Hugo Chavez and "The Opposition"

Much is said about the Presidency of Venezuela's Hugo Chavez suggesting that his tenure has been an "undemocratic" threat to "stability". In the US media much weight and credibility is given to the democratic credentials groups inside Venezuela usually referred to rather vaguely as "the opposition". Meanwhile the democratic credentials of the party that keeps winning elections, Chavez' "Bolivarian" movement, is questioned in the US even as we live under a President who rose to power illegally (reference is made to the incompatibility of stone-throwing and glass houses).

Joshua Holland has very illuminating article up on AlterNet about just who these darlings of the American media, the Venezuelan "opposition, are.

Venezuela's hyperpolarized politics have bled into our own ugly discourse and, as usual, progressives are reacting to the messaging on the right; they say Chávez is a tyrant, he hates democracy, he killed Santa -- and we dutifully debunk the charges.

But when it's all about Hugo Chávez, it puts the burden on his supporters; they have to explain every hyperbolic phrase that passes his lips and every move he makes to advance what is in fact a dramatic -- and predictably painful for some -- social and economic restructuring of Venezuelan society.

It's tiresome and it puts those who don't automatically hate him on the defensive. That's why, as we edge closer to December's Venezuelan elections, it's time to start talking about Venezuelan politics in the same way we talk about politics in Canada or Europe or anywhere else. There are always at least two sides in democratic contests, and there are policy differences that get voters' attention. But we never hear about those things in relation to Venezuela -- it's like Chávez is governing in a vacuum.

The most obvious thing missing from the mainstream discourse is the Venezuelan opposition. But its members deserve some attention because while they're portrayed generically as members of "civil society" -- and often as champions of democracy -- in fact they're a deeply unpopular group of plutocrats with very little support among the majority of the Venezuelan population.

A recent poll -- an opposition poll conducted by Hinterlaces (translation courtesy of Oilwars) -- showed that 55 percent of the population plans to vote for Chávez in the upcoming elections, a number consistent with the 55-60 percent of the vote he's gotten in his previous three contests.

It's tempting to focus on that number, but look at some other numbers in the poll -- the numbers on Chávez's top challengers among Venezuela's opposition.

The candidate that came in second in the poll was Zulia state Gov. Manuel Rosales, with 7 percent -- an eighth of Chávez's support. Broadcaster Julio Borges came in third with 5 percent, and businessman Roberto Smith with 2 percent. Every one of the opposition candidates was beaten by "someone new" (17 percent) and "none of the above" (10 percent).

So the top three candidates after Chávez, combined, have the support of 14 percent of the electorate -- about a quarter of Hugo Chávez's popular support. (Another recent poll, by Datanalisis, had Chávez at 59 percent, Rosales at 9 percent and Borges at 8 percent.)

Does this not say it all? In sane world, approval like that would be seen as the very expression of democracy with an emerging sense of stability, not a threat to it. But it seems it all comes down to what is meant by certain people when they use those words. "Stability for whom," is the question.