Venezuelan Referendum's Defeat...
Two of the better/best articles I have seen and a commentary from the front lines...
Venezuela After the Referendum
December 3rd 2007, by Tariq Ali - CounterPunch
Hugo Chavez' narrow defeat in the referendum was the result of large-scale abstentions by his supporters. 44 percent of the electorate stayed at home. Why? First, because they did not either understand or accept that this was a necessary referendum. The measures related to the working week and some other proposed social reforms could be easily legislated by the existing parliament. The key issues were the removal of restrictions on the election of the head of government (as is the case in most of Europe) and moves towards 'a socialist state.' On the latter there was simply not enough debate and discussion on a grassroots level.
As Edgardo Lander, a friendly critic pointed out:
"Before voting in favour of a constitutional reform which will define the State, the economy, and the democracy as socialist, we citizens have the right to take participate in these definitions. What is understood by the term socialist state? What is understood by the term socialist economy? What is understood by the term socialist democracy? In what way are these different to the states, economies, and democracies that accompanied socialism of the 20th century? Here, we are not talking about entering into a debate on semantics, rather on basic decisions about the future of the country."
And this was further amplified by Greg Wilpert, a sympathetic journalist whose website, venezuelaanalysis.com, is the best source of information on the country:
"By rushing the reform process Chavez presented the opposition with a nearly unprecedented opportunity to deal him a serious blow. Also, the rush in which the process was pushed forward opened him to criticism that the process was fundamentally flawed, which has become one of the main criticisms of the more moderate critics of the reform."
Another error was the insistence on voting for all the proposals en bloc on a take it or leave it basis. It's perfectly possibly that a number of the proposals might have got through if a vote on each had been allowed. This would have compelled the Bolivarians to campaign more effectively at grassroots level through organised discussions and debates (as the French Left did to win the argument and defeat the EU Constitution ). It is always a mistake to underestimate the electorate and Chavez knows this better than most.
What is to be done now? The President is in office till 2013 and whatever else Chavez may be the description of 'lame-duck' will never fit him. He is a fighter and he will be thinking of how to strengthen the process. If properly handled the defeat could be a blessing in disguise. It has, after all, punctured the arguments of the Western pundits who were claiming for the last eight years that democracy in Venezuela was dead and authoritarianism had won.
Anyone who saw Chavez' speech accepting defeat last night (as I did here in Guadalajara with Mexican friends) will not be in any doubt regarding his commitment to a democratically embedded social process. That much is clear. One of the weaknesses of the movement in Venezuela has been the over-dependence on one person. It is dangerous for the person (one bullet can be enough) and it is unhealthy for the Bolivarian process. There will be a great deal of soul-searching taking place in Caracas, but the key now is an open debate analysing the causes of the setback and a move towards a collective leadership to decide on the next candidate. It's a long time ahead but the discussions should start now. Deepening popular participation and encouraging social inclusion (as envisaged in the defeated constitutional changes) should be done anyway.
The referendum defeat will undoubtedly boost the Venezuelan opposition and the Right in Latin America, but they would be foolish to imagine that this victory will automatically win them the Presidency. If the lessons of the defeat are understood it is the Bolivarians who will win.
Tariq Ali's new book, Pirates of the Caribbean: Axis of Hope, is published by Verso. He can be reached at: tariq.ali3@btinternet.com
============================================================
I Thought Dictators Couldn’t Lose Elections!
December 4th 2007, by Carlos Martinez
Sunday night was a very tense evening for all in Venezuela, awaiting the final results of the referendum while varying rumors about the outcome came every few minutes with the only certainty being that the vote was closer than many expected. I was in front of Miraflores, the presidential palace, at the time the results were released. As one can imagine, there were many teary eyes and bowed heads in what was a particularly perplexing moment for a people not accustomed to losing for a very long time.
The image that appeared on the massive video screens in front of the palace immediately after the results were read was that of an unusually somber faced Chavez. What followed may have been even more unexpected for those in the opposition and weary of Chavez’s unrelenting bravado. In contrast to the lack of diplomacy that many now associate him with, Chavez went on to gracefully concede the election and congratulated his adversaries. This was especially significant considering the closeness of the margin, with 4,504,354 votes against, (50.70%) and 4,379,392, (49.29%) for the YES. Chavez went on to say that he was happy to see the election end peacefully.
While many in the progressive community have been trying to argue that democracy is in fact alive and well in Venezuela for so long now, it has been a difficult argument to maintain with Chavez always on the winning side. Certainly, Chavez’s concession of the vote and his request that those in favor of the SI recognize the results serves to delegitimize those that continue to call Chavez an “aspiring tyrant” as Donald Rumsfeld did in his editorial released yesterday entitled ““The Smart Way to Beat Tyrants Like Chávez” (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/30/AR2007113001800.html)
The opposition response has been jubilant. The irony is thick considering what a response from the opposition might have looked like if the results were switched. There were reports that opposition groups were already found to be printing shirts reading “Fraud”. Something that has been particularly interesting in the last few months has been to see the way the opposition has come to embrace the 1999 constitution as their own, adding to the irony, since many of these same people were vehemently opposed to the that constitution’s passing.
However the opposition has also been forced to recognize that many people did in fact want to see the constitutional reforms pass, leading them towards a new rhetoric. Former Chavez ally, General Isaias Baduel, who came out against the reforms has emerged as a new leader amongst the opposition. Calling for national reconciliation yet continuing to champion inclusion of the popular sectors, he is essentially establishing a more moderate opposition pole. Meanwhile, Manuel Rosales, governor of Zulia State and losing candidate in the last presidential elections has said that he will support the creation of a “Social Fund for the Self-Employed”, one of the articles proposed in the constitutional reform.
A TIME FOR REFLECTION & EVALUATION
December has arrived and Venezuela basically closes down at this time of year. It will be an important time for reflection for those in support of the Bolivarian process.
There are many reasons that one could offer to explain the outcome of this election. Many are pointing to the powerful disinformaton campaign launched by the opposition with heavy financial support from the United States. It is true that to a great degree the constitutional changes themselves were not actually voted on yesterday, but rather peopele’s perceptions of the reform. Many did go to polls still believing that their children or their third car or their home could be taken away by the government, although in reality the reform did not contain any such articles and actually reiterated its recognition of private property.
It is evident that many in the Chavista camp abstained from voting or actually voted against the referendum. It has been said that this outcome is not an indication of a growing opposition but rather reflects those who have traditionally been supportive of Chavez but remain tied to a bureaucratic vision of governance and do not want their own power challenged. There has also been talk of disillusionment amongst the popular sectors, the poor and working class citizens who have been considered the real base of support for the Bolivarian Revolution. Partially this is seen as a result of the effects of this bureaucratic class widely perceived as a primary cause for the continuing disfunction within the revolution. As I write this, a spontaneous concentration has formed outside of Miraflores Palace demanding a “house cleaning” to remove the corruption pervading the process.
Additionally, some believe that the way the constitutional reforms were proposed was not as inclusive as it should have been of these popular sectors. While this constitutional reform did receive a wide amount of consultation from a variety of social movements, there are some who believe that the participation was not profound enough for a country seeking to establish a radical model of democracy and whose citizens want to truly be at the forefront of change.
Regardless of what the actual reasons were for the outcome, those supporting more radical changes will undoubtedly be in a state of serious evaluation to try to figure out what this means for Venezuela and the Bolivarian Revolution. Chavez proclaimed in his concession speech “por ahora no pudimos”, for now we could not, repeating the famous phrase he made in 1992 after his failed attempt at taking power through staging a military coup. Many are hopeful that this is another necessary step needed for the Bolivarian Revolution to evolve and deepen, possibly even beyond Chavez and with a greater focus on doing base building at the grassroots. Indeed many of the changes proposed did not need to be made through the process of a constitutional reform and many believe that the next steps needed to deepen the process such as the expansion of the communal councils, the acceleration of the land reform, and the growth of a grassroots economy really depend on the role that social movements play and how determined the government is in supporting them.
=============================================================
Truer words could not be written...Well said...
But I think the shock is a problem. That maybe we (the revolutionaries, the pro-Chavez people) became a bit slack after so many big victories....Also, the campaign tried to associate voting 'yes' with voting for Chavez. But I think that's an oversimplification.
So as I see it, its an opportunity to reflect on mistakes and get stronger from them...I also feel the need to say...to the opposition... that you stand for NOTHING. You oppose something (with all your misconceptions about 'democracy, liberty,' etc) but you have no proposal for the crises of capitalism- the poverty, alienation, empowering of a tiny minority, the waste and rubbish and wars.
And that 49% voting for socialism in any other country would be a massive victory.
Venezuela, you are rocking and we will keep fighting.
Venezuela After the Referendum
December 3rd 2007, by Tariq Ali - CounterPunch
Hugo Chavez' narrow defeat in the referendum was the result of large-scale abstentions by his supporters. 44 percent of the electorate stayed at home. Why? First, because they did not either understand or accept that this was a necessary referendum. The measures related to the working week and some other proposed social reforms could be easily legislated by the existing parliament. The key issues were the removal of restrictions on the election of the head of government (as is the case in most of Europe) and moves towards 'a socialist state.' On the latter there was simply not enough debate and discussion on a grassroots level.
As Edgardo Lander, a friendly critic pointed out:
"Before voting in favour of a constitutional reform which will define the State, the economy, and the democracy as socialist, we citizens have the right to take participate in these definitions. What is understood by the term socialist state? What is understood by the term socialist economy? What is understood by the term socialist democracy? In what way are these different to the states, economies, and democracies that accompanied socialism of the 20th century? Here, we are not talking about entering into a debate on semantics, rather on basic decisions about the future of the country."
And this was further amplified by Greg Wilpert, a sympathetic journalist whose website, venezuelaanalysis.com, is the best source of information on the country:
"By rushing the reform process Chavez presented the opposition with a nearly unprecedented opportunity to deal him a serious blow. Also, the rush in which the process was pushed forward opened him to criticism that the process was fundamentally flawed, which has become one of the main criticisms of the more moderate critics of the reform."
Another error was the insistence on voting for all the proposals en bloc on a take it or leave it basis. It's perfectly possibly that a number of the proposals might have got through if a vote on each had been allowed. This would have compelled the Bolivarians to campaign more effectively at grassroots level through organised discussions and debates (as the French Left did to win the argument and defeat the EU Constitution ). It is always a mistake to underestimate the electorate and Chavez knows this better than most.
What is to be done now? The President is in office till 2013 and whatever else Chavez may be the description of 'lame-duck' will never fit him. He is a fighter and he will be thinking of how to strengthen the process. If properly handled the defeat could be a blessing in disguise. It has, after all, punctured the arguments of the Western pundits who were claiming for the last eight years that democracy in Venezuela was dead and authoritarianism had won.
Anyone who saw Chavez' speech accepting defeat last night (as I did here in Guadalajara with Mexican friends) will not be in any doubt regarding his commitment to a democratically embedded social process. That much is clear. One of the weaknesses of the movement in Venezuela has been the over-dependence on one person. It is dangerous for the person (one bullet can be enough) and it is unhealthy for the Bolivarian process. There will be a great deal of soul-searching taking place in Caracas, but the key now is an open debate analysing the causes of the setback and a move towards a collective leadership to decide on the next candidate. It's a long time ahead but the discussions should start now. Deepening popular participation and encouraging social inclusion (as envisaged in the defeated constitutional changes) should be done anyway.
The referendum defeat will undoubtedly boost the Venezuelan opposition and the Right in Latin America, but they would be foolish to imagine that this victory will automatically win them the Presidency. If the lessons of the defeat are understood it is the Bolivarians who will win.
Tariq Ali's new book, Pirates of the Caribbean: Axis of Hope, is published by Verso. He can be reached at: tariq.ali3@btinternet.com
============================================================
I Thought Dictators Couldn’t Lose Elections!
December 4th 2007, by Carlos Martinez
Sunday night was a very tense evening for all in Venezuela, awaiting the final results of the referendum while varying rumors about the outcome came every few minutes with the only certainty being that the vote was closer than many expected. I was in front of Miraflores, the presidential palace, at the time the results were released. As one can imagine, there were many teary eyes and bowed heads in what was a particularly perplexing moment for a people not accustomed to losing for a very long time.
The image that appeared on the massive video screens in front of the palace immediately after the results were read was that of an unusually somber faced Chavez. What followed may have been even more unexpected for those in the opposition and weary of Chavez’s unrelenting bravado. In contrast to the lack of diplomacy that many now associate him with, Chavez went on to gracefully concede the election and congratulated his adversaries. This was especially significant considering the closeness of the margin, with 4,504,354 votes against, (50.70%) and 4,379,392, (49.29%) for the YES. Chavez went on to say that he was happy to see the election end peacefully.
While many in the progressive community have been trying to argue that democracy is in fact alive and well in Venezuela for so long now, it has been a difficult argument to maintain with Chavez always on the winning side. Certainly, Chavez’s concession of the vote and his request that those in favor of the SI recognize the results serves to delegitimize those that continue to call Chavez an “aspiring tyrant” as Donald Rumsfeld did in his editorial released yesterday entitled ““The Smart Way to Beat Tyrants Like Chávez” (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/30/AR2007113001800.html)
The opposition response has been jubilant. The irony is thick considering what a response from the opposition might have looked like if the results were switched. There were reports that opposition groups were already found to be printing shirts reading “Fraud”. Something that has been particularly interesting in the last few months has been to see the way the opposition has come to embrace the 1999 constitution as their own, adding to the irony, since many of these same people were vehemently opposed to the that constitution’s passing.
However the opposition has also been forced to recognize that many people did in fact want to see the constitutional reforms pass, leading them towards a new rhetoric. Former Chavez ally, General Isaias Baduel, who came out against the reforms has emerged as a new leader amongst the opposition. Calling for national reconciliation yet continuing to champion inclusion of the popular sectors, he is essentially establishing a more moderate opposition pole. Meanwhile, Manuel Rosales, governor of Zulia State and losing candidate in the last presidential elections has said that he will support the creation of a “Social Fund for the Self-Employed”, one of the articles proposed in the constitutional reform.
A TIME FOR REFLECTION & EVALUATION
December has arrived and Venezuela basically closes down at this time of year. It will be an important time for reflection for those in support of the Bolivarian process.
There are many reasons that one could offer to explain the outcome of this election. Many are pointing to the powerful disinformaton campaign launched by the opposition with heavy financial support from the United States. It is true that to a great degree the constitutional changes themselves were not actually voted on yesterday, but rather peopele’s perceptions of the reform. Many did go to polls still believing that their children or their third car or their home could be taken away by the government, although in reality the reform did not contain any such articles and actually reiterated its recognition of private property.
It is evident that many in the Chavista camp abstained from voting or actually voted against the referendum. It has been said that this outcome is not an indication of a growing opposition but rather reflects those who have traditionally been supportive of Chavez but remain tied to a bureaucratic vision of governance and do not want their own power challenged. There has also been talk of disillusionment amongst the popular sectors, the poor and working class citizens who have been considered the real base of support for the Bolivarian Revolution. Partially this is seen as a result of the effects of this bureaucratic class widely perceived as a primary cause for the continuing disfunction within the revolution. As I write this, a spontaneous concentration has formed outside of Miraflores Palace demanding a “house cleaning” to remove the corruption pervading the process.
Additionally, some believe that the way the constitutional reforms were proposed was not as inclusive as it should have been of these popular sectors. While this constitutional reform did receive a wide amount of consultation from a variety of social movements, there are some who believe that the participation was not profound enough for a country seeking to establish a radical model of democracy and whose citizens want to truly be at the forefront of change.
Regardless of what the actual reasons were for the outcome, those supporting more radical changes will undoubtedly be in a state of serious evaluation to try to figure out what this means for Venezuela and the Bolivarian Revolution. Chavez proclaimed in his concession speech “por ahora no pudimos”, for now we could not, repeating the famous phrase he made in 1992 after his failed attempt at taking power through staging a military coup. Many are hopeful that this is another necessary step needed for the Bolivarian Revolution to evolve and deepen, possibly even beyond Chavez and with a greater focus on doing base building at the grassroots. Indeed many of the changes proposed did not need to be made through the process of a constitutional reform and many believe that the next steps needed to deepen the process such as the expansion of the communal councils, the acceleration of the land reform, and the growth of a grassroots economy really depend on the role that social movements play and how determined the government is in supporting them.
=============================================================
Truer words could not be written...Well said...
But I think the shock is a problem. That maybe we (the revolutionaries, the pro-Chavez people) became a bit slack after so many big victories....Also, the campaign tried to associate voting 'yes' with voting for Chavez. But I think that's an oversimplification.
So as I see it, its an opportunity to reflect on mistakes and get stronger from them...I also feel the need to say...to the opposition... that you stand for NOTHING. You oppose something (with all your misconceptions about 'democracy, liberty,' etc) but you have no proposal for the crises of capitalism- the poverty, alienation, empowering of a tiny minority, the waste and rubbish and wars.
And that 49% voting for socialism in any other country would be a massive victory.
Venezuela, you are rocking and we will keep fighting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)