Venezuela is undergoing rapid economic, political, and social change. El proceso, as the country’s reformation is called, is being undermined by international media outlets that distort or misreport current events. The Voice of America (VOA), acknowledged as a pro-American news source, is particularly lax about accurately reporting Venezuela. Brian Wagner, from Miami, published this story on October 18th. Wagner’s piece is another example of the subtle criticism and ignorance that characterizes most reporting on Venezuela.
Venezuela’s National Assembly is debating constitutional reform, the third round in a constitutional process, underway since Chavez was first democratically elected in 1998. Wagner’s first criticism is the controversial nature of “new powers” that would allow the government to suspend rights to due process and access to information in the event of a “state of emergency”. Wagner uses words from Venezuelan RCTV president Marcel Granier and former U.S. State Department official Roger Noriega to support his contention that these reforms threaten civil rights and centralize too much power in Chavez’s hands.
It’s unfortunate that Wagner doesn’t place Venezuela’s current round of constitutional reform in historical context. Venezuela has been saddled by authoritarian, undemocratic regimes for almost all of its existence. It has never had a constitution that reflected the will of its people. The process that brought about the newest constitution was certified by international observers and experts as free, fair, and representative of the will of many Venezuelans that have been systematically shut out of the political process.
Each round of constitutional reform must be passed by referendum. Any changes or amendments are voted on directly by the people, not by the people’s representatives as in the United States or other representative democracies. The Venezuela form is more democratic and populist, which should not bring summary judgment from Western journalists like Wagner. If the Venezuelan people vote the government new powers in a free and fair election then we as foreigners are in no position to judge, particularly when such powers already exist in the United States.
Authoritarianism is inimical to our political nature and understandably angers democrats the world over. Yet, journalists like Wagner view Venezuela’s proceso through red-colored glasses, red being Chavez’s color of choice and the color historically associated with authoritarian Soviet communism. Constitutional reform in Venezuela is a natural reaction to that country’s long history of authoritarian government, not an indicator of its future tyranny. Chavez and the growth of his political and social movement is an extension of a revolutionary moment sparked by the Caracazo in 1989. Wagner ignores this history.
Journalists use quotes from experts to bolster and/or balance their story’s content; everyone understands how news stories work. Journalists run into trouble when they use biased or partisan experts as sources. Wagner quotes RCTV president Marcel Granier as saying the latest reforms pose new threats to the Venezuelan people. Critics of Granier have argued he poses the greater threat after his company’s role in the April 11th, 2002 coup d’etat attempt against Chavez’s government. There is mounting evidence that Granier and RCTV purposely misled the people of Venezuela about the coup. Wagner’s use of him as a credible source is suspect.
Wagner quotes former State Department official Roger Noriega who said that reforms under Chavez have actually harmed democratic rights. He goes on to say that Chavez is a threat to US interests. Noriega has long supported hard-line US policies in Latin America. In the 1980s, Noriega ran President Reagan’s “non-lethal aid” programs to Central America. He has advocated for the political isolation of Venezuela and Cuba. Noriega was also behind the Haiti policy that forced former Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide’s resignation. Noriega’s political history is not alluded to by Wagner. Wagner presents Noriega as an unbiased bureaucrat, which does not fit with Noriega’s history of political activism against leftists movements in Venezuela.
This reporting is irresponsible and harmful to Venezuela’s democratic aspirations. American foreign policy is complicated enough without further muddying the waters with biased reporting and ignorant sourcing. Wagner’s report is unfair to the dynamic political process taking place in Venezuela. It distills the grassroots political activism underway on a daily basis across Venezuela to moralistic kvetching over Hugo Chavez. There is a dissonance between how Western journalists view Venezuelan politics, the push and pull of American politics, and the varying interests of American foreign policy. This dissonance negatively affects Venezuela’s domestic politics and exacerbates simmering conflicts.
.jpg)
