Senator suggests Brazilian Congress to veto Venezuela's entry into Mercosur

Politics
Brazilian Senator Tasso Jereissati, a businessman, member of the Brazilian Social Democratic Party and rapporteur of a group of the Brazilian Congress which is discussing the accession of Venezuela to the Common Market of the South (Mercosur), will ask the Chamber of Deputies to veto Venezuela's entry into the bloc due to the "authoritarian character" of Hugo Chávez's government, official sources reported.

"Despite claims that rulers are temporary while States remain essential players, Venezuela has been enduring a process of dismantling of democratic freedoms, aimed at perpetuating President Chávez in power," Jereissati told Agencia Senado, as reported by Efe.

Jereissati is a member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the Chamber of Deputies, and will submit his report on Thursday, when the group will decide whether it votes or postpones the vote until the next session.

http://english.eluniversal.com/2009/09/30/en_pol_esp_senator-suggests-bra_30A2816771.shtml

members. UNASUR--formalized last summer--is the South American "common market." All South American countries are members of it, including Venezuela.

2) Brazil's president, Lula da Silva, has said, of Chavez: "They can invent all kinds of things to criticize Chavez, but not on democracy!" Only corpo/fascist fuckwads think (or spout) this garbage that the Chavez government "is dismantling ... democratic freedoms, aimed at perpetuating President Chávez in power." Nothing could be further from the truth.

---Chavez enjoys consistent, nearly 60% approval ratings in Venezuela, and has been elected by big majorities of the voters in free, fair and transparent elections (--free, fair and transparent on the facts of the election system, and by avowal of every international election monitoring group).

---In 2007, the voters voted down a National Assembly proposal for 69 amendments to the Constitution, which included equal rights for women and gays (in Catholic Venezuela, which has a particularly rightwing upper clergy) and lifting the term on the president (as well as many economic measures). These 69 amendments lost by a hair (1%). In 2008, when the term limit issue was put to the voters on its own merits (no other issue), the voters overwhelmingly approved lifting the term limit on the president and also on governors (many of whom are rightwing).

---Our own Founders opposed term limits as undemocratic and didn't include them in the US Constitution for that reason. (The People should be able to elect whomever they wish.) Thus, Franklin Delano Roosevelt ran for and won FOUR terms in office and died in his fourth term (he was "president for life"). Then, in the mid-1950s, the Pukes on Congress rammed through the 22nd Amendment, limiting the president to two terms, so that no "New Deal" could ever happen here again, and to begin to undo the "New Deal" that we had (which they have nearly accomplished). Term limits favor the entrenched interests of the rich, by preventing any political figure from having sufficient time, or acquiring sufficient power, to challenge those entrenched interests on behalf of the People.

---Media: Venezuela continues to "enjoy" the worst foaming-at-the-mouth rightwing media monopolies of any nation including our own. The Chavez government denied a license renewal to use the public airwaves to only ONE TV station--RCTV--which had actively participated in the violent military coup of 2002, an attempt to overthrow the elected government, in which the coupsters kidnapped the president (Chavez) and suspended the Constitution, the National Assembly, the courts and all civil rights. The RIGHTWING are the people who violate Constitutions, "suspend" civil rights and respond to free speech with guns and death squads. Don't be fooled by this bullshit. The TV/radio airwaves belong to the PUBLIC, and it is the right and duty of any good government to regulate them in the public interest--to demand fair political coverage, and public service, for the PRIVILEGE ("license") to use the PUBLIC airwaves, and to bust media monopolies--as well as to deny a license or a license renewal to a corporate media monopoly that commits crimes including treason on the PUBLIC airwaves. Venezuela TV/radio is still 80-90% corpo/fascist (with print about 50/50). The Chavez government has improved this a bit by creation of Telesur--a regional public interest news channel, which was the only channel providing real news from Honduras, when the Honduran Junta shut down the media.

In summary, the people of Venezuela have never, in their entire history, had more protection of their civil rights, or more say in their government, than they do now, with the Chavez government. The lying, rightwing bullshitters who say otherwise do not intend civil or any other kind of rights for anyone but themselves, their rich cronies and the global corporate predators who support them.

I hope President da Silva wins this battle in the Brazilian Congress. Da Silva wants to "raise all boats" in South America, and works amicably with President Chavez to that end. The rightwingers in Brazil's Congress, among other things, want Brazil to be the big honcho in South America, and consider Venezuela, and also social justice, to be their "enemy." That is why they are pursuing this punitive exclusion of Venezuela from Mercosur. They have no power to exclude Venezuela from UNASUR, a much larger institution for economic/political integration. It is a petty, and deceptive and hypocritical, position--much like the positions of our own corpo/fascist politicians.

1) Indeed

2) Not only corpo-fascists think there's a problem with democratic freedom in Venezuela, what you say is far from the truth. There's a huge amount of progressives/leftists who have the same concerns. The whole socialist party is now in the opposition. I know at least a dozen people who were fired from their job in the administration because they signed against the president and the government decided to publish their names in the internet. We shouldn't disqualify criticism to Chavez by reflex, thinking it automatically comes from the right-wing. Venezuela is a complex country and the situation is far from being so 'black and white'. When Chavez declares 'I will stay in power until 2021' and then '2031', I have some reasonable doubts. It's not because corpo-fascists are against him that we should support him. Criticism is always valid.. and very important.

3) He is legitimate, indeed, and there's no justification for any kind of coup.

4) How do you explain that the results were never officialized after the declarations of the CNE (national electoral council)? We still don't have official results after almost 2 years!
Catholic Venezuela is known for having an anticlerical history since the end of the federal war (1860's), it has the weakest clergy of Latin America.
Very few governors are from the opposition in Venezuela (6/23) and 2 out of those 6 are 'right-wing'. I insist on the fact that the opposition is not righ-wing... stereotype there.

5) I'm not against re-election if the voters say so.

6) Do you listen or watch venezuelan medias in 2009? Which are the 80% channels from the opposition? Could you name them because, being in Venezuela, I really don't see what you're talking about. The only clear hardcore opposition channel is Globovision, which is really bad but only available in the capital. There are 10 nationwide free-air broadcasting channels in Venezuela. 6 are state-owned and 100% pure chavistas (non chavista politicians are not even allowed speaking), 1 is 100% sport, 1 is neutral, 1 is opposition and 1 is hardcore opposition (not even nationwide, only 25% of the population can see it (free air + cable)).
Actually, there are few countries where the state is in charge of so many channels. We should also consider the cadenas (172 hours of speaking in cadena (all free air TV stations) only in 2008)
By the way, why hasn't Chavez accepted one single debate with any politician, socialist or demo-cristian, since 1998?
Maybe things are not as beautiful as we could expect.

You seem to think that anyone 'saying otherwise' is a 'lying, rightwing bullshitter'... which is the official leitmotiv of my government with the people that disagree, left or right. For me, that only demonstrates they're not real progressives.

When Chavez declares 'I will stay in power until 2021' and then '2031', I have some reasonable doubts. It's not because corpo-fascists are against him that we should support him. Criticism is always valid.. and very important.

Can you provide the exact quote? I would think that, if he said this this way ("I will stay in power until..."), our corpo-fascist press would be all over it. So I want to know exactly what he said. (i.e., "I am willing to remain president as long as the voters want me, even to 2021 or 2031"?).

How do you explain that the results were never officialized after the declarations of the CNE (national electoral council)? We still don't have official results after almost 2 years!

The results of what? Which election? And you tell me--if you're in Venezuela--why whatever results you are talking about have not been "officialized." What are you implying? It is simply incontestable that Chavez is hugely popular in Venezuela. Every reputable poll over many years and his increasing margins of the vote in elections establish that beyond doubt. Are you disputing that the Chavez government enjoys consistent approval ratings in the 55% to 60% range? If so, please cite your references. And I don't want to hear what some random person--your doctor, your garage mechanic--said. That's usually how these kinds of comments go. And I don't want to hear about Mark Penn's polls.

The Venezuelan election system is transparent on its face--and I've looked into it in detail, and know a thing or two about election systems. It has furthermore been certified by the Carter Center, the OAS, the EU and other election monitoring groups. And these groups don't just drop in on election day. They work with all parties in a country months and sometimes years in advance, so that the election system is consistently transparent, honest and aboveboard, and so that they know what they are monitoring. Further, opinion polls are consistent with the election outcomes. What are you saying? That, because there was some glitch in one election report, among numerous elections, and among numerous aspects of elections, something is WRONG in Venezuela. Please be specific.

Catholic Venezuela is known for having an anticlerical history since the end of the federal war (1860's), it has the weakest clergy of Latin America.

A Catholic cardinal signed the "Carmona Decree" (suspending the Constitution, the National Assembly, the courts and all civil rights). This was the "Decree" of the fascist coup government that kidnapped Chavez. He also accompanied the coupsters in Miraflores Palace and on TV, lending the religious authority of the Church to the coup. Cardinals are the highest officials of the Catholic Church, aside from the Pope. I think there were only 2 in Venezuela at the time. The other was even worse (he has since died). So the top officialdom of the Church was so rightwing and so fascist and lawless that it approved of, and participated in, the coup d'etat. The top Church clergy also were seriously meddling in politics during the 60-amendment vote, in opposition to equal rights for women and gays. They told people that the Chavistas would take children from their mothers! They are very likely responsible for that 10% who didn't vote, or who voted against the 69 amendments, to make it an almost 50/50 vote (in which the amendments were defeated). (Chavez himself has won all of his elections with increasing margins of the vote--in the 55% to 60% range.) The upper clergy hate Chavez for a number of reasons--he promotes secular education; he's providing secular and free college educations (challenging the Catholic Church's dominance in that sphere); he cut off (but later merely reduced) taxpayer subsidies to the Church; he advocates equal rights; and he does not toady to the rich elite that the upper clergy of the Catholic Church prefers to socialize with (and get donations from). This is not to say that all bishops and priests in Venezuela are anti-Chavez. I know that they are not--and it's quite possible that the majority of clergy (especially at the lower levels) are pro-Chavez. But it simply doesn't matter if Venezuela is generally "anti-clerical" or has a "weak clergy" (whatever that means--I'd say getting government subsidies is not a sign of "weakness"), if top cardinals and bishops can pontificate on some issues and control 10% of the vote. That was my point--that the 69 amendments lost because of the women/gay rights issue, and it was likely because of the upper clergy's fascism.

When the issue of lifting term limits was voted on by Venezuelans as a stand-alone issue, it won, and won big. Chavez risked all 69 amendments--including lifting the term limit--for equal rights for women and gays! Doesn't he get any credit for that? Jeez.

Very few governors are from the opposition in Venezuela (6/23) and 2 out of those 6 are 'right-wing'. I insist on the fact that the opposition is not righ-wing... stereotype there.

Huh? The opposition is not right-wing? What universe are you living in? Then how come the corpo/fascist press said the Chavistas lost ground in the last by-elections? Surely they know how to count rightwing heads! I wonder what your political spectrum looks like. Who are you counting as not rightwing?

Do you listen or watch venezuelan medias in 2009? Which are the 80% channels from the opposition? Which are the 80% channels from the opposition? Could you name them...

No, I can't name them all, because I'm not in Venezuela. But people who are in Venezuela have told me that that is the percentage. I guess this is a "political spectrum" thing again. Real progressives know how to analyze what they see/hear/read in the corpo/fascist press, and understand how much corpo/fascist brainwashing is going on.

When you say that 6 of 10 nationwide free-air broadcasting channels are state-owned and "100% pure chavistas," what are you defining as "100% pure chavistas"? That sounds like a prejudicial phrase that could be snagging in a wide spectrum of opinion and cultural expression, some of which--or much of which--has nothing to do with the Chavez government or politics, but is broadcast because the Chavez government has increased public participation. It would be like rightwingers here describing, say, a science show about evolution on NPR, as "liberal," or broadcast of a "Sweet Honey in the Rock" concert as "leftwing cultural nazism"--that is, politicizing essentially neutral content that gets broadcast because "liberals" like education and diversity. A phrase like "100% pure chavistas" points in this direction, to my mind. So I would like you to explain it.

You seem to think that anyone 'saying otherwise' is a 'lying, rightwing bullshitter'... which is the official leitmotiv of my government with the people that disagree, left or right. For me, that only demonstrates they're not real progressives.

People "saying otherwise" being "lying, rightwing bullshitters" has been my experience. Those who claim that Chavez is restricting civil rights are LYING. Nothing they have said has held up--and I have researched every one of their goddamn rightwing "think tank" "talking points.". And they always turn out to have rightwing views on virtually everything else. I am not against criticizing any leader, and I agree that all political leaders must be watched carefully. But I have seen such utter bullshit on Chavez in our corpo/fascist press, and here at DU, that I feel obligated, as a human being with responsibilities to the truth, and as a US citizen, with responsibilities for our bad, bad, BAD government/corporate/war profiteer policy in Latin America, to counter these lies with the facts.

That is something else rightwingers do--they twist what someone says into an exaggerated position--and then heap ridicule on the exaggerated position. Rightwingers at DU call me and others "Chavez worshippers" whenever we correct utterly stupid, unfactual rightwing "talking points" that get repeated all too frequently at DU. Chavez is a dictator. Chavez is a scumbag. Chavez is repressing free speech. Chavez is starting an arms race. Chavez is terrorist. To counter this disinformation campaign with facts makes me a "Chavez worshipper." To state Chavez's approval ratings. To detail Venezuela's election system, and his many victories in a transparent system. To cite vast improvements in civil rights, poverty levels, education levels, private sector economic growth, the deals Venezuela gets in the oil contracts with multinationals, and other positive statistics and indicators under the Chavez government makes me a "Chavez worshipper." I am NOT a "Chavez worshipper." I am just goddamned sick of the lies that our Corporate Rulers tell!

I said that anyone is a "lying, rightwing bullshitter" who says that Chavez is repressing civil rights in Venezuela. I did NOT characterize ALL criticism of Chavez as "rightwing bullshit." I was talking about a specific issue on which the truth is provably, demonstrably the opposite of repression. Chavez championed equal rights for women and gays, for godssakes! He is anything but repressive! And I don't consider busting a few corpo/fascist 'news' monopolies as repression. In truth, there could be no better promotion of free speech than to ban corporate 'news' monopolies altogether.

1) You know, the 2021 thing has become a joke here in Venezuela. It's been constantly repeated as a slogan for the last 5 years. The joke is that no one understands why 2021, since it doesn't correspond with any electoral term. 2012-2018-2024 are the 3 next elections. So it's not like one quote of one meeting but a leitmotiv that we've heard many times. I just found a video in youtube but it's in spanish:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irY09Vp2K4E
You'll not only find neutral raw footages but videos made by his supporters that repeat that date. I still don't understand why 2021.
Do you need me to translate it?

"some figures from the opposition keep saying that I'm trying to smuggle the constitutional reform that wasn't approved, that I shouldn't speak about socialism since the reform wasn't approved... trying to manipulate. According to them I should renounce and the government should be frozen (*?). So that's want they would like isn't it? Well we're going toward 2021, 'compadre'. Write it down. We're going there. And even further." (*maybe EFerrari could help since I think I read she translates english/spanish)

He said this after the defeat in the 2007 referendum. It's not incredibly bad, it's just a bit worrying as I said.


2) I'm talking about the results of that 2007 referendum. The one with the 69 amendments. I'm not implying anything since I have repeated many times that presidential elections were fair as the last referendum was... even if there's a lot of double inscriptions and visible intimidation in some areas of the country but, all in all, it happens in almost every 'democracy' so, at the opposite of the radical opposition, I wouldn't qualify them as unfair. That being said, I will never forgive this government nor give 100% trust to the CNE (National Electoral Council) again, after the Lista Tascon affair. That was a point of break for me.

Remember you're not talking to a radical anti-chavista venezuelan. I'm just a person who believed in Chavez, who still believes in the Revolution but disagrees about the way it's being conduced. I would have one strong critic with the machine voting though, independently of Chavez. I don't like this smartmatics stuff and I would prefer to see paper votes being counted physically.

The point is that the CNE just gave the results of the 90% (?) of the electoral registers that 'made the result ireversible'... not the final result. Chavez recognized his defeat but we still don't have a confirmation of the %. WHY? Would it be possible that it wasn't 51/49 as many say? I don't know. Are they hiding something? I just think they should officialize the results with 100% of the registers in order to dissipate the rumors. It's been 2 years!


4) Chavistas are not the only left-wing in Venezuela. In fact, what you call right-wing was never popular in the country. The moderate left ran the country for 30/40 years from 1958 to 1998. Before the 80's crisis and the IMF reforms imposed by Fn Pérez in 1989, Venezuela was a semi-public sector, import substituting economy with very low poverty and inequality rates FOR THE REGION (highest in the world). In the mid 70's we had an income/hab that was almost equivalent to a country like Italy and, it may surprise you after all the rejection about the past propaganda, we were already a model for the leftists.

From 58 to 78, it's amazing to see child mortality, life expectancy, infectious diseases' morbidity figures go rapidly down, while alphabetization, mass education and health care sky rocketed. The oil sector was a lot less dependent on foreign investment than it is now (from 76 to 89), even if it was a bit corrected by this government. At this level, I think, after 11 years, that Chavez has been really shy in reversing the IMF reforms (protecting our market and diversifying our production). You need to see Venezuela as a country in crisis for the last 3 decades. Even if the oil shock and the growth were huge from 2004 to last year, the structural problems persist. The wrong idea would be to consider the 9 years of straight neoliberalism before Chavez (1989-1998) as representative of our past.

About the regional elections and the 6 states lost by Chavez. First of all, remember that the traditional Socialist Party (not talking about the socio-dems) were already against the government after supporting it for the first 6-7 years. Even the radical factions entered the opposition together with the maoists. It should be significative unless you consider the former guerrilleros as traitors infiltrated by the CIA.. be reassured, they hate CIA and the Empire a lot more than they hate Chavez and long before he became a leftist. The final results showed that Nva Esparta, Zulia, Caracas were won by socio-dems, Tachira was won by socio-cristians while Carabobo and Miranda were taken by demo-cristians.

Now, the biggest part of what you call right-wing in Venezuela is like your Democratic party, excepted for demo-cristians. Even them are still a lot less right-wing than your Republican party. There's never really been space in our country's political spectrum for conservative right-wing. We are the only latin american country where liberals (Zamora, Guzman) utterly destroyed conservative parties in the 2nd part of the 19th century. At the opposite of Colombia, our 'oligarchy' is fluctuating, depending on who is in power and in contact with the oil revenues. None of our presidents were from the high class and almost all of them were, at one point, political prisoners from the 'oligarchy' in place, before they became 'oligarchs'. Dumb radical people from Miami (you probably get to hear them a lot since you are in the US) don't represent anything in my country except for 5% of the 'anachronical' people. The history of Venezuela could be seen as a log succession of Revolutions since the independency, and those revolutionaries becoming nomenclaturas when reaching power.


3) Chavez does get credit for gay and women rights! And many other stuff too. From me and many other people. Socio-dems (majority of the opposition) doesn't criticize him on that issues. I don't care what the dumb Vatican says.. fire fi dem and the Lupus dei! Don't think the clergy has a big influence just because it's a catholic country. Our catholicism is particular to say the least and the theology of liberation is well spread.


5) About the medias. I quote you : "And I don't want to hear what some random person--your doctor, your garage mechanic--said"
" (repeating my question) Do you listen or watch venezuelan medias in 2009? Which are the 80% channels from the opposition? Could you name them...
No, I can't name them all, because I'm not in Venezuela. But people who are in Venezuela have told me that that is the percentage"
Double standard?

Well, I'm from Venezuela and just showed you that it was impossible to have 80% of the nationwide broadcasting TVs in the opposition when 60% of them are owned by the state. And for watching state TV everyday, I can tell you it's not "state" TV but "party" TV MOST OF THE TIME. I have nothing against increasing public participation, I just expect the public TV to represent all tendencies of my society and give the word to everyone. For example, I don't think it's fair to prevent opposition leaders (from maoists to demo-cristians) to speak in public TV.


6) Can you see I don't have "right-wing views"? The problem, I think, it's that you only get to read blogs in english. And like you I've noticed that most venezuelans writing in the US were right-wing or applauding rooms for Chavez that didn't have one single critical position about his government. May I repeat, the first ones don't represent anything significative in my country. Don't think newspapers like El Nacional are right-wing. Actually, most of the people I know from there are rather left-wing.. maybe not as much as I would like but still I wouldn't call them right-wing. The context in Venezuela has lead to conflict from both sides and radicalization of the words. Remember the fight is always harsh inside a political dismantled 'family'. The best example of what I say is the permanent support they show for people like Lula and Bachelet. Their fight is to have a left such as it exists in Brazil. And even if I'm further from the center than them, I don't consider them as my enemies.


7) The fight against Imperialism is one thing and the actual management of the Chavez government another one. We'd probably agree on 99% of the subjects. And I'd probably still like Chavez if I wasn't venezuelan. When I said 'Chavez worshiper', it was never addressed to you, but to our dear EFerrari who called me a fascist and advised me to go and write in a republican reactionary forum because I dared saying I opposed Chavez. Maybe my first messages were harsh, I admit, but living in such a harsh situation brings anger and I wanted at least american progressives to hear what I had to say. This automatic refusal of criticism in our side is what makes the 'corpo-fascism' so strong in the world.

Chavez, my friend, I'm more sorry than anyone here when I say he's become repressive with many people in the country. Again, I'll never understand why his government published the Lista Tascon. I'll never understand why whenever a member of his party criticizes some measure, he's accused of being a traitor and excluded in many cases. Why yesterday's revolutionary camarada becomes a CIA agent when he stops supporting him. A long-term Revolution cannot last when it's based on one man alone. Letting internal revolutionary critical positions express is like oxygen. In Venezuela, people love Chavez but they don't like the people from his government. It's becoming an upside-down pyramid.

And last of all, I hate when he praises Ahmadinejad, Lukashenko, Mugabe or Gaddafi, saying they're 'real revolutionaries and freedom fighters' and giving decorations to them. I feel that he's spitting in the faces of Belorussian, Iranian, Zimbabwean and Libyan progressives and betraying everything he pretends to stand for. I believe progressive ideas must be coherent internationally and not conditioned by ephemerous (sorry for the word:)) skirmishes against the Empire who lead to nothing but anti natural alliances.

Just a small observation.....championing equal rights for women and gays isn't incompatible with repression of civil rights in general. For example, gays and women, and heterosexual males could have their rights repressed to the same degree.

I understand Human Rights Watch has been critical of the Venezuelan government. I tend to believe them. The repression involves abuses which in a nation such as Cuba or Syria would be considered quality care, but it does seem to be taking place.

My analysis shows

UNASUR isn't a common market at all. As a matter of fact, it's more of a talking forum at this point. Mercosur is a common market, but it doesn't work as it should because Argentina has a tendency to go protectionist when the economy heads South. Chavez created something called ALBA, but that's a small group made up of Venezuela and client states which feed off its oil income.

If Venezuela does join Mercosur, then Chavez will have the ability to interfere in the economic relations between Argentina, Brazil, and other members. But Chavez is too inmature to give him that stroke, so I suspect if not Brazil, some other member will veto Venezuelan membership.

Venezuela exports nothing Brazil needs, but Brazil does have the ability to export to Venezuela. Brazilian exports to Venezuela may increase anyway, if Venezuela decides to cut off Colombian imports. Colombia, of course, is Venezuela's logical supply source, they even export natural gas and electricity to Venezuela - but Chavez has been choking off Colombian imports.

I suspect that, in the medium term, Venezuela's government will grow increasingly authoritarian, copying the Cuban model. Brazil is clearly led by people with common sense, and Argentina seems about to make a turn to the center, as the Kirchner-Fernandez era draws to an end. Thus, it makes no sense for them to allow Venezuela to join Mercosur.

but important unprecedented decisions are starting to be taken. The problem with Sta Cruz secessionists in Bolivia just showed the influence it could have. I hope it's just a beginning though I fear the typical latin american disunity spirit will be a complex obstacle for less clear issues. Let's see.

I would say Venezuela's a great market for everyone in the region. Our currency is structurally overvalued so there's stimulus for artificially cheap imports and the price-competitivity of domestic producers is low. We're far from being a threat for any regional market except for oil-network related industries. One evolution I like is to see how we have diversified our suppliers. Colombia and Brazil have become important, replacing american imports. All in all, neither Venezuela cares too much about MERCOSUR, nor MERCOSUR countries need the union to sell us products.

Our boarders are still wide open (!) since the 89 reform and the process of dis-industrialization it provoked has destroyed the most of the manufacturing sector. No counter-trade reform in 11 years of Chavez besides some recent peanuts for car assembling and other insignificant stuff. Half of the people are still employed informally. This hasn't really changed since the 'liberalization'.

The authoritarian derives seem risky for the government. People don't like them and they don't like the cuban model in Venezuela. I'm talking about popular classes. You can check many polls on that (not 'opposition'). They really don't like when the president says that it's "bad to be rich" (textually). Right now he's "poniendole el acelerador a la revolucion", so there's tension. The real problem is the lack of alternative. We see it now, he's slowly loosing ground but no other man is gaining any.