10/17/2014

WHAT DEMOCRACY REALLY MEANS IN

U.S. AND NEW YORK TIMES JARGON:
LATIN AMERICA EDITION
BY GLENN GREENWALD @ggreenwald
One of the most accidentally revealing media accounts highlighting the real meaning of
democracy in U.S. discourse is a still-remarkable 2002 New York Times Editorial on the U.S.-
backed military coup in Venezuela, which temporarily removed that countrys democratically
elected (and very popular) president, Hugo Chvez. Rather than describe that coup as what
it was by denition - a direct attack on democracy by a foreign power and domestic military which
disliked the popularly elected president the Times, in the most Orwellian fashion
imaginable, literally celebrated the coup as a victory for democracy:
With yesterdays resignation of President Hugo Chvez, Venezuelan democracy is no longer
threatened by a would-be dictator. Mr. Chvez, a ruinous demagogue, stepped down after
the military intervened and handed power to a respected business leader, Pedro Carmona.
Dean Mouhtaropoulos
Thankfully, said the NYT, democracy in Venezuela was no longer in danger . . . because the
democratically-elected leader was forcibly removed by the military and replaced by an unelected,
pro-U.S. business leader. The Champions of Democracy at the NYT then demanded a
ruler more to their liking: Venezuela urgently needs a leader with a strong democratic mandate
to clean up the mess, encourage entrepreneurial freedom and slim down and professionalize the
bureaucracy.
More amazingly still, the Times editors told their readers that Chvezs removal was a purely
Venezuelan affair, even though it was quickly and predictably revealed that neocon ofcials in
the Bush administration played a central role. Eleven years later, upon Chvezs death, the Times
editors admitted that the Bush administration badly damaged Washingtons reputation
throughout Latin America when it unwisely blessed a failed 2002 military coup attempt against
Mr. Chvez [the paper forgot to mention that it, too, blessed (and misled its readers about)
that coup]. The editors then also acknowledged the rather signicant facts
that Chvezs redistributionist policies brought better living conditions to millions of poor
Venezuelans and there is no denying his popularity among Venezuelas impoverished
majority.
If you think The New York Times editorial page has learned any lessons from that debacle, youd
be mistaken. Today they published an editorial expressing grave concern about the state of
democracy in Latin America generally and Bolivia specically. The proximate cause of this
concern? The overwhelming election victory of Bolivian President Evo Morales (pictured above),
who, as The Guardian put it, is widely popular at home for a pragmatic economic stewardship
that spread Bolivias natural gas and mineral wealth among the masses.
The Times editors nonetheless see Morales election to a third term not as a vindication of
democracy but as a threat to it, linking his election victory to the way in which the strength of
democratic values in the region has been undermined in past years by coups and electoral
irregularities. Even as they admit that it is easy to see why many Bolivians would want to see
Mr. Morales, the countrys rst president with indigenous roots, remain at the helm because
during his tenure, the economy of the country, one of the least developed in the
hemisphere, grew at a healthy rate, the level of inequality shrank and the number of people living
in poverty dropped signicantly - they nonetheless chide Bolivias neighbors for endorsing his
ongoing rule: it is troubling that the stronger democracies in Latin America seem happy to
condone it.
The Editors depict their concern as grounded in the lengthy tenure of Morales as well as the
democratically elected leaders of Ecuador and Venezuela: perhaps the most disquieting trend is
that protgs of Mr. Chvez seem inclined to emulate his reluctance to cede power. But the real
reason the NYT so vehemently dislikes these elected leaders and ironically views them as
threats to democracy becomes crystal clear toward the end of the editorial (emphasis added):
This regional dynamic has been dismal for Washingtons inuence in the region. In
Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador, the new generation of caudillos [sic] have staked out anti-
American policies and limited the scope of engagement on development, military
cooperation and drug enforcement efforts. This has damaged the prospects for trade and
security cooperation.
You cant get much more blatant than that. The democratically elected leaders of these sovereign
countries fail to submit to U.S. dictates, impede American imperialism, and subvert U.S.
industrys neoliberal designs on the regions resources. Therefore, despite how popular they are
with their own citizens and how much theyve improved the lives of millions of their nations
long-oppressed and impoverished minorities, they are depicted as grave threats to democracy.
It is, of course, true that democratically elected leaders are capable of authoritarian measures. It
is, for instance, democratically elected U.S. leaders who imprison people without charges for
years, build secret domestic spying systems, and even assert the power to assassinate their own
citizens without due process. Elections are no guarantee against tyranny. There are legitimate
criticisms to be made of each of these leaders with regard to domestic measures and civic
freedoms, as there is for virtually every government on the planet.
But the very idea that the U.S. government and its media allies are motivated by those aws is
nothing short of laughable. Many of the U.S. governments closest allies are the worlds worst
regimes, beginning with the uniquely oppressive Saudi kingdom (which just yesterday sentenced
a popular Shiite dissident to death) and the brutal military coup regime in Egypt, which, as my
colleague Murtaza Hussain reports today, gets more popular in Washington as it becomes even
more oppressive. And, of course, the U.S. supports Israel in every way imaginable even as its
Secretary of State expressly recognizes the apartheid nature of its policy path.
Just as the NYT did with the Venezuelan coup regime of 2002, the U.S. government hails the
Egyptian coup regime as saviors of democracy. Thats because democracy in U.S. discourse
means: serving U.S. interests and obeying U.S. dictates, regardless how how the leaders gain
and maintain power. Conversely, tyranny means opposing the U.S. agenda and refusing U.S.
commands, no matter how fair and free the elections are that empower the government. The
most tyrannical regimes are celebrated as long as they remain subservient, while the most
popular and democratic governments are condemned as despots to the extent that they exercise
independence.
To see how true that is, just imagine the orgies of denunciation that would rain down if a U.S.
adversary (say, Iran, or Venezuela) rather than a key U.S. ally like Saudi Arabia had just sentenced
a popular dissident to death. Instead, the NYT just weeks ago uncritically quotes an Emirates
ambassador lauding Saudi Arabia as one of the regions moderate allies because of its service to
the U.S. bombing campaign in Syria. Meanwhile, the very popular, democratically elected leader
of Bolivia is a grave menace to democratic values because hes dismal for Washingtons
inuence in the region.