On May 30, Dan Rather, one of America’s most well-known journalists, announced that Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez would die “in a couple of months at most.” Four months later, Chávez is not only alive and campaigning but widely expected to win re-election on Sunday. Such is the state of misrepresentation of Venezuela – it is probably the most lied-about country in the world – that a journalist can say almost anything about Chávez or his government and it is unlikely to be challenged, so long as it is negative. Even worse, Rather referred to Chávez as “the dictator” – a term that few, if any, political scientists familiar with the country would countenance.
Here is what Jimmy Carter said about Venezuela’s “dictatorship” a few weeks ago: “As a matter of fact, of the 92 elections that we’ve monitored, I would say that the election process in Venezuela is the best in the world.”
Carter won a Nobel Prize for his work through the election-monitoring Carter Center, which has observed and certified past Venezuelan elections. But because Washington has sought for more than a decade to de-legitimize Venezuela’s government, his viewpoint is only rarely reported. His latest comments went unreported in almost all of the U.S. media.
In Venezuela, voters touch a computer screen to cast their vote and then receive a paper receipt, which they then verify and deposit in a ballot box. Most of the paper ballots are compared with the electronic tally. This system makes vote-rigging nearly impossible: to steal the vote would require hacking the computers and then stuffing the ballot boxes to match the rigged vote.
Unlike in the United States, where in a close vote we really have no idea who won (see Bush v Gore, 2000), Venezuelans can be sure that their vote counts. And also unlike the U.S., where as many as 90 million eligible voters will not vote in November, the government in Venezuela has done everything to increase voter registration (now at a record of about 97 percent) and participation.
Yet the U.S. foreign policy establishment (which includes most of the American and Western media) seethes with contempt for Venezuela’s democratic process. In a report timed for the elections, the so-called “Committee to Protect Journalists” says that the government controls a “media empire,” neglecting to inform its readers that Venezuelan state TV has only about 5-8 percent of the country’s television audience. Of course, Chávez can interrupt normal programming with his speeches (under a law that pre-dates his administration), and regularly does so. But the opposition still has most of the media, including radio and print media – not to mention most of the wealth and income of the country.
The opposition will most likely lose this election not because of the government’s advantages of incumbency – which are abused throughout the hemisphere, includingthe United States. If they lose, it will be because the majority of Venezuelans havedramatically improved their living standards under the Chávez government. Since 2004, when the government gained control over the oil industry and the economy had recovered from the devastating, extra-legal attempts to overthrow it (including the 2002 U.S.-backed military coup and oil strike of 2002-2003), poverty has been cutin half and extreme poverty by 70 percent. And this measures only cash income. Millions have access to health care for the first time, and college enrollment has doubled, with free tuition for many students. Inequality has also been considerably reduced. By contrast, the two decades that preceded Chávez were one of the worst economic failures in Latin America, with real income per person actually falling by 14 percent from 1980-1998.
In Washington, democracy has a simple definition: does a government do what the State Department wants them to do? And of course here, the idea of politicians actually delivering on what they promised to voters is also an unfamiliar concept. So it is not just Venezuela that regularly comes under fire from the Washington establishment: all of the left and newly independent governments of South America, including Argentina, Ecuador, and Bolivia are in the cross-hairs (although Brazil is considered too big to get the same treatment except from the right). But the State Department tries to keep its eyes on the prize: Venezuela is sitting on 500 billion barrels of oil, and doesn’t respect Washington’s foreign policy. That is what makes it public enemy number one, and gets it the worst media coverage.
But Venezuela is part of a “Latin American Spring” that has produced the most democratic, progressive, and independent group of governments that the region has ever had. They work together, and Venezuela has solid support among its neighbors. This is Lula da Silva last month: “A victory for Chávez (in the upcoming election) is not just a victory for the people of Venezuela but also a victory for all the people of Latin America . . . this victory will strike another blow against imperialism.” South America’s support is Venezuela’s best guarantee against continuing attempts by Washington – which is still spending millions of dollars within the country in addition to unknown covert funds — to undermine, de-legitimize, and destabilize democracy in Venezuela.
Mark Weisbrot is an economist and co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. He is co-author, with Dean Baker, of Social Security: the Phony Crisis.
This essay originally appeared in The Guardian.