"Henchmen" is a figurative translation I was aware of, but what I noted in its use in the article is that it did not refer to the "Peces Gordos de Chavez," or "Chavez's Henchmen," but rather to the "Peces Gordos de Gobierno," or "Government Henchmen" if I were to have used it that way, which didn't sound right to me because "governments" do not have "henchmen." But perhaps "Government Minions" might work a little better.
An amazing tale of Chavez simply mocking the Rule of law
Last year, the General Prosecutor accused five people of being behind the assassination of prosecutor Danilo Anderson: Banker Nelson Mezerhane, journalist Patricia Poleo, a retired General from Plaza Altamira, a reporter of Cuban origin named Romani and surprisingly, an active General Jaime Escalante in charge of the military regional command called CORE I and reportedly very close to Chavez.
All of these people were jailed on the basis of the testimony of a single man, the so called “super witness” Giovanny Vazquez, who claimed that he had been at a meeting with all of them where the assassination was planned. Vazquez was soon discredited as a witness when it was learned he was not a psychiatrist like he claimed, he was an expert forger, had been a paramilitary and was actually in jail when the Panama meeting had supposedly taken place. For months, the Prosecutor General would not admit any of this until a couple of months ago he admitted Vazquez had “deceived him”.
Immediately, the lawyers of Poleo, who is in the US and Mezerhane who was freed on his own recognizance in December asked that the case against them be dropped, but the prosecutor General has refused to so far, saying he has other evidence that confirms Vazquez’ testimony. This week, Mezerhane’s lawyers denounced that some of the files in the case had been forged, prompting an investigation. But the charges against all five accused remain in effect.
Now, as we say in Spanish, you can be either with God or the Devil, but not with both. Of Vazquez’ testimony has been confirmed then the five people charged were involved, if it is not then all five should be exonerated. But what I find amazing is that this week, on Hugo Chavez’ personal orders, General Escalante was reinstated in his position, even as the Prosecutor General continues to accuse him of being involved with the assassination of Anderson.
President Chavez is not only making a mockery of Justice and the Rule of Law in Venezuela, but openly laughing and mocking those that he has put in charge of that same judicial system.
http://blogs.salon.com/0001330/2006/09/30.html#a3085
Hugo Chávez at the U.N. :
The heavy burden of the ridicule
By Gustavo Coronel
September 24, 2006
Hugo Chávez's ambitions of global leadership have increased in parallel with his body weight, now some 50 pounds more than when he staged his 1992 coup d'état attempt against democratic president Carlos Andrés Pérez. His new morphology, his authoritarian style and fondness for expensive suits and watches have placed him in a league with the former King of Egypt, long deceased Farouk. Eight years ago he started as a classic example of populism, in the tradition of Peron and Eva in Argentina, Bucaram in Ecuador and General Velasco Alvarado in Peru, but the immense oil income he is handling without accountability has allowed him to entertain dreams of World leadership against the U.S. For some time now he has increasingly neglected the role of president of Venezuela to try to become a tropical Mahdi, first by leading the war of rhetoric against the United States and, lately, by clearly aligning himself with terrorist organizations, joining the club of rogue regimes that are actually engaged in a violent and bloody war against democracy throughout the World.
His latest performance has been at the U.N. and it could prove to be his most damaging yet. His speech before the member countries of the World's most important body was the most vulgar exhibition given by a Head of State since Khrushchev banged his shoe on the table before the horrified eyes of Vladimir Petrovsky, his chief of protocol. In this speech, given in U.S. soil, although technically on international grounds, Chávez chose to insult the president of the United States, a country with which Venezuela has maintained very close diplomatic and commercial relations since independence, more than 170 years ago. Chávez called President Bush "the devil and an alcoholic." Not only the podium of the U.N. was not the proper place, if there is a proper place for this kind of talk, but he forgot that he was representing our country. To serve as a folkloric complement to his speech Chávez made disrespectful gestures, such as the signal of the cross against "the devil" and moved his adipose buttocks in imitation of the manner cowboys walk.
The speech was little more than a personal diatribe against George Bush. The words used and the place chosen could not have been more unfortunate for the image of Venezuela as a friendly nation and, also, for his personal purposes of obtaining a seat on the Security Council of the organization. Early laughs were replaced, as the speech went on, by concerned expressions. When he finished the tirade only Hezbollah in Lebanon and Noam Chomsky had enthusiastically approved. Hezbollah, because Chávez is doing some of their dirty work at the U.N. Chomsky, because apparently Chávez's endorsement has allowed Chomsky to sell more books.
The president of Chile Michelle Bachelet said that "he should have spoken about the things that interest Latin Americans" instead of talking about the personal style of other leaders. Charles Rangel, a Democratic Representative of New York in Congress and rather soft on Chávez said: "You do not come here, to my District, to offend my president." Governor Pataki of New York invited him to "get out of my State." The New York Daily News in the Thursday editorial spoke of the "Venezuelan Oil Pimp." Nancy Pelosi, leader of the Democratic minority in Congress called him "a vulgar thug." Former President Clinton spoke of an "undignified spectacle." Boston councilmen are asking for the removal of Citgo's billboard from Fenway Park. Perhaps the most revealing protest came from one of his strongest supporters in the U.S. Congress, Bill Delahunt who, together with another Chávez admirer, Representative Gregory Meeks of New York, sent Chávez a letter which included the following remarks: "It is important that you understand that even those of us who object to Bush Administration policies found your speech to be offensive, as respect for the office of the President is common to all Americans." And they added: "Such a gratuitous personal attack on the individual currently occupying that office is a direct insult to the people of the United States." These two paragraphs read like a basic lesson in Democracy 101, a lesson given to a man like Chávez, who does not have the slightest clue about democracy. In fact, Chávez cannot feel respect for any president because he has perverted the concept of presidential dignity in our own country. The way he behaves in Venezuela, browbeating his adversaries, talking about women in a demeaning manner, using vulgarity and profanity over television for all Venezuelans to hear and see, has destroyed the majesty of the presidency that Venezuelan democratic presidents (with one or two exceptions) had helped to maintain during the last 70 years.
The backlash against Chávez and his loutish behavior has been spectacular, not only in the U.S. but all over Latin America, Europe and Asia, whenever civilization prevails. It has taken international public opinion eight long years to realize that Chávez is a dangerous clown and that represents a real threat to World peace. The Chávez speech at the U.N. has convinced many whom, up to now, saw him as a defender of the poor. We Venezuelans know him well and have suffered already much humiliation at his hand. He has divided the country along racial lines, something that had never seen before in our society. He has given our national assets away to his admired Fidel Castro and other ideological buddies. He purchased 100,000 AK-103 assault riflles and is setting up an AK rifle factory in Venezuela (to be staffed by 400 Russians). AK-103 rifles are being transferred to Bolivia and are being handed to Cuban trained youth militias among others. He has invited to our country, as honored guests, despots such as Mugabe, Ahmadinejad and Fidel Castro. He protects the narcoterrorist leaders from Colombia, allowing them to live unmolested in our country and has given them Venezuelan identity papers. He has aligned himself with Hezbollah. He has financed Humala in Peru, Lopez Obrador in Mexico, Morales in Bolivia, Correa in Ecuador, and Ortega in Nicaragua. He is presiding over the most corrupt and inefficient administration in Venezuelan history. How can people, unless blinded by ideology and anti-Americanism keep claiming that this man represents hope for the World?
It would be hard to understand if this man receives support from the OAS member countries to be a member of the U.N. Security Council. Many years ago, when I worked in the petroleum industry, an employee dancing at a party given at the company club dropped his pants on the dance floor. Of course he was asked to leave but later on, in a rather surprising decision, the Board of the Club chose to name him a member of the Ethics Committee, to "motivate him to improve his behavior." Well, I never quite understood that reasoning. Several months later he assaulted the secretary of the Committee. So much for the strategy of the board. I am afraid that the OAS is thinking along the same lines. And, as it happened with the employee of the oil company, it will not work with Chávez because he thinks that he is performing impeccably. How does he know? His immediate collaborators tell him so.
http://venezuelatoday.net/The Antidote to Petropopulism
Here's a question I've been mulling: is Mi Negra, Manuel Rosales' plan to hand out a portion of Venezuela's oil rents directly to poor families via a debit card, a populist proposal?
That, certainly, is how Vicepresident José Vicente Rangel, feigning unawareness of the massive glass palace chavismo inhabits on this topic, described it: "pure populism." Is that so?
Petropopulism: as Venezuelan as papelón con limón
In Venezuelan political economy, populism has a specific meaning. It describes the quid pro quo whereby politicians dole out oil rents selectively to their supporters in return for, well, political support. This is what I've called the Petrostate Trick: "turning oil money into political power - or, more precisely, turning control of the state’s oil money into control of the state - in a self-perpetuating cycle."
That chavismo's power is based largely on this sort of petropopulist arrangement seems really, really obvious to me. But that's nothing new: every Venezuelan government since at least the Trienio (1945-1948) has sustained its support through some twist on the petrostate trick. Medina and Pérez Jiménez had the Banco Obrero, CAP had Corpomercadeo and Chávez has Mercal. The cronies have changed over the years; the underlying mechanism hasn't.
The system works by distributing oil rents selectively, channeling the money primarily to your own political supporters. In this way, you set up an incentive structure that helps perpetuate the party in power, rewarding support for the official line and punishing dissent.
Mi Negra's sotto voce radicalism
By this reckoning, Mi Negra is not a populist proposal. Just the opposite: as billed, it constitutes a radical challenge to the deeply entrenched petropopulist mindset.
If oil rents are distributed following objective rather than political criteria, the incentive structure that underlies the petrostate model crumbles. By delinking recipients' political views from their claim on oil rents, a properly implemented Mi Negra would represent the start of a truly revolutionary change in Venezuela's political economy and political culture.
Under a scheme like Mi Negra, people would stake their claims on the nation's oil rents as citizens, not as political clients. And, all the prickly implementation issues aside, this is its most appealing feature. It would end the indignity too many poor Venezuelans now suffer of having to pimp out their political beliefs for a Mision check. It would end the implicit threat that now hangs over too many transactional chavistas that to Think Different could mean risking your livelihood.
For all of Chavez's revolutionary rhetoric, the fact is that delinking political support from oil rent distribution would constitute a far more radical break with the country's political traditions than anything his government has done in eight years.
http://www.caracaschronicles.blogspot.com/