The Devil's Excrement

As I mentioned in my earlier article on Saturday, it is encouraging that the Head of the Supreme Court has strong views about the recall referendum, because it is clear that Chavez’ MVR will use all possible legal tricks to block it form taking place. There was another clear indication of this from today’s statements in El Nacional page A-5 by Deputy Pedro Carreno. Carreno-famous for saying the US Government spies on us through Direct TV set tops, as well as saying Peruvian spymaster Montesinos was dead six months before he was caught in Venezuela-pointed out how absurd they might get in their arguments to block the referendum. What Carreno said needed answered, was who was eligible to vote in this referendum. In the brilliant interpretation of this not so beautiful mind, it is not clear (to him) whether it has to be only those that were eligible to vote when Chavez was elected or whether it would include the new voters. He wants to raise this issue because the Constitution says that for the recall referendum to take effect the number of votes approving the recall has to be at least one vote more vote than the number with which the candidate was elected. Now, Deputy Carreno says in the same article that the official MVR position will be encourage absenteeism, because this, together with traditional absenteeism will play in their favor. Well, I am not sure I understand this argument. If only pro-Chavez voters will not go to the polls, the number of Yes votes will actually remain the same. By encouraging absenteeism, they may be encouraging a landslide vote against the President, not the best foundation for a possible future comeback of the only visible leader of MVR. In fact, even if the opposition did not manage to get the magic number of votes, which seems highly unlikely, if Chavez lost resoundly, it would simple remove any mandate that he may claim he had before the referendum.

I sure hope the Supreme Court, who has become skilful at ruling outside the realm of the suits presented to them, uses a single one of any possible suits to clarify all these questions unambiguously.

Through the website Venezuelatoday.net, not to be confused with the Government’s site Venezuelatoday.com (Thanks to the Editor of the .net one) I found the tape of the speech by Chavez where he says that he “surrendered without a shot in April 2002 but he will shoot next time around”. He then proceeds to give an anti-american sppech. The same site also carries the link to the video from Duke University’s seminar “Chavez: The end of the rule of law“

Through the website Venezuelatoday.net, not to be confused with the Government’s site Venezuelatoday.com (Thanks to the Editor of the .net one) I found the tape of the speech by Chavez where he says that he “surrendered without a shot in April 2002 but he will shoot next time around”. He then proceeds to give an anti-american sppech. The same site also carries the link to the video from Duke University’s seminar “Chavez: The end of the rule of law“

Op-Ed piece in the NYT by William Safire entitled Caracas, California describing the parallels between voter disenchantment with their elected officials in both Venezuela and California. There is an important error in Safire’s article, the recall referendum was not agreed upon by Chavez and the opposition, but was a right granted in the Chavista-designed Constitution of 1999. Moreover, the Constitution does not allow Chavez to run, it clearly states that were Chavez to lose, an election would take place within thirty days to replace him. To be more precise it says that if the recall referendum is approved (Art. 72): “the mandate will be considered revoked and we will proceed to fill the absolute absence according to the Constitution and the law”. The Constitution states that the absolute absence of the President will be filled with an election thirty days after the absence takes place (Art. 233) if it occurs within the first four years of the mandate. Thus, it seems implausible to argue that the President’s absolute absence as defined by the Constitution will be filled within an election in which he is a candidate. Moreover, the new President is not being elected to a new term, but to complete the term of the President whose mandate was recalled (also part of Art. 233).

Economist Gustavo Garcia said a few interesting things in the interview today in page 1-17 of El Universal. I thought I would highlight a few of them:

-“Internal revenues has declined and oil revenue is falling, because PDVSA is not collecting what it says it is selling , nor it produces what it announces and the level of exports does not correspond with what they argue they are selling, because in that case international reserves should be increasing more”

-“This year the Government will pay 4  trillion Bs. in interest and internal debt will increase in the same proportion”

-“The increase in international reserves of US 3.5 billion is exactly the same amount that the Central Bank has had to absorb in its operation to reduce liquidity”

Economist Gustavo Garcia said a few interesting things in the interview today in page 1-17 of El Universal. I thought I would highlight a few of them:

-“Internal revenues has declined and oil revenue is falling, because PDVSA is not collecting what it says it is selling , nor it produces what it announces and the level of exports does not correspond with what they argue they are selling, because in that case international reserves should be increasing more”

-“This year the Government will pay 4  trillion Bs. in interest and internal debt will increase in the same proportion”

-“The increase in international reserves of US 3.5 billion is exactly the same amount that the Central Bank has had to absorb in its operation to reduce liquidity”

Interesting interview in today’s El Nacional (page A-6)  with the Head of the Supreme Court. In it, Justice Ivan Rincon says the Court will not allow the boycott of the referendum. He says: ” We are obligated to guarantee it”…” It is a constitutional right that all citizens have to ask for the recall of any elected public official”..”If the electoral way out is backed, we have to defend it, we have to provide it with custody”…”The right is born on August 19th. and once the signatures are handed in, the electoral commission has to hold the referendum within the next three months. The extension of the periods conspires against the commission itself, in such a way that it would lose credibility”. Very encouraging, particularly saying that the ninety day period has to be obeyed. It ahs always been my fear that there will be delays through legal maneuvering of the date on which the referendum would be held.

It makes you wonder when a country has more than 20% unemployment officially (more in reality), when professionals, including teachers and medical doctors are unemployed, why Hugo Chavez brings Cuban teachers to alphabetize Venezuelans and Cuban medical doctors to provide medical care in the barrios. Meanwhile, last year’s alphabetization plan organized by the government did very little and local hospitals have no supplies and doctors don’t even get paid. Moreover, it has been demonstrated over and over that Venezuelan medical doctors have much better training than Cuban ones. Of course, we also sell 2% of the country’s oil production to Cuba with long term financing in US dollars much below what Venezuela can get in international marekts or what Central American and Caribbean countries get under the Pacto de San Jose. What’s next, Cuban prostitutes?