In Russia, Putin's Parties (aka United Russia, Liberal Democrats, and A Just Russia) "sweep" to a huge victory in parliamentary elections, garnering 64.1%, 8.2%, and 7.8% respectively. The only other party to clear the 7% hurdle (recently raised from 5%) required for representation in parliament was the Communists, with 11.6%.
Especially noteworthy was the turnout percentage in war-torn Chechnya: 99.2%. And over 99% of those voters apparently voted for United Russia. This is terrible news for Ramzan "I've already killed them" Kadyrov, the murderer-in-chief of Chechnya -- falling well short of the 100% support he had previously promised for Putin. Interesting though, how killing and torturing a people makes them vote for you. Bush for Iraqi Prime Minister, anyone?
The Western media was filled with words like "fraud", "fraudulent", and "frauderrific". (Editor's note: Frauderrific is not a real word. Our corporate sponsors have been pushing the 25-to-35 age group, and according to our latest focus-groupings, they really likes words that end in "errific". Apologies to those not in the correct age group.) But what's more concerning than the accusations of fraud was the lack of Russian response. Here was the most vigorous defense from a Kremlin spokesperson:
"What we faced here was a free and democratic election campaign, and the fact that we now, according to preliminary results, are expecting a three- or four-party parliament shows that this was really a race. The unique characteristic of that race was the leadership of one party, the front-runner, United Russia."
But Putin said nothing of the sort. He spoke of domestic stability and a moral mandate. After the elections, a group of protesters was arrested in Saint Petersburg holding 'funeral services for democracy'. I imagine they were referring to democracy specifically in Russia -- and it is most certainly dead. Is there still hope in the rest of the world?
..............................................................
Something democracy-ish seems to still to be kicking around in Venezuela. President Hugo "Why Don't You Shut Up!" Chavez barely lost his bid (51 to 49%) to a pass a referendum that would have ended presidential term limits, extended social security benefits, consolidated monetary powers, shortened the working week, changed administrative boundaries, allowed media censorship in times of crisis, and lowered the voting age to 16. This rejection seemed to surprise many in the Western press, who apparently believed that Chavez had complete control of the country.
Yes, he has exercised dictatorial rule over much of Venezuela's political and media spheres. He is unabashed in his desire for the creation of a socialist state with himself as El Jefe. But this referendum must be considered proof that his hand only extends so far. The opposition is obviously well-organized and well-funded. Chavez's popularity rests, ironically, with his populism.
Interesting to note that despite how close the vote was, Chavez has not called for a recount. One imagines that would be well in his power. The reason for this is probably two-fold: one, he has reliable information from within the vote-counters that the count is reliable and not apt to change on recount; and two, he has legitimate fears that a call for a recount will bring about large street demonstrations by the opposition.
There has been speculation that he will seek the same changes by decree of the National Assembly, a legal sidestep of the constitutional process. He certainly retains enough power to do so.
.......................................................
What do these two counties share? (besides a few major arms deals, a hatred of the USA, and the letter "u") Hint: It begins deep in the earth and ends in "oleum". No, not linoleum.
Venezuela and Russia are the two countries who have arguably benefited most from the oil boom of the recent years. Putin and Chavez have been able to consolidate power and build popularity based largely on the largess of their oil profits.
The political left often says that our addiction to oil supports terrorism. They refer, of course, to the madrassas and charity-funnels funded by rich Saudis who get a large percentage of their profits from selling oil to the West. It is more than likely that at least some of Bin Laden's funding for 9/11 came from Saudi oil profits. But more of this money actually has gone straight back to the US in the form of construction, infrastructure, and defense contracts. The real beneficiaries of Western oil over-consumption are the petrogarchs. Russia, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela -- just to name some of the bigger fish (sorry Sweden, but Norway doesn't count...yes, I remember Quisling...no, my mind is made up).
Basically our obsession with petroleum products (that means you too, petroleum jelly) supports the decline of democracy. Stop by any university library and look for books on rentier states -- that is, if you're one of those "intellectual-types" (Read: communist). And next time you drive by a gas station and see me filling up the Erratum Terrium corporate Hummer with $4/gallon gas, make sure to slow down and ask me why I hate freedom.
.....................................................................
Editor's note #2: The New York Times has spies in the Erratum Terrium corporate offices! I began this post yesterday, and low and behold I stumble across this "editorial" on their website today. The ErrTerr Board of Directors/Secret Cabal has hereby decided to blacklist the NYT...never again will they be linked to from this website! Take that, Bill "No Original Ideas" Keller!
.......................................................................
Editor's note #3: The words "petrogarch" and "petrogarchy" are sole property of Erratum Terrium. Please, no unauthorized use. I said please. We can't afford lawyers.
