An interesting conundrum

Updated Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has been a thorn in the side of both the US and corporate interests in Venezuela ever since he was elected in 1998. He has been repeatedly accused of authoritarianism, of being an autocrat, a murderer, even a "would-be dictator," in the words of the New York Times. The charge is not completely without merit (especially, it seems, in the campaign to get signatures on petitions for an election to recall him) but still over the top, especially since authoritarian rule always seems to be "increasing" but never seems to actually get to being authoritarian.

The main reason for the fanatical opposition is that Chavez upset the traditional house of cards where the poor in Venezuela were the "other," they were the dispossessed, the unimportant - the ignored - as the interests first of the rich and second of the middle class professionals were seen to. Chavez, instead, openly championed the cause of the poor majority.

He came into office having pledged to develop a new constitution, which was endorsed in a general referendum. In elections in 2000 under the new constitution, Chavez got 56% of the vote: the largest majority in 40 years.

But after 9/11, the oil economy was disrupted and Venezuela's economy hit the skids. Chavez's popularity among the poor dropped as he was unable to deliver on promises he made to them. Meanwhile, opposition among the monied classes continued. The result were corporate-driven general strikes followed by the overthrow of Chavez on April 12, 2002. Significantly, even as nations across Latin America condemned the coup, the US remained largely silent except to note a "change of government" which they said was provoked by "undemocratic actions committed or encouraged by the Chavez administration."

However, hundreds of thousands of ordinary Venezuelans turned out into the streets to demand his return, and in short order the coup was put down and Chavez, who had been held in a secret location, was back in office. It was only after Chavez was reinstalled that the US joined with all of Latin America in condemning the coup. (By the way, some refuse to call it a coup because there is some disagreement as to whether Chavez was directly forced out or whether the opposition just created such chaos that he "chose" to resign. I call that a distinction without a difference, especially since some coup leaders bragged that they engineered the violence that prompted the overthrow.)

That was not the end of it, as having failed to oust Chavez illegally, the opposition decided to try a legal method: recall, allowed for under the constitution the "autocrat" Chavez got approved. Despite some legal setbacks and reported instances of intimidation by pro-Chavez forces, including government officials, they have succeeded in getting the requisite number of signatures and there will be a referendum on August 15.

(The extent of intimidation is hard to gauge since the private media in Venezuela is solidly in line with corporate interests; at least some of the incidents lack independent verification.)

(Sidebar: According to Harper's Index for May, last September the National Endowment for Democracy gave $53,400 in federal funds to a group organizing the recall. Of course, such foreign money would be illegal if given to a US campaign, but again, "do as I say, not as I do" is not an uncommon refrain in the halls of power in the US.)

Okay, here's where the conundrum arises. It is by no means certain that Chavez will be voted out; in fact, I believe the chances are clearly in his favor. His popularity has fallen so low that it hovers in the same area as Shrub's. But, like our White House resident, Chavez has two things in his favor: The fervor of his supporters and the fact that no one seems particularly excited about any of the alternatives. In fact, while a lot of people in Venezuela dislike (or, more accurately in many cases, are disappointed in) Chavez, a majority loathes the opposition, many leaders of which get support in single digits.

So, perhaps positioning their cannons for their post-referendum campaign, opponents are charging that Chavez may manipulate the vote, according to the New York Times for Saturday.

How? Simple: They're using touch-screen voting machines.

Yes, those touch-screen machines. The ones that are so reliable that presidential brother Jeb Bush's Florida declares that any kind of voter-receipt paper trail is totally unnecessary and claims to the contrary are "unfounded attacks." That despite the fact that in an election in that state, computers recorded 134 nonvotes in a single-issue ballot (in an election decided by 12 votes).

Now the opposition is demanding an independent audit of the signatures of the computers, but the National Electoral Council is opposed to that, saying that as an autonomous body it will tally the votes and prevent fraud. That, of course, is not good enough for the opposition, which mutters darkly about the presence of pro-Chavez board members - even though it was this same board that certified the petition signatures allowing for the vote in the first place.

So here's the conundrum for the Bushites. If they join with the Venezuelan opposition and question the balloting, they are in effect admitting that touch-screen voting machines are of doubtful reliability and security and open to manipulation, which undermines the case for their use here - and is a slap in the face of brother Jeb. But if they don't, when Chavez wins (as I think he will) and the opposition shouts "manipulation," they won't really be in a position to join the chorus. What to do, what to do?

Now, frankly, I don't trust the suckers - the machines, I mean. Too many opportunities for software glitches, technical difficulties (such as a simple misaligned screen), or direct manipulation of results, which in the absence of a means for a hand recount (of exactly the sort Florida says is unnecessary and which in fact has rendered impossible by failing to provide for any paper receipt of the vote) is just much too much of a risk for my taste.

So I'm not happy Venezuela is using them and I do believe that the sample audits should be done by some outfit like the Carter Center in order to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. But those same arguments apply here - and if we're going to question the legitimacy of a vote in Venezuela because of the technology used, we damn well should raise the same questions here.

Footnote: The New York Times has editorialized against the use of touch-screen voting machines, which is good. In their news coverage about them, they have included statements from both supporters and opponents, which is to be expected. However, in the article about the referendum on Chavez, almost the entire text was taken up with reports of the machines' security flaws, glitches, and failures with barely a breath in their defense, effectively presenting the balloting as fatally flawed even before it's happened. In light of that, it's interesting to note that something the Times has editorialized against is the administration of Hugo Chavez.