VHeadline commentarist Arthur Shaw writes: Counter-revolutionary Manuel Rosales, leader of the badly misnamed opposition party "A New Era" -- who ran against President Hugo Chavez in 2006, and is now Mayor of Maracaibo -- said the "Yes" victory on February 15 was un-deserved because it used government resources in its campaign.
We shall return to the question of what is deserved and 'un-deserved' later ... let's look first at the question of whether government resources produce victories and whether the absence of government resources causes defeats.
Let's say, for the sake of argument and not as a statement of fact, that government resources were used by revolutionaries in both the 2007 constitutional reform campaign, which lost, and also used in the 2009 constitutional amendment campaign, which won.
Right off, we see that government resources don't produce victories, for the DEFEAT of the 2007 constitutional reform shows two things: First, government resources are not sufficient to produce "Yes" victories. Second (in theory), government resources are not necessary for "No" victories. What's more, government resources don't account for the VICTORY of the amendment in 2009 because the failed 2007 reform already demonstrated that government resources are insufficient to produce such victories.
Thus, electoral experience in 2007 and 2009 shows that the presence or absence of government resources is incidental, or accidental, in a win or lost. If government resources are not the cause that produces a win or lost, then what is the cause of the outcomes in these electoral contests?
When you got it, you got it and when you don't, you don't; so, when you don't, you blame your defeats on government resources.
The revolution itself beat the bourgeois incumbent in 1998, did the revolution in 1998 have government resources?
Now, let's look at the question of what is deserved and "undeserved" which Manuel Rosales and other counter-revolutionaries pose. Their presupposition is that government resources produced "undeserved" victories.
Eva Golinger found that the imperialist US regime -- a very famous government which once had a lot of resources -- put US$4.7 million in the opposition campaign in the November 2008 regional elections. And, surveillance of the reactionary sit-down in Puerto Rico shows that the imperialist US regime put $3 million into a campaign against the 2009 amendment
"[CIA Case Officer Michael Middleton] Steere emphasizes the importance and success of the public relations and propaganda campaign that the CIA has been funding with more than $8 million during the past month - funds that the CIA confirms are transferred through the USAID contracted company, Development Alternatives, Inc., which set up operations in June 2002 to run the USAID Office for Transition Initiatives that funds and advises opposition NGOs and political parties in Venezuela."
So, the CIA alone spent $8 million on public relations and propaganda ... excluding its other operations ... during only one month -- the month of October 2007 to defeat the December 2007 constitutional reform. The internal CIA memorandum that disclosed this information was obtained by Venezuelan counter-intelligence from the US Embassy in Caracas. The publication of the contents of the CIA memo on the web site of the Centre for Research on Globalization ... and often elsewhere ... was under the byline of Eva Golinger.
We will not say that these government resources from Washington produced the defeat of the 2007 constitutional reform.
The question is: Since the opposition relied on US government resources to win its struggle against the 2007 constitutional reform, was the 2007 victory the opposition gained "underserved?"
Oh no, no, no! How can you ask such a thing?
When US imperialists inject money into the political processes of other countries, it is to promote democracy, not promote corruption. Please, wash your mouth out."