Via the BBC: Venezuela court orders TV seizure:
Venezuela’s top court has allowed the government to take control of private TV transmitters as it prepares to replace commercial with state-run TV.Radio Caracas Television, a station critical of the government, is being forced to stop broadcasting on its public frequency.
At a minimum, it is clear that Chávez has done a masterful job of capturing and shaping the institutions of the state to his liking.
Further, the move against RCTV is a means of exerting substantial control of the media so as to increase his national influence and thereby further consolidate the authoritarian nature of his regime. The elimination of the major televised opposition is clearly a boon for his ability to control what citizens hear and see and therefore a means by which to influence what they think.
RCTV is, it should be noted, is the oldest private television station in the country (its founding was in the 1953) and it is the most viewed channel in the country.
According to the AP:Opposition-aligned TV station to be taken off air in Venezuela
Chavez accuses RCTV of supporting a failed 2002 coup against him. RCTV has been accused of violating broadcast laws and showing programs with violence and sexual content that are morally degrading.RCTV’s license is being reassigned to a public service channel, TVES, with the government providing start-up funds.
Chavez rejected allegations that his decision threatened freedom of expression.
“There’s no country in the world where there is so much freedom of expression,” he said.
There’s nothing quite like an authoritarian asserting how free something is as he is in the very act of restricting the freedom in question.
The problem with the charges against the station in regards to its behavior surrounding the coup attempt of 2002 is that it was almost five years ago. Even if the station could be credibly charged with improper or even illegal behavior at that time, it is rather late to use that as the reason for this move. Indeed, it is rather manifestly obvious that Chávez is simply further consolidating his own authoritarian regime by silencing his main critic.
And, as the AP notes, I am not the only one who thinks this to be true:
Human Rights Watch and Reporters Without Borders called the move a flagrant effort to silence criticism. The U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Thursday passed a bipartisan resolution condemning it.Sphere: Related ContentMany Venezuelan journalists have taken to the streets in protest, but others side with the government.
Eleazar Diaz Rangel, editor of the newspaper Ultimas Noticias, argued that the “immense majority” of media organizations openly oppose the government. But pro-government channels dominate on TV. Globovision is the only other major opposition-aligned channel, and it is not seen in all parts of the country.
May 27th, 2007 at 5:57 am
“Even if the station could be credibly charged with improper or even illegal behavior at that time…”
I see you didn’t follow up the info on the 2002 coup. Pity. You’d be saying “Good riddance” and “Better late than never”.
I also find mildly amusing that you keep calling him “authoritarian”, while his actions in this matter have been entirely legal according to laws that pre-date his entry into politics. And it is, after all, just the one station. Doesn’t really even start to compare with the Patriot Act or signing statements…
Perhaps it might be interesting to analyze why and how a foreign leader gets slated for standing up to and denouncing your bankrupt nation’s policies, rather than just joining in the chorus….
May 27th, 2007 at 8:56 am
Love this quote by that nutcase Chavez:
“There’s no country in the world where there is so much freedom of expression”
Hmm perhaps we should poll his opposition? Oh yeah we can’t–they’re either in JAIL, in HIDING, or DEAD.
May 27th, 2007 at 9:11 am
Jessica:
Looking for work in the Whitehouse? Or perhaps the DoJ?
Good stuff.
May 27th, 2007 at 9:31 am
James,
No, I haven’t had time to watch the movie you cited, although I did go and do some checking on the story and I don’t accept your interpretation. Indeed, it is quite clear that this is very much about Chavez silencing his critics. To pretend like this about the events in 2002 is to be looking for a reason to justify Chavez’s actions in the here and now, which I will again note is roughly five years after the fact.
And actually you are incorrect about the notion that everything that Chavez is doing is within the rules established prior to his entry into politics. He has been actively re-writing the rules, including a new constitution, since his initial electoral victory. And yes, he did come to power legitimately. However, it is what he has done since that I properly label an attempt to consolidate authoritarian power.
S
May 27th, 2007 at 4:36 pm
Beyond all of that, I would add: what else would you call it besides “authoritarian” when a president can unilaterally decide that a given television station (which happens to be critical of him) isn’t serving the public interest and should have its license revoked?
More evidence, btw, that the coup of ‘02 is pretense: the station will be allowed to remain on cable. This is a clear power grab by Chavez to allow him to control a key frequency that goes throughout the country and will allow him to 1) limit criticism of him, and 2) allow him to better broadcast his own propaganda.
Again, that doesn’t sound like a democratic move to me. It sounds, well, authoritarian.
May 27th, 2007 at 8:08 pm
Ok then.
First of all, I did say, specifically, “in this matter” - I realize that Chavez has done other things which are suspicious at least.
You seem to see a pattern in his actions. You may well be right. My point is that in this case he was using a law which is not of his making. It isn’t a good law (that’s an opinion I can agree with) but it is not “undemocratic” in any way, nor does it result from some sort of usurpation of power.
What happened in 2002 is a damn good reason not to renew a license. Dammit, I don’t know of any place in the world where an unsuccessful organization of a putsch would only result in the non-renewal of public license when its term came up. I don’t know of any occasion ever where any leader - especially an authoritarian leader - did so very little after a violent attempt to take him out. Do you?
What do you mean that the fact that RCTV will continue on cable is proof that the 2002 putsch was no more than an excuse? This is turning things totally upside down. He acted within his powers as granted by law - no more, no less. Is it the “leniency” which proves he is an authoritarian - or is it acting within the law and no further? Do you mean that if he had banned RCTV completely that would have proved that 2002 was not just an excuse and, therefore, that he was not on a “power grab”? Or was his only choice to renew the license?
You are just fitting this event into your preconceived picture of Chavez. I am not saying that your preconceived picture is wrong - I’m just saying that because of it you are not analyzing this matter correctly. The fact that 2002 was five years ago does not mean that the putsch doesn’t matter. Really, it doesn’t. If the license came up for renewal in 2012 the putsch could and should still be taken into account.
Regards.
May 27th, 2007 at 8:17 pm
James,
I think you should look at my most recent post on this subject. My opinions fall well into line with such organizations as Freedom House, Human Rights Watch and the Committee to Protect Journalists–none of which are right-wing by any stretch of the imagination.
And yes, I do see a pattern in Venezuela and with Chavez, and it is one that concerns me greatly. Realize, too, I have been studying Latin America my entire adult life and have some sensitivity to the patterns with the politics of the region.
Also, back to the coup question: again, if there were illegalities, then one would think that they ought to have been applied in 2002/2003–not in 2007. Further, the only solution to the issue is not revocation of license–but again, it would depend on the laws that were broken and whether there ought to be prosecutions or not.
My point about the cable issue is that he simply wants RCTVs transmitters and broadcast frequencies. If RCTV had done something illegal in ‘02, then why should it be allowed to continue on cable? Your whole premise on this issue from the beginning was that they deserved to be shut down because of their role in supporting the coup.
May 28th, 2007 at 6:44 am
I realize you know your way around South America. Also, I agree that the pattern does look familiar - I know Europe best and I can see certain similarities with past dictators here. I sincerely hope that this is not the case, especially since Chavez does/did seem to want to improve the luck of his people. This in itself is not enough and power corrupts, as is known. And he is certainly starting to get himself enough power for this to be a serious issue - checks and balances gone, etc.
But… My whole point is a bit more than simply the station deserved to be shut down because of organization (the organization, not just the support) of the coup. My point is that the station deserved to be shut down - and that it wasn’t shut down. You take this to mean that Chavez is a dictator who just wants the airwaves and doesn’t care about the rest. I disagree. It doesn’t fit. No dictator I have ever studied or heard about - especially one with the amount of power Chavez already “legally” holds - fails to destroy his organized opposition utterly, totally and completely when he has the opportunity to do so. And this would especially be the case with opposition that nearly took him out a few years back. A dictator tends to stand out for his ruthless behaviour towards the merest hint of oppostion, not for leniency towards well-known and clearly powerful opponents.
Also, knowing full well how quickly the West is willing to take a hack at Chavez, any comments by Western sources (even if they are not rightwing) must be passed through a sieve for bias. For example, the least biased TV news service in Portugal slated Chavez yesterday, only interviewing RCTV journalists and only showing the opposition march. Nothing else mattered or was mentioned.
If you are right about Chavez, as you probably are, it won’t be long until undeniable evidence of dictatorship surfaces. If I’m right about Chavez, evidence of his dictatorship will continue to surface - and it will seem undeniable. That’s just the way things are…
Regards.
May 28th, 2007 at 9:21 am
For what it is worth, I never called him a “dictator” but rather referred to the act as “authoritarian” and have described the entire affair as one that is deepening the “authoritarian” nature of the regime. There is a difference.
I have not asserted that Chavez has become a full-blown dictator. I think that he is carefully maneuvering himself into more and more power over time. There is ample evidence of this that I think you are ignoring–whether it be the re-writing of the constitution or the recent acquisition of decree authority, as well as numerous other issues.
He is clearly moving to consolidate power around himself and he is doing so slowly because there is still substantial opposition in the country that he has to overcome.
I must confess, further, to dismiss groups like Freedom House and Human Rights Watch as somehow biased against Chavez because they are “Western” to be rather odd and, quite frankly, doesn’t make much sense.
Indeed, I am really unclear as to why you are so sensitive to criticism of Chavez.
May 28th, 2007 at 10:37 am
I do find the concentration of “legitimate” power in a single person very worrying, it certainly does make those alarm bells ring mightily. However, I think that taking RCTV off the air was legit: what RCTV did is totally unacceptable. That this fits snugly into the greater pattern of authoritarian actions I don’t deny, but this action was the right thing to do. As such, it is not fair to say that “here is another step taken by wannabe dictator Chavez”, when there would have been similar or stronger action taken in any other country in the world.
The trouble with the watchdog groups is that Venezuela is a very hot topic at the moment: even these normally reliable sources may not be quite as sound as they usually are. It does look like Chavez is going the way of the dictator - and this may very well cloud judgment.
I think the reason that I am sensitive to criticism of Chavez is that I had very high hopes for him. As I’m sure you know, hope is something that is hard to let go of…
May 28th, 2007 at 10:58 am
Of course, sticking to your specific argument about RCTV, if participation in coup-attempts should bar one from public life, doesn’t that mean that Chavez should never been allowed to run for President?
After all, his entre into public life was leading a failed coup attempt in 1992…
May 28th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
Lol, very unfair question. But to scratch at the surface:
Not only was the setting for the 1992 coup radically different but also I didn’t say that RCTV should be banned forever - just that it deserves what has happened to it now.
Anyhow, Chavez took the democratic path afterwards. If RCTV were to try and avoid plotting the violent overthrow of democratic government in the future I see little reason why it shouldn’t get its license back. Maybe in a couple of years it might submit an application for a new license…
Also there was the fact that RCTV was totally unrepentant while Chavez seems to have been at least a little bit sorry (I know one can be very cynical about that).
Then there’s the general issue as to whether a legal person should be afforded the same rights as a real person.
May 28th, 2007 at 9:33 pm
Of course, part of the problem is that RCTV isn’t a person.
Still, I think we are going to have to agree to disagree, as I am likely unmovable on the notion that this move was authoritarian and anti-democratic.
We can check back in a few years as to the nature of the regime, however I would stridently argue, as one who studies these things, that Chavez has taken an authoritarian path that he is likely to continue to tread.
And I acknowledge that his initial ascent to power was democratic and the some of his subsequent actions can be said to fit that basic criteria as well, although his manipulation of the rules of the game calls into question precise categorization in a blog comment.
June 2nd, 2007 at 11:21 am
[...] WaPo has a piece on the political fallout from the move by Hugo Chávez to take broadcast rights away from RCTV: Protests in Venezuela Reinvigorate Opposition. The piece notes a number of groups and governments which have protested the move: Spain’s Socialist government, in a joint declaration with the United States, called Friday for Chávez to renew RCTV’s license. The European Parliament voiced concern, and Brazil’s Senate passed a resolution calling on Chávez to reconsider, drawing a sharp rebuke from the Venezuelan leader. [...]
June 2nd, 2007 at 10:20 pm
[...] WaPo has a piece on the political fallout from the move by Hugo Chávez to take broadcast rights away from RCTV: Protests in Venezuela Reinvigorate Opposition. The piece notes a number of groups and governments which have protested the move: Spain’s Socialist government, in a joint declaration with the United States, called Friday for Chávez to renew RCTV’s license. The European Parliament voiced concern, and Brazil’s Senate passed a resolution calling on Chávez to reconsider, drawing a sharp rebuke from the Venezuelan leader. [...]