Do you believe it?

Maduro celebrates his election victory alongsie Maradona.

The country suffers hyperinflation a soaring homicide rate and a shrinking economy. Stores and pharmacies are bare of food, medicines and toilet paper. It's hemorraging people, who are fleeing this disaster area.

And yet the president, who is notoriously corrupt and lives high while his people suffer, got reelected by a landslide.

Does anybody at all believe that Sunday's presidential election results in Venezuela were fair and democratic?

Venezuelan president/dictator Nicolas Maduro and his crowd may have read the recent and interesting book 'How to Rig an Election,' by two British academics. The book observes that old fashioned ballot box stuffing is now passé. Instead, today's authoritarian leaders stack the deck in their own favor before a single vote gets cast, thru techniques such as registering more voters in regions where they are popular and setting up more voting stations in those same areas.

In Venezuela, the government started preparing for the election many months ago by imprisoning or banning from public office the opposition's strongest potential candidates. Maduro also linked the reception of food aid - vital in a starving nation - to allegiance to Maduro. Whether or not the government really knew which candidate voters supported didn't matter: It was the impression that counted.

That was also why the government set up red tents outside of voting stations - sometimes so close that they violated election rules - for government loyalists to check in after voting. The message was clear: 'We're rewarding you for voting for us.' Government offices also required public employees to attend pro-Maduro rallies.

These were all crude attempts to harness the still-great public resources of the nation with the world's largest oil reserves in favor of Maduro.

The government might not even have needed to manipulate the vote counts, but it probably did, anyway. After all, many election observers said that the electoral commission's reported 47% voter turnout seemed wildly exaggerated in light of the many near-vacant voting stations. After a previous election, the voting machine company, Smartmatic, charged that

Maduro has good reason to hold on to power. (His new term ends in 2025.) He and his buddies are living high while his people suffer. And, if he were to be overthrown, his enemies would surely try to prosecute Maduro for corruption and human rights violations, forcing him to take refuge with few remaining friends, in Cuba, Syria or Russia.

Instead, Venezuela will sink into even deeper misery. And hundreds of thousands or millions more Venezuelans will flood into neighboring nations. And Venezuela will lose a generation of its brightest, most motivated people.


By Mike Ceaser, of Bogotá Bike Tours

Can Venezuela Pull a Malaysia?

Najib Razak, ex-Malaysian
prime minister, who lost an
election this month.

A notoriously corrupt strongman appears to hold a lock on his country's leadership. In the run-up to elections, he uses oil income to saturate the country with his campaign ads, controls most of the media and uses gerrymandering and other tricks to ensure his reelection victory.

The nation I have in mind is Malaysia, the southeast Asian nation which held national elections ten days ago. But I might as easily be talking about Venezuela, which is to hold a vote tomorrow in which its authoritarian president Nicolas Maduro is expected to use a rigged system to get himself reelected, despite running his oil-rich nation into the ground. In both nations, the government used legal charges and technicalities to bar opposition candidates from even running in the election.

To everybody's amazement, Malaysia's opposition party won the election, and the Barisan Nasional coalition, which had ruled Malaysia since independence in 1957 lost power.

That might provide a glimmer of hope for the opposition in Venezuela in tomorrow's voting. There,

Venezuelan president/dictator Maduro.

Pres. Maduro has taken control of nearly all the media and government institutions and is allegedly using payments and intimidation to win tomorrow's election.

Colombian Pres. Santos reported this week that Colombia had seized a big shipment of food allegedly intended to be used by the Venezuelan government to pay for votes, altho much of the food was already rotten. Santos also charged that the Venezuelan government planned to give Colombians Venezuelan ID cars and have them vote for the government.

But Venezuela differs in important ways from Malaysia, where the opposition candidate who won the prime ministryship had already been prime minister, and so many people had a positive image of him. On the other hand, Malaysia's economy was fairly strong, whereas Venezuela's is in free fall, potentially motivating many people to vote against the government.

But, barring a miracle, Mauro will win reelection tomorrow and continue stiffening his dictatorial rule and worsening his nation's economic disaster. And hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans will continue pouring into Colombia.

And the Malaysian election likely has redoubled Maduro's determination to win at all costs tomorrow. After all, Malaysian's ex-leader may now be put on trial for his alleged monumental corruption.

By Mike Ceaser, of Bogotá Bike Tours

On Clinton vs. Trump, it's No Contest

Clinton for president of the U.S.

Tuesday's U.S. presidential vote will be a monumental event for both the U.S. and for the world. El Tiempo's editorial section today is full of column's about the election - all warning about the dire consequences of a Trump victory. And anybody who's followed this blog has no doubt where I fall, for the interests of Colombia, the U.S. and the globe.

El Tiempo's editorialists point out the likeliest immediate consequences for Colombia of a Donald Trump victory: a reduction in aid and more barriers to trade and immigration. Trump's discourse is erratict and his policies unclear, but he speaks like an isolationist. That suggests that he'd cut back on the post-Plan Colombia aid programs and reduce support for any peace processes here. Trump might also kill free trade agreements with Colombia, as he's denounced such agreements with Mexico.

Trump's evident hostility to and even racism against Hispanics would not help relations, either.

El Tiempo's editorialists also point out that most economists predict a recession if Trump wins and

The dangers are endless.

imposes protectionist trade policies and slashes taxes for rich people like himself, which would balloon the U.S.'s budget deficit.

Trump's authoritarianess, as eloquently described by the Washington Post's libertarian Volokh Conspiracy blog  could not only endanger the U.S.'s constitutional system, but also set a terrible example for weak democracies in Latin America.

Trump "is thrilled by the kind of authoritarian government that the Colonists fought a revolution to end." writes Volokh. "His world is a world of conspiracy theories, not reason and evidence. It is a world of putting your opponent in a jail cell after the election, not peaceful transitions of power. It is a world of mob violence, not law. It is a world of crushing political dissent, not limited government."  

The Volokh writers compare the U.S.'s possible future under Trump to Venezuela, where democratically-elected presidents have trampled institutions, converted the oil-rich nation into a near-dictatorship and, along the way, also devastated its economy. 

Trump's ignorance and denial of reality on environmental issues, particularly climate change, is yet another disqualifier. Climate change is already affecting Colombia and would undoubtedly accelerate under Trump policies.

I could go on about Trump's misogyny and sexual predation, his lack of political experience, his rotten business ethics, his instability, his evident affection for violence and for authoritarian leaders such as Russia's Vladimir Putin, and perhaps most of all the danger of a man like him controlling nuclear weapons - but you get the picture.

Hillary Clinton certainly also has her ethics challenges. But, as an experienced politician she's performed competently and has generally respected constitutional norms, as Volokh, normally no friend of liberals, points out. And Clinton would undoubtedly continue the Obama administration's policies of engagement with the world and Latin America. And her economic policies would likely continue those Obama, who has shepherded the U.S. out of a deep recession into a slow but sustained recovery. Even with the rise of China, Latin America's economy still depends heavily on that of the U.S.

For Colombia, for the U.S., for the planet and for decency, support Clinton.

By Mike Ceaser, of Bogotá Bike Tours

Trumping Latin Democracies

Donald Trump, would-be strongman.

U.S. Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump and Venezuelan Pres. Nicolas Maduro may
seem like polar opposites. One is a wealthy conservative, the other a leftist who started out as a bus driver.

The two, however, do have at least one characteristic in common: Authoritarianism.

At the last U.S. presidential debate, Trump told Democrat Hillary Clinton that if he were president, she'd "be in jail," because of her mishandling of government e-mails. Evidently, Trump had forgotten that imprisoning people is the job of judges and prosecutors, not of presidents - at least in a democracy.

Nicolas Maduro, Venezuela's
authoritarian president.

But Trump might find a model in Maduro, whose government has imprisoned numerous opponents, most prominently Leopoldo Lopez, an ex-mayor and potential presidential candidate, whose trial was called a farce by many human rights organizations. Lopez is serving a 14 year prison term for supposedly inciting protests using subliminal signals.

Not satisfied with jailing opponents, the deeply unpopular Maduro has also used his puppet Supreme Court to declare Parliament, where the opposition has a majority, 'unconstitutional' and unable to issue legislation. Maduro also announced that he will instruct the Supreme Court to approve the national budget, even tho the Constitution explicits gives this job to Parliament.

Among Maduro's long list of authoritan, anti-constitutional actions is also using his puppet Electoral Council to put obstacle after obstacle in the way of a recall referendum the opposition wants to organize against him - another right provided in Venezuela's Constitution. And Maduro's government recently said that it won't hold governor and regional legislative elections this year because it can't afford to - this in an oil-soaked nation which throws billions of dollars away each year on corruption and giving away gasoline.

"The priority isn't to hold elections," Maduro said. "What is the country's priority? Fulfill the whim of the oligarchy or recover the economy?"

Leopold Lopez,
Maduro's political prisoner.

Under Maduro's incompetent mishandling, Venezuela's economy is sinking, it has the world's highest inflation rate and shortages of basic goods like sugar, flour, toilet paper and medicines. It also has one of the world's highest homicide rates.

What Venezuela needs most are elections, to throw out Maduro and his allies and restore sanity. understandably, Maduro doesn't want to permit votes he knows he'd lose.

Sadly, the story is not so different in nations like Bolivia, Ecuador and Nicaragua, where leftist leaders have entrenched themselves and are trying to become presidents-for-life.

In that sense, Brazil and Guatemala, both embroiled in corruption scandals, should be admired. There, at least, the democratic institutions have had the resiliency to remove flawed presidents and investigate their alleged misdeeds.

Would the U.S.'s own institutions be strong enough to withstand a President Trump?

Hopefully, we'll never have to find out.

Check out the excellent NY Times story about this.

By Mike Ceaser, of Bogotá Bike Tours

The Infrastructure Election

Enrique Peñalosa, mayor-elect of Bogotá.

Enrique Peñalosa got the most votes in Bogotá's mayoral election, but the big winners may be construction companies.

A look over campaign contributions as summarized by El Espectador, using information from the Cuentas Claras website (I couldn't get the site to work myself) shows that construction companies financed much of the campaigning, particularly Peñalosa's.

Ex-Mayor Enrique Peñalosa, who led in nearly all the pre-election polls, had the biggest campaign chest. $1.6 billion pesos. El Espectador's article lists at least six builders who contributed to him, and also notes that Peñalosa's 'legal representative' is a director of two construction companies.

At least one of Peñalosa's contributors suffered a recent controversy. Ladrillera Santafe, which mines and sells building materials, was criticized this year by rural residents of Cundinamarca for plans to open three big clay mines, for brickmaking. The critics charged that the mines would destroy the region's ecotourism potential.

There's lots of money in that construction,
whether necessary or not.

It's not hard to see why builders might want Bogotá's new mayor to owe them a favor, since the city
will likely spend a fortune on construction in the next years, on a metro line (sure to cost at least U.S. $10 billion), new roads and bridges, replacing the El Campin football stadium, remaking the Rio Bogotá and many other projects.

But whether such infrastructure is really necessary is another question. Yes, Bogotá has huge traffic jams. But it's well documented that expanding roadways only generates more traffic. The congestion could be reduced much faster and less expensively by discouraging driving, by taxing gasoline more and with a London-style congestion fee. Yes, a metro line would be nice, but the city can't figure out how to cover its projected budget, which is likely to double projectsion. (Peñalosa favors a less expensive, faster-to-build elevated metro line.)

But whether or not the city needs such projects, with construction companies whispering in the mayor's ear, they're much likelier to be built.

People and companies may contribute to candidates for many reasons, including friendship, ideological affnity and respect, but undoubtedly the biggest reason is personal interest: The contributor believes that the candidate, if elected, will promote the contributor's interests, whether by pouring money into their sector of the economy or favoring their specific company. And I suspect that many believe that, if they help get their man or woman into office, he or she will return the favor by funneling city money their way.

That might be good for the company, but not for the city, if the contributing company charges more, is corrupt or less competent than other companies who did not grease the wheels with campaign contributions. Much government spending is not necessary in the first place. For an example, look at the United States' huge and absurd agricultural subsidies, which persist mostly because a few farm states like Iowa have a disproportionate influence in presidential elections.

Whether the builders' investments in Peñalosa's campaign pay off may depend on which Peñalosa governs Bogotá. This Peñalosa campaign video is mostly about building and widening roads all over the city, despite roads' negative impacts on noise, pollution and quality of life - and the fact that they quickly fill up as well.

On the other hand, El Tiempo's summary of Peñalosa's plans emphasizes more sustainable projects such as expanding public transit and bike lanes.

Which Peñalosa will govern Bogotá?

Full disclosure: My business, Bogotá Bike Tours, has benefited indirectly from the construction companies' largesse because we've rented bikes to the Peñalosa campaign.





By Mike Ceaser, of Bogotá Bike Tours

Where Will Their Voters Go?

In the wake of Sunday's surprising victory for right-wing candidate Oscar Ivan Zuluaga, he and second-place finisher Pres. Juan Manuel Santos are scrambling to pick up the losing candidates' supporters for the second round of voting - as well as to hold onto their own supporters.

Where could those voters go?

Zuluaga 29.3%

Zuluaga's supporters seem likely to stick with their man in the second round. After all, someone who voted for a relatively unknown, extremist candidate probably did so for a reason. Even the hacker scandal doesn't appear to threaten his support.

Santos 25.6% 

Santos was undoubtedly the default choice for many, and so his voters could presumably defect if given a strong reason. On the other hand, many voters whose first choice was eliminated will prefer a known quantity to a leap into the relative unknown with a man like Zuluaga.

Martha Lucia Ramirez 15.5%

The Conservative Party's candidate is seen as closer to Zuluaga, and on election night even appeared with ex-Pres. Pastrana, who made a speech criticizing Pres. Santos. But the Conservative Party has been divided, with many of its representatives backing Santos. Ramirez's relatively strong showing might pull more supporters away from Santos. Ramirez and Zuluaga have both harshly criticized the peace negotiations going on in Havana, Cuba, perhaps making them natural allies. On the other hand, Ramirez made anti-corruption a major plank in her platform - potentially making it difficult for her to ally with the scandal-embroiled Zuluaga.

And many of Ramirez's voters likely supported her primarily out of loyalty to the Partido Conservador, one of Colombia's two traditional establishment political parties (along with the Liberales). With the Conservador label missing in the second round, will a lot of those voters stay home? And, these traditional, establishment Colombians may feel more comfortable voting for Santos, a member of one of Colombia's most important families, than a relative unknown like Zuluaga.

Santos's best strategy to capture Conservative Party voters could be to try to frame Zuluaga as a corrupt, right-wing nut - which may not be very unrealistic.

If Zuluaga can capture Ramirez's voters and hold onto his own, he'll have victory virtually sewn up.

Clara Lopez 15.2% 

If you want to bet on one thing, bet that Lopez's supporters will never vote for the right-wing Zuluaga.

Lopez represents the union of the Polo Democratico Party, which is often seen as sympathetic to the ideology of Colombia's leftist guerrillas, and the reborn Union Patriotica Party, which was linked to the FARC guerrillas in its birth during the 1980s, but was destroyed when thousands of its leaders were assassinated by right-wing groups, probably linked to the government.

While Lopez voters won't support Zuluaga, their far-left ideology and distaste for the establishment may prevent them from backing Santos, either.

With these voters, Santos gets a big boost from the ongoing peace negotiations with the FARC guerrillas. The FARC clearly want Santos reelected, which is why they signed an agreement on ending the drug trade just a week before the first-round vote.

Will the left swallow hard and support Santos, who's generally seen as a center-right politician and who led the war against the guerrillas as Pres. Alvaro Uribe's defense minister? One sign that they could was the departure of several top staffers of Bogotá Mayor Gustavo Petro - himself a one-time M19 guerrilla leader - to work on Santos's campaign.

Will Lopez herself campaign for Santos? Perhaps - if only to stop Zuluaga.

Enrique Peñalosa 8.3%

After almost pulling even with Santos in some polls early in the campaign, Green Party candidate Peñalosa, en ex-mayor of Bogotá, really tanked on election day. Nevertheless, Peñalosa's voters will be crucial on election day because they're the most up-for-grabs. 

Despite its name, the Colombian Green Party, an artificial creation, has a confused ideology (if it has any ideology at all). Peñalosa has in the past allied himself with ex-Pres. Uribe, an arch-conservative. During this campaign, he allied his party with leftist Bogotá Mayor Gustavo Petro.

Despite this ideological confusion, Peñalosa was certainly closer to Santos than Zuluaga, particularly Peñalosa's support for the government-guerrilla peace talks in Havana. 

Santos needs to court the often-difficult Peñalosa (perhaps by offering him a position as minister?), to have a chance of getting over the top. 

To cobble together the 50% of voters he needs to win, Santos must hold onto his own 25%, capture a substantial portion of Conservative voters, get most of the Polo/UP's supporters and get Peñalosa's people behind him. But even all of that might not add up to 50%.

The Abstainers 60%

A record 6 out of 10 eligible voters stayed home on election day. Those millions of potential voters probably represent more of a potential for Santos than Zuluaga, since conservatives and supporters of more extreme candidates tend to be more dedicated voters. Therefore, a much higher proportion of Zuluaga supporters than Santos supporters likely voted on Sunday. Can Santos get the barrios and university students to turn out for him?

By Mike Ceaser, of Bogotá Bike Tours

Will Vargas Lleras Pull Santos Left or Right?

German Vargas Lleras:
 Colombia's next VP?

It's easy to see why Pres. Santos selected Germán Vargas Lleras, currently minister of housing, as his running mate for his reelection campaign. The harshest criticisms of Santos have not come from the left, as one might once have predicted, but from Santos' predecessor, the very conservative ex-Pres. Alvaro Uribe, on the right. Vargas Lleras comes from the ranks of Uribismo, and so can shield Santos from some of those attacks.

Vargas Lleras marks a dramatic change from the Santos' current VP, the genial Angelino Garzon, once a union activist and still a leftist. Garzon, who has suffered a series of health problems during the last four years, provided a useful defense for Santos' left during the last campaign, when most expected Santos to follow Uribe's aggressive militaristic policies against the leftist guerrillas. Santos, after all, was Uribe's minister of defense. But Santos began peace negotiations with the FARC guerrillas - a decision which has earned him constant criticism from Uribe and his supporters, who say that the talks amount to giving in to the FARC, who are classified as terrorists by many governments.

Vice Pres. Angelino
Garzon.

Garzon participated in the last negotiations with the FARC, during the Pastrana administration. Those talks failed and have come to represent government weakness. That connection makes Garzon a handicap for Uribe.

As vice president, Garzon helped in negotiations with protesting farmers and others, as well as advocating for human rights. Garzon has also shown refreshing independence, even criticizing Santos administration policies on issues including poverty and the peace negotiations.

Vargas Lleras, in contrast, criticized the last peace negotiations with the guerrillas. He has also been the target of two bomb attacks, at least one of them apparently perpetrated by guerrillas, in which he lost several fingers from one hand. As Santos' minister of the interior from 2010 to 2012, Vargas Lleras authored the controversial Ley Lleras, which critics charged would censor the Internet.

Will Vargas Lleras push Santos to the right? Could his presence hinder the peace negotiations with the guerrillas? Perhaps Vargas Lleras' presence will give Santos room to move left.

A poster on Plaza Bolivar portrays Pres. Santos as wanting
to oust Bogotá Mayor Gustavo Petro in order to use
 the capital's budget for his own reelection.
 I haven't seen any evidence of this charge.

In practice, the vice president doesn't do much. So little, in fact, that Garzon had been nominated to be Colombia's ambassador in Brazil while still holding down the vice president job. Garzon unexpectedly rejected the ambassadorship.

Santos is almost sure to be reelected - barring an economic disaster or a collapse of the peace talks, which appears less likely with the addition this week of a representative of the FARC's powerful and drug-rich Southern Block to the negotiating table.

In polls, Santos is far ahead of other presidential candidates. However, he's way behind the 'blank' or 'empty vote', which scored more than 40% intention of vote in a recent poll. That's a bizarre situation considering that Santos has been pretty successful by most objective standards: the economy is strong and stable, Colombia's at peace with its neighbors, the peace negotiations are progressing and Santos has not had any major scandals, unlike two of his three predecessors. Political analysts seem to believe that the 'blank vote' is playing the role of 'undecideds' and that these people will choose candidates as the campaign progresses.

By Mike Ceaser, of Bogotá Bike Tours

The Empty Vote

A mural by the entrance to the National University urges passersby to 'Vote en Blanco.'

You've probably seen the signs around town: Signs urging Colombians to 'Vote en Blanco': to leave your vote empty.

'Express your indignation.
Colombia votes blank.'

The goal is to persuade more people to leave their ballots blank than vote for the most popular candidate. (However, according to another interpretation of the law, more than half of the ballots must be left blank.) If the blank vote wins, nobody's elected and the election is repeated - with all different candidates.

To the throw-em-all-out crowd, this sounds great. But it would cause wholesale political chaos and uncertainty. And what reason do we have to think that the new, inexperienced politicians elected would be better than the previous ones? In Bolivia, where corruption was rife, friends told me that they always voted to reelect those holding office 'Because they've already filled their pockets thru corruption, while the new ones enter office with their pockets empty.'

Fortunately, there is a better way to replace bad politicians: Vote for somebody else.

By Mike Ceaser, of Bogotá Bike Tours

Pres. Santos In His Labyrinth

Santos' poll numbers have plummeted, and he's facing a political pincer attack.

Just months ago, Pres. Santos was flying high: His poll numbers were high, thanks to a growing economy and progressing negotiations with the FARC guerrillas and no strong political rivals on the field.

Today, the economy continues growing and the peace negotiations continue advancing. Yet, Santos' support in polls has sunk into the 20s.

Some observers link Santos' low popularity to the recent protests and road blockages, but I doubt it. Colombia has had many protests, and the root causes behind the farmers' troubles long predate Santos' presidency.

Could it be that Colombians are just tired of Santos?

From the left: Polo Democratico party
leader Clara López.

In any case, Santos' situation looks to get worse before it gets better. Ex-Pres. Uribe, Santos' one-time political patron and now leading critic, has created his own political party, the Centro Democratico, and announced he will run for Congress. It's a fair bet that Uribe and his supporters will base their campaign on criticizing Santos, likely further chipping away at the president's popularity. A peace agreement with the FARC would surely raise the president's popularity - but the Uribistas' intense criticism of the negotiations looks likely to reduce the government's manuevering room in those negotiations.

At a recent forum in the Universidad del Rosario, Uribe attacked the FARC-government negotiations in Havana:

From the right: Ex-Vice President Francisco Santos.

The negotiations are "a path to impunity for leaders of the guerrilla who have committed crimes ...it's a path which will allow criminals to be elected," to government, Uribe said.

But those formulae have worked before for Colombia, including during Uribe's own administration, when many right-wing paramilitary fighters got slaps on the wrist or no punishment at all for horrific crimes. In 1990, the M-19 guerrillas signed a peace agreement and went immediately into politics. Justice probably was not served in either case, but at least some violent actors left Colombia's conflict (yet, paramilitaries remain in parts of Colombia).

It's ironic that, on the issue of negotiations, Santos finds himself attacked from both sides: from the right by Uribe, his one-time political patron, and from the left by human rights groups, who fear that a potential peace deal will include impunity for human rights violators.

A billboard in Medellin put up by Francisco Santos attacks
Pres. Santos by comparing the FARC to murderous cocaine kingpin
Pablo Escobar. (Photo: El Tiempo)

Santos' prospects in next year's elections may depend on how he can spin his opponents, who most likely will be the Polo Democratico's Clara Lopez on the left and an Uribista on the right. And the most prominent Uribista candidate is Francisco Santos, the president's cousin.

In the end, it seems to me, Santos' political fortunes will ride on the talks with the FARC. A success which Colombians can believe in will overwhelm all other political issues, incuding even the economy. But that itself may mean that Santos' opponents will try to slow and even sabotage the talks for their own political interests.

The next months look to be tough for Santos. But if he can end Colombia's conflict, he can both secure his legacy - and the next election.

By Mike Ceaser, of Bogotá Bike Tours

Venezuela's Un-President

Maduro is dwarfed by his predecessor, Hugo Chavez.

50.5% to 49% is a mathematical victory for Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro.

But it's a huge defeat relative to the double-digit victories racked up by ex-President Hugo Chavez, who died six weeks ago.

It's also a defeat compared to the ten-point margin which many polls predicted for Maduro.

It's also defeat when the Chavez sympathy vote is figured in. And it's a defeat when you consider that all of the government was converted into a Maduro election machine.

And it's a defeat in light of the many substantive charges of corruption.

The razor-thin victory of Maduro, Chavez's chosen heir, leaves Venezuela with a weak new president.

1989 Caracazo rights in Caracas. Coming back?

Maduro compounded his own troubles by first promising a recount and then backtracking, as the National Electoral Council announced a rushed inauguration.

Assuming that public protests or a restless military do not oust Maduro, he'll be a president without manuevering room and facing huge challenges, in particular a disfunctional economy inherited from Chavez.
Venezuela has a soaring homicide rate and the highest inflation rate in the region. Stores lack basic foodstuffs. Corruption is rampant. Those are problems which a nation swimming in oil that's at $100 per barrel should be able to deal with - but Chavez's populist policies left Venezuela with huge deficits and expensive subsidies, such as almost-free gasoline. As a weak president with little charisma whose legitimacy is under question, Maduro will not risk generating public discontent by reducing those subsidies - until he's forced to. Once the deficits become overwhelming and the Russians and Chinese refuse more loans, the Venezuelan government will be forced to make huge economic corrections, and deadly riots like the 1989 Caracazo may repeat themselves.

Ironically, El Caracazo is often seen as the origin of Chavismo. Now, the populism-and-bust pattern carries a warning for chavismo.

Already, Maduro's vow to block an opposition protest march suggests that his strategy for holding onto power is to become more authoritarian - like Venezuelan allies Cuba, China, Belarus and Russia.


For Colombia, Venezuela's continued instability is bad news. But it's also a lesson about the great dangers of populism.


By Mike Ceaser, of Bogotá Bike Tours

Obama, Romney and Colombia

U.S. Pres. and Democratic Party
candidate Barack Obama.

Which of the candidates to be president of the United States would be better for Colombia?

Historically, Colombians have usually hoped for Republican presidents in the White House, based on the belief that they'd provide more aid. In fact, in 2008 Colombia was one of the few nations where a majority of the people supported John McCain over Barack Obama.

Analysts interviewed by El Tiempo in today's paper generally agree that Obama's better for Colombia this time, mainly because of the government's incipient peace negotiations with the FARC guerrillas. That's in part because of the participation of the socialist states of Cuba and Venezuela in the negotiations. The Republicans have opposed many contacts with those countries' governments (except, of course, for buying lots of Venezuelan oil and selling it anything and everything it wants), so a Romney victory might cool the U.S.'s backing for the peace negotiations, which are to be held in Havana. This would be particularly true if a Romney administration, like Bush II, appointed anti-Castro Cuban emigres to high positions.

Republican Party presidential
candidates Mitt Romney.

On the other hand, Romney has promised to increase U.S. defense spending, which could translate to more military aid to Colombia. If the FARC believe that, it could serve as a stick telling the guerrillas to make concessions - or else. But it's questionable to what degree Romney would follow thru with these military increases, as with so many of his promises, in a time of budget austerity and when U.S. citizens are weary from two less-than-succesful overseas conflicts. And that's particularly true for Colombia, which has gotten almost no attention and is already considered a success story.

Another likely difference in a Romney administration would be its approach to the War on Drugs. While this hasn't been much of an issue during the campaign, it's safe to say that Republicans support prohibitionism, aggressive drug crop erradication and interdiction, while Democrats put more emphasis on treatment and less on imprisonment. Obama, who reportedly tried illegal drugs in his youth, has been disappointingly timid in many of his policies. But I harbor hopes that in a second term, when reelection is no longer an option, he'd be more daring. A recovering economy, too, would give him more manuevering room. So, perhaps, some degree of drug depenalization, as Pres. Santos has suggested, could become an option. As any reader of this blog knows, I believe that depenalization is worth trying, because it would take profits away from the violent groups which have done so much harm to Colombia and much of the rest of Latin America.

Romney has also said he'd open up more trade with Latin America. But it's difficult to see how he'd do this, since the Obama administration has already signed several free trade agreements, including one with Colombia. But Romney, a wealthy businessman who clearly favors big business interests, would likely pay less attention to human rights and environmental concerns.

Finally, there are also general issues which don't directly affect Colombia or Latin America, but for which the U.S. wields great influence. In protection of the environment, action against global warming and policies favoring the middle class, Obama is likely to do much better than Romney, it seems to me, and such policies in the U.S. will spread benefits to Latin America and the world.

And there's one more thing: Obama seems to be much more popular than Romney in Colombia and most of the rest of the world. That means something too, for relations with the world's superpower.

By Mike Ceaser, of Bogotá Bike Tours

Chavez's Campaign Against Cancer

Hugo Chavez undergoing chemotherapy. 

Tomorrow, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, who's already ruled for 13 years, is to formally register his candidacy to succeed himself yet again.

Chavez has a huge lead in the polls ahead of the october election against Henrique Capriles, a young mayor whose center-right politics would likely be much more amenable to the Colombian government. Chavez's lead is not surprising, since he's been in power for so long that many young Venezuelans probably cannot recall another president. Chavez has also muzzled much of the opposition media and turned much of the government into a campaign machine, which has handed out subsidized food and gasoline and filled the airwaves and covered walls with government propaganda. And Chavez has an unquestionable charisma, which enables him to connect with his country's poor majority.

Henrique Capriles: Venezuela's next president?
Not likely. 

Chavez somehow doesn't receive the blame for severe domestic troubles such as an unstable economy, high inflation and soaring crime rates, perhaps because his trappings of leftist revolution make him seem to transcend ordinary difficulties.

But Chavez has a bigger opponent, which he hasn't been able to defeat using his oil money war chest: a mestazing cancer, which has him commuting to Cuba for surgery and chemotherapy sessions.

Chavez's exact condition is a state secret. His doctors have held no press conferences armed with x-rays and test results to let Venezuelans in on their president's prognosis. So, observers can only rely on the president's appearance and occasional statements, and supposed medical reports which journalists occassionally get their hands on. Recently, U.S. reporter Dan Rather and Spanish newspaper ABC published stories suggesting that Chavez may have only months to live. If that's true, then Chavez is committing a huge fraud against his supporters, who surely believe that they're electing their man to serve another six-year term. Chavez said yesterday that doctors found no sign of his cancer's reappearing - but offered no evidence of that.

If Chavez dies or cannot carry on, he can designate a replacement, altho no other figure in his United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) has the president's charisma or popularity. But that only compounds the uncertainty for Colombia, which has to consider either continuity under Chavez, a rightward shift under Capriles or a complete unknown.

Chavez has been a somewhat erratic collaborator with Colombia's efforts against the drug trade and guerrilla groups. He has arrested and extradited several important criminal figures, but also apparently supported the guerrillas. Pres. Juan Manuel Santos has called Chavez 'My new best friend,' but his administration would undoubtedly be much happier with someone less radical running things in Caracas.

By Mike Ceaser, of Bogotá Bike Tours

Peru's Election: AIDS or Cancer for Colombia?

Ollanta Humala

A choice between AIDS and cancer is how Peruvian author Mario Vargas Llosa described the choice Peruvian voters face in the run-off presidential election June 5.

In the first round of voting in April, several centrist candidates divided their support, leaving two extremists carrying worrisome relationships: Ollanta Humala, a populist, nationalist who sometimes sounds like a more extreme version of Venezuela's Hugo Chavéz, and Keiko Fujimori, daughter of Peruvian ex-President Alberto Fujimori, who turned himself into a dictator and made corruption and human rights violations state policy and is now in a Peruvian prison.

Keiko Fujimori

Neither bodes well for Colombia: Humala is a leftist with a discourse resembling that of Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, who has apparently financed both Humala and Colombia's FARC guerrillas. With leftist governments on two of its borders, Colombia doesn't need a third such neighbor to sympathize and support Colombia's insurgents. On the other hand, Alberto Fujimori's right-hand man Vladimiro Montesinos, who headed Peru's intelligence service, received protection money from cocaine cartels and trafficked assault rifles to the FARC guerrillas. Some Peruvians suspect that if Keiko wins her father will be the real ruler.

This is a surprising situation for Peru. The country's economy has grown at 9 percent annualy - the fastest rate in South America - so you'd expect voters to choose another centrist who'll continue the existing economic and political policies. But too many centrist candidates divided that vote between them. The situation is also a testament to the fact that despite Peru's economic boom, many Peruvians live in poverty.

Perhaps the election winner will learn from others' mistakes. Recently, Humala has tried to distance himself from Hugo Chavez and Keiko Fujimori, who is leading in the polls, has tried to the same from her father's administration.

By Mike Ceaser, of Bogotá Bike Tours

Democracy Holds on Next Door

Democracy has new life in Venezuela. Despite Pres. Hugo Chavez's efforts to rig the election system in his favor, to muzzle opposition media and to turn the government into a chavista election machine, the opposition obtained about half of the vote. Unless Chavez manages to solve during the remaining two years of his presidential term those huge problems like crime, inflation and an economic malaise which he's failed at during his last 11 years in power, then it appears likely he'll lose his reelection - in a fair vote.

But, from my three years living in Caracas and observing the country since, it sure appears to me that in his heart Chavez does not believe in democracy. He certainly does want to be legitimized by democratic means, but to make sure he wins elections he's used authoritarian methods, such as shutting down opposition media, controlling the court system and employing public institutions to electioneer for him. And, just look at democratic credentials of the sorts of folks he buddies up with - the leaders of Cuba, Iran, Libya, Belarus....

I suspect that, in Chavez's mind, the opposition's success is not democracy but interference by the 'empire' - just as his friend and advisor Fidel Castro stated.

Venezuela's weakened democracy was strengthened by this Sunday's vote, but it's still a close bet whether or not it will survive.

It is certainly important to Colombia that its neighbors have stable democracies with democratic and rational leaders interested in improving the lot of their peoples, not amassing power and spouting obsolete ideology. The evidence is clear: Neighbors Brazil and Peru have healthy functioning democracies, and neither has talked about war against Colombia or threatened to start an arms race. Neither has harbored Colombian guerrillas or closed down its borders. Venezuela, and to a lesser degree Ecuador, (which at this very moment looks like its government may fall) has done all that and more.

Blog written by Mike Ceaser of Bogota Bike Tours

Santos is 'El Man.'

So it's Santos, as we all knew and expected, altho not by quite this margin. Such an overwhelming margin makes it a bit scary.

In his acceptance speech, which I'm listening to now, he sounds a lot like Uribe - squared.

We hear a lot about 'work, work, work.' And about how the judicial branch, which was about the only branch of government that stood up to Uribe. Does that mean 'impartiality,' or 'You better do what I want!'?

In his acceptance speech, a candidate who has just won by such an overwhelming margin, one might expect, perhaps, humility, empathy, flexibility. In his hour of victory, he might throw a bone to the guerrillas, whose backs are already against the wall, and make some offer of peace talks. He might also address his most glaring weakness - the terrible human rights violations which occurred under his watch, particularly the 'False Positives' scandal. But I'm not hearing any of that.

Even so, another four years of Uribismo might be good for Colombia, if the guerrillas are finally defeated - although that's not likely. But Santos can afford to mention his mistakes and aim to atone for them. If not, Colombians might just get fed up with more Uribismo pretty quickly.

Still, one thing is clear: many (altho not necessarily most) Colombians support Santos (abstention was way over 50 %) and they don't want Mockus, whose second-round voting was little above his first. Mockus didn't even win in Bogotá, where he was mayor and had lots of support. Santos also represents the establishment - he's related to the current vice president and belongs to the family which owns the El Tiempo newspaper.

Colombia's Candidates

With the election in the final stretch (first round voting is Sunday, the 30th), it looks clear that there'll be a second round between Juan Manuel Santos and Antanas Mockus. For those who don't follow Colombian politics, Santos was Pres. Alvaro Uribe's defense minister and once considered a shoo-in to be the next pres. But Mockus, an ex-Bogotá mayor, has come from nowhere to make the election a real race.

Guys like these call Mockus just too wierd to vote for. The guy got married on an elephant, after all.

Santos is the conservative, who will most likely continue Uribe's aggressive war against the guerrillas and neoliberal economics.

Mockus, popular among the young, urban and educated, was a centrist mayor, but many of his policies on a national level are question marks. He has said, however, that he'll continue many of Uribe's policies, except for trying to normalize relations with Venezuela. Mockus is considered intelligent and not corrupt, but he's eccentric.

In recent days, Mockus has, courageously, said that he'll raise taxes on the wealthy if elected - something else which confirms him as the 'Colombian Obama.' Santos rejected that - even though his political patron Uribe has done exactly that.

Mockus also said that he'll normalize relations with Chavez's Venezuela. The leftist Chavez has made many threats against Colombia, even talking war. There's also lots of evidence that Chavez has supported Colombia's leftist guerrillas.

Unfortunately, the environment has received little attention in this campaign, despite Colombia's huge environmental problems, including deforestation and urban air pollution. In one debate, the candidates did discuss the issue of drug-field fumigation, which causes huge environmental impacts by driving campesinos to chop down forest for drug crops. Several of the candidates did criticize the policy - but (from my reading) none cited environmental reasons. And, Mockus being the Green Party candidate, that's a real disappointment. He took a vague stand on fumigation - to continue, but study it. Santos vowed to continue the policy. Only some of the leftist candidates, who have no chance, said they'd change the policy. Perhaps more emphasis on relieving poverty will mean that fewer campesinos will turn to planting drug crops.

Colombia's tremendous human rights crisis - which seem to be getting worse, even as the economy grows and the country attracts more tourists - haven't gotten a whole lot of attention. In the final debate, Petro said the government needs to support the nation's displaced, but Santos pointed out that this is financially impossible.