Nobel Prizes

The Nobel Prize is one of the world's most prestigious awards. For a scientist it is certainly among the highest degrees of recognition there is. This is perhaps less true of writers, for which there are other equally prestigious awards. But even for writers, this is the award for which they are in competition with writers of all languages. The matter is perhaps different for peace activists. One does not work for peace with the aim (or hope) of winning this prize (the same is not true of scientists).
Universities brag about the number of Nobel laureates among their faculty in the brochures. Nations with large numbers of Nobel laureates gloat. Other nations rejoice when they have (finally) one of their members awarded or merely nominated, unless of course the nation is Burma and the awardee is Aung San Suu Kyi. This last example illustrates how while most of use recognize the remarkable intelligence and the successful activity of laureates (and nominees), this does not mean that governments take all the opinions of Nobels as just and right.
Yet we should take note, governments included, when several nobel laureates sign joint statements. Some recent examples:

• The Nobel Peace laureates Jimmy Carter, the Dalai Lama, Shirin Ebadi, John Hume, International Physicians For the Prevention of Nuclear War, José Ramos Horta, Desmond Tutu, Lech Walesa, and Jody William, signed a letter calling for worker's rights, the right to organize, form unions and collective barganing, and criticized nations like Colombia, Burma, China, Zimbabwe and ... the US for limiting these rights.
• The laureates José Saramago, Adolfo Pérez Esquivel, Rigoberta Mechú and Nadine Gordimer signed a declaration demanding the respect for the sovereignty of Venezuela.

Ocassionally, the acceptance speech is a enduring mark on history. This was certainly the case with Martin Luther King Jr.'s speech. Or, when Jean-Paul Satre refused the Nobel Prize for Literature. It is a moment when the awardee has the world stage and can speak his mind for all to hear.
This year the Nobel prize for Literature was awarded to the playwright Harold Pinter. Pinter is now 75, is suffering from cancer, and was recently hospitalized, so he was unable to travel to Stockholm. But he sent a 46 minute speech intitled Art, Truth and Politics (which one can see in its entirety over the web) in which, among other topics, he unsparingly accuses the US of "systematic, constant, vicious, remorseless" crimes, of exercising "a quite clinical manipulation of power worldwide while masquerading as a force for universal good". He does not spare his own country, the "bleating little lamb tagging behind [the US] on a lead, the pathetic and supine Great Britain".
I bow to your courage, Mr. Pinter, to speak up in your moment of pain, to be unafraid of the scorn from those that believe such cermonies should be unpolitical, to speak your mind before the world and plead for peace for humankind. That is the certainly the mark of one worthy of recognition.

Venezuelan elections

Last weekend, there were elections in Venezuela for the National Assembly. Five parties that opposed President Hugo Chávez boycotted the elections and withdrew for the ballot, arguing lack of trust in the electoral process and in the independence of the electoral authority. The chief of the European Union mission, Jose Albino Silva, said observers were "surprised" when the opposition parties withdrew, as their main complaint was addressed and the provided no new reasons for their withdrawl. He added, audits showed vote results and voting machines were "clearly reliable".

Abstention rates were however quite high (~75%). Opposition parties argue this demonstrates a strong opposition to Chávez. But this type of argument is pure rhetoric. They did not provide an option for voters wanting to oppose Chávez, and cannot now legitimately claim the 'silent majority' vote. Press worldwide made this the most important result of the election, and thus assumed their role in backing the Chávez opposition.

However, abstention is a complex factor. While it certainly is an indicator of a lack of commitment to the electoral process, it can hardly be automatically translated into any one single political viewpoint.

One should also place this level of abstention in Venezuela into context, particularly as to what it might mean regarding support for Chávez.

• Recall referedum of 15th Aug, 2004, an abstention rate of ~30,08%
• Local elections in Dec/2000, an abstention rate of ~77%
• Elections that same year, in July, for the National Assembly, Governors and the President, had an absention level if ~44%. Chávez won the presidential elections with
  
• Referendum of 16 December 1999, abstention rate of 55,6%
• Elections for the Constitutional Assembly, abstention rate of 53,8%
  
• Referendum of 25 of Abril 1998, abstention rate of 62%
• Presidential elections 6/Dec 1998, abstention rate of 36,6%
• Local elections in 1995, abstention rate of ~54%
• Presidential and Congressional elections in 1993, abstention rate of 39%
• Local elections in 1992, abstention rate of 50,7%

Data from the Nacional Electoral Commission (CNE) of Venezuela

One can clearly see from these data that abstention rates vary, but tend to be high. Rates were lowest when there were presidential elections, which is not surprising for a presidential system, where the president is the head of government. It also reinforces Chávez legitimacy as president, so often undermined by the opposition and media. He was elected with 56,20% in the 1993 elections, and 59,75% in the 2000 elections (see CNE data), a clear majority the George W. Bush never achieved. His slim majority in 2004 did not however keep him from claiming a political mandate. Likewise, the referendum in 1999 represented resounding victory of Chávez's political program, with 87,75% voting for the new constitution. The recall referendum of 2004, the most recent challenge to Chávez's legitimacy, proved a confortable defeat of his recall (59% against), with low abstention (30%).

One need recognize that voter also affects western, first-world, democracies. In the 2004 elections for the European Parliment, the EU average abstention rate was 54.5%, reaching rates of participation as low as 16.96% (in Slovakia) or 20.87% in Poland. These are not just values of recent members. In 1999, the UK only 24% of voters participated in the EP elections.

Voter turnout in the US is hardly remarkable either. Since 1972, it has fluctuated around 55%, as a percent of eligible voters (it is lower if one uses Voter Age Population - VAP), although there was a marked turnout increase in the 2004 elections (61%). But it was merely 39,3% in the 1998 midterm elections.

Thus, while it is a matter of concern that abstention rates were high in these last elections it can hardly be concluded that this represents any large opposition to Chávez. Rather it is part of a larger problem, dealt with in many democracies, with the electoral ballot system. One for which there is no single solution, and there is not single cause.

Employee Free Choice Act

Only 12.5% of private-sector employees belong to a union, yet over 59% claim they would belong to a union if they could choose freely. Who can blame them? Union workers gain higher wages and have better benefits. Yet forming a union in the US is filled with obstacles. If emplyers catch whiff that workers plan to form a union they can demand a secret ballot election held by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The NLRB establishes a 60-day period before the elections giving employers ample time to "bring in the troops", the union-busting firms that are specialists in campaigning against union drives and using legal tricks to postpone the actual vote. These firms organize large scale anti-union campaigns, including sending letters to worker's homes, organizing mandatory closed-door meetings against the unions. Many employers also hold one-on-one mandatory meetings with supervisors to pressure workers to vote against the union, threatening to close the workplace if the union wins the election. Most often, workers trying to organize have far fewer resources to oppose the power advantage of employers. One forth of employers illegally fire at least one worker for union activity during union drives. The NLRB is toothless against such violations by employers. The original National Labor Relations Act made it illegal to fire union workers, but one of its ammendments, the Wagner Act of 1935, allows employers to hire "permanent replacements".
On Dec. 10th, Human Rights Day, workers around the US will fight for the approval of the Employee Free Choice Act that among other things will allow workers to form a union by simply collecting card approvals from the majority of workers, by-passing the NLRB-process. One of the articles of the Universal Human Rights Charter is the right to form unions and to collective bargaining. A human right should not be a struggle. Workers should be able to organize freely. Let employers then learn to satisfy their demands. The US cannot compete with other low-wage countries, like China or India, by offering their workers low-wage, no-benefits jobs. Thats not how it will be able to keep factories and jobs from going abroad.
Check out the AFL-CIO website and American Rights at Work.