Tale of the dead-enders

The demonization of Hugo Chávez is continuing apace, even after he handily defeated the attempt to recall him.

Wednesday's International Herald Tribune carried a typical example. (It's well to recall that the International Herald Tribune is owned by the New York Times, which has been among the worst offenders in this regard.) It was authored by one Enrique ter Horst, who the Tribune identifies only as "a Venezuelan national, ... a lawyer and political analyst in Caracas." Back in May, however, the San Francisco Chronicle ID'ed him more accurately for the context here as "a lawyer and former diplomat who has joined the anti-Chavez camp." Enrique ter Horst is associated with the anti-Chávez website SixthRepublic.com and his work has appeared on other anti-Chávez sites.

The trouble ter Horst faces is that the laws - the election procedures - and the facts - specifically, the findings of the international observers who checked the results using standard, accepted methodologies - are both against him. Recalling the old lawyer's saying "when the facts are against you, attack the law; when the law is against you, attack the facts; when the facts and the law are both against you, attack opposing counsel," ter Horst inveighs against Chávez.

Parsing like the lawyer he is, ter Horst starts by saying there is a growing "perception" of fraud in the recall count - but by a couple of paragraphs in, he treats it as documented fact without acknowledging the shift.

He then accuses Chávez of resisting the recall because

[h]e was conscious that two-thirds [a figure apparently plucked out of the air] of the people opposed his Cuban-inspired "revolutionary project" and his autocratic, aggressive style

before accusing the electoral council of "tricks and delaying tactics."

He ends with this:

This is not just another election in a country where political actors abide by democratic rules and civilized behavior. It is an election where a choice of society is being made, and where one side is prepared to use any method to remain in power, even elections if it is assured of "winning" them.

In short, his argument is that Chávez is a Castro-style tyrant who everyone dislikes and who therefore could only have won by cheating. But his main argument for his charge of fraud is that the final results were considerably different from the results indicated by exit polls - exit polls done by the opposition and which seemed to focus more on areas where pro-recall, anti-Chávez feeling would be expected to run higher. Not what I'd call persuasive.

Nonetheless, at the suggestion of the observers, an audit is being performed.

[T]he official electoral authority - the Venezuelan National Electoral Council - and international observers from the Carter Center and the Organization of American States (OAS) ... were due to visit 150 randomly chosen polling sites, checking the results produced by voting machines against paper records, in the presence of government and opposition representatives.

No matter: The opposition is refusing to take part, arguing that the touchscreen voting machines themselves and their software have to be checked - even though these machines left a paper trail, the lack of which is generally regarded by activists as presenting the biggest risk of manipulation. Recalling that the opposition has now tried a military coup, two national strikes, and a recall in failed attempts to oust Chávez before his term is up, it really needs to be asked just which side it is that is "prepared to use any method."

Nonetheless, it must be noted that

some opposition figures have begun saying the referendum result should be accepted.

"We have to bite the dust of defeat," Manuel Rosales, governor of Zulia state, was quoted as saying by the Associated Press news agency.

The head of the country's biggest business association, Fedecameras, has also called for reconciliation between Chavez supporters and opponents.

"These two Venezuelas must reconcile. Venezuela cannot continue in conflict," said Albis Munoz.

Enrique ter Horst is apparently among those who feel continued conflict is preferable to reconciliation.