Live
Audio Only
It’s like clockwork. Elections in socialist societies (or those on their way to socialism) always attract extra attention from the mainstream international media and the classes they represent.
RELATED:
Russia Backs Venezuela Election Results and Democracy
They deliberately make illogical comparisons between their own self-serving definitions of "democratic" and "autocratic" elections.
Totally ignoring ideological and political pluralism where it exists and shutting their eyes to the fact that other (non-communist) parties also exist in some of the societies they describe as "one-party states," the Western critics also invariably claim the voting machinery in targeted states is perennially rigged to turn out predictable outcomes.
However, they have not been able to explain why, under the various forms of "democratic" elections in the so-called citadels of democracy, it is often the case that the winner of the most votes actually becoming the loser.
Under the "two-party system" that is supposed to reflect "one person, one vote," elections are like horse races in which victory goes to the "first past the post." But the first horse does not always win.
Republican George W. Bush became U.S. President despite Democrat Al Gore having won more votes; and Hillary Clinton trumped Donald Trump in the race to the White House, but he got there before her.
Further, the president of the United States and the prime minister of the United Kingdom are not directly elected by the people, but privately selected by the majority of elected parliamentarians, state deputies or national assembly representatives from the winning party.
Yet the Western critics still zoom-in on so-called "socialist elections" to search for and find fault in virtually every case.
Elections in China, Cuba and Venezuela are clear cases in point.
In China, a plurality of parties contests elections, but the Communist Party of China – the biggest and most organized, with 88 million members – naturally tops the polls.
But the CPC does not hog all the political space, as there exists a multi-party political cooperation and consultation system designed to (try to best) guarantee that all walks of the society can express their views and play their roles in the country’s political and social life.
At least eight other democratic political parties – neither "ruling," nor "opposition" – are jointly engaged in promoting the socialist cause; and their relations with the CPC are governed by and through the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference, comprising representatives of all the participating parties.
Indeed, just ahead of this year’s now-concluded 19th CPC Congress, General Secretary Xi Jinping issued a public call for "increased cooperation between the CPC and non-communist political parties," as well as "those with no political affiliation," plus the All-China Federation of Industry and Commerce, "to jointly strive for achieving the Chinese dream of national rejuvenation."
RELATED:
Venezuela to Prepare for Municipal Elections in December
It’s widely known that the Communist Party of Cuba is the only political party on the island, leading to its permanent description in the mainstream Western media as a "one-party states." But a hardly acknowledged fact is that the CPC is forbidden, by law, from participating in or competing for seats in any election.
In 1992, Cuba’s national electoral law was changed to extend the voting process.
But the Cubans also decreed back then, that because of their particular historical experience and the unending efforts by Washington to undermine the Revolution from within, they will not allow for the possibility of external opponents supporting a legally-registered local party.
Candidates for municipal and national assembly elections in Cuba today are selected from the communities and participating entities by the people.
Another established but largely ignored Cuban election reality is that there are always several elected delegates in each elected National Assembly who are not PCC members.
In Bolivarian Venezuela, the revolutionary process started by President Hugo Chavez in 1998 has seen the refining and improvement of the democratic electoral process in ways that have always gained full praise from independent and non-aligned international observers.
The process involves four separate stages -- municipal, gubernatorial, parliamentary and presidential – all held at national levels.
In the past 19 years, 23 national polls have been held, with 21 won by the ruling United Socialist Party of Venezuela – including the Oct. 15, 2017, governors election that gave it 18 of the 23 states contested.
The parliamentary opposition parties supported and funded by Washington and European political forces have yet again proven unable to attract the level of national electoral support necessary to make them local drivers of regime change.
But that reality is totally ignored as the Venezuelan electoral system – praised by former U.S. President Jimmy Carter as being the “best in the world” – is constantly described by the proverbial prophets of doom as being fraudulent.
The perennial critics have no problem shamelessly choosing what to expose and what to hide.
Where the apologists for external intervention can find reason to show that parties promoting the Western agenda can command support, they overnight become the favored horse backed by paid-for polls and funded through created channels.
But when – like in post-Soviet Russia – the West unashamedly boasts about success in influencing election results (like that of Boris Yeltsin), it’s presented as a welcome "open break" from the "closed past."
Trump’s election victory is still being sold as the result of massive Russian undermining of America’s electoral democracy – and in ways that not even the seven top U.S. spy agencies have been able to nail down, almost a year later.
Naturally, elections in countries outside the Western zone of electoral influence will continue to be treated as they have always been by successive generational apologists for the Westminster system, the acknowledged foundation of Western Europe’s electoral ideals.
RELATED:
Venezuela Foreign Minister Denounces Spain's Interference
But every case of voters in targeted countries choosing progress over regress is another reaffirmation that people, irrespective of the political system – once allowed to make their own choices – will always opt for the parties they see being best able to ensure them a better tomorrow.
The traditional mainstream Western media critics, in their haloed and hallowed microscopic analyses, often mistake trees for forests, leaves for branches and stems for roots.
But the luxury of guaranteed prosperity through a planned and clearly defined future, over time, without the possibility of change after every election, is another unrivaled incentive on offer in elections in socialist countries, void of the mythical Western claim that elected governments can only successfully function with the toughest political opposition.
China could not have achieved its current level of success without its level of advanced planning, which could not have been possible if governments and policies could have unpredictably changed every five years.
Nor could Cuba’s revolution have survived for 58 years if it was possible for its opponents to have formed and funded a local opposition party.
What Venezuela has shown, yet again, is that voters will still opt for socialist parties in multiparty systems where the opposition is also strong – again because they are better attracted by the principles and planned but flexible policies pursued by the PSUV since it was established by late President Hugo Chavez.
All in all, elections in socialist states are as home-grown as everywhere else, based on national characteristics shaped by historical experiences over time and executed in ways that will best preserve the democratic gains scored by voters each time they make their voluntary choices, always for a better future.
Newsletter
