Does anyone even remotely believe that if the real margin of defeat in the Venezuelan Constitutional Referendum had been just 1.4 percentage points that Chávez would not have tried to invert that margin?
Does anyone remotely believe that if he had indeed lost by 1.4% Chávez would not have petitioned the Supreme Court (which he controls) to order a recount?
Clearly, Chávez's margin of defeat was at least 2 digits and perhaps even as high as 30 points or more.
Even a 70-30 loss would not accurately reflect the popular dissatisfaction with Chávez because 44 percent of the electorate boycotted the election. Certainly Chávez supporters had no reason to boycott, so it stands to reason that those who did were against Chávez but afraid of the very real repercussions of voting against him.
If we compute their passive resistance as a negative vote, then a minimum of 75% and a maximum of 95% rejected Chávez's constitutional reforms aimed at making Venezuela a Marxist state and himself dictator till 2050.
Still, this means nothing because he can do both extraconstitutionally and will.
Charlie Bravo said...
Yes, Manuel, he's teary eyed, but he's not stepping down. Somehow it reminds me of the gambit played by Fidel Castro when he "quitted," or he suggested that he "would quit" at the beginning of the robolution. Almost fifty years later he's still there, advising el Mico Putumayo on how to go at it.
A 1.5% would have not triggered such reaction from Chávez. On the contrary, he would have easily obliterated the difference and declared himself winner with more than 30% advantage.
The numbers were probably such that the only way of declaring a victory would have been a self-coup-d'etat. So he is now buying some time, and no later than the end of this week we will see what he's got in the bag for Venezuela.
Now, there's no constitutional reform, but ... who ever said that a dictator needs a constitutional reform to rule?
He will obliterate the constitution by signing some edicts, and some emergency measures, and by suspending the public freedoms and guarantees whenever he feels it convenient.
A tyranny doesn't consult with the people, that's why it's not called democracy.
This was just a farce, and believe me, both Castro and Chávez had this trick properly codified in case that the numbers were against the monkey-boy. The only objective of a revolution is to install a tyranny — in most cases. But the only objective of a tyrant is to keep himself in power, in all cases.
12/03/2007 11:44 AM