Alguem ai é contra a Amazon, e seu Kindle Fire?

Amazon

The Walmart of the web

The internet giant’s new tablet computer fits its strategy of developing big businesses by charging small prices

Oct 1st 2011 | SAN FRANCISCO | from the print edition

A COUPLE of years after it launched its website in 1995, Amazon was the subject of an unflattering report entitled “Amazon.Toast”. The pundit who penned it predicted that the fledgling online bookseller would soon be crushed by Barnes & Noble (B&N), a book-retailing behemoth which had just launched its own site.

Far from being crushed, Amazon is doing the crushing. Borders, a once-mighty book chain, was flattened this year. B&N looks like a frightened capybara running from a fierce Brazilian she-warrior. Amazon is now one of the web’s most successful e-tailers. Even Apple is feeling the heat.

In this section

• »The Walmart of the web
• Flight to the future
• The glossy posse
• Big business
• Sipping from the fire hose
• Keep on walking
• Now you own it, now you don’t
• The trouble with superheroes

Reprints

---

Related topics

• Technology
• Tablet computers
• Science and technology
• Personal computers
• Computer technology

On September 28th Jeff Bezos, Amazon’s boss, unveiled a tablet computer called the Kindle Fire. It will compete with gadgets such as B&N’s Nook Color tablet and Apple’s iPad. The new Amazon tablet, which has a somewhat smaller screen than the iPad and only offers Wi-Fi connectivity, is likely to be just the first salvo in a titanic battle.

Like Apple, Amazon boasts a huge collection of online content, including e-books, films and music. And like Apple, it lets people store their content in a computing “cloud” and retrieve it from almost anywhere. But the two firms part company when it comes to pricing. The Kindle Fire, which will be available from mid-November in America, will cost only $199. That is far less than the cheapest iPad, a Wi-Fi-only device which costs $499. B&N responded to the Kindle Fire by cutting the price of its Nook Color to $224. This week Amazon also rolled out a new range of Kindle e-readers, the cheapest of which costs just $79. “We are building premium products and offering them at non-premium prices,” beamed Mr Bezos.

Amazon’s decision to undercut its rivals is partly a tactic designed to disrupt the tablet market, which is still dominated by the iPad. Gartner, a research firm, reckons that Apple’s device will account for almost three-quarters of the 64m tablets it thinks will be sold worldwide this year. Amazon’s pricing strategy also reflects one of the firm’s core beliefs, which is that cheap stuff makes customers cheerful. Call it the Walmart of the web.

Low prices are not the only thing underpinning Amazon’s success. The company is technologically adept, and it has a knack of delighting customers with innovations such as its $79-a-year “Amazon Prime” shopping service in America, which offers members free, two-day shipping and other benefits. Such goodies have been crucial to its growth. But its ability to drive down the prices of everything from cameras to cloud computing gives it a colossal competitive advantage.

A recent study by William Blair, an investment bank, underlines the price gap between Amazon and its rivals in the retailing world (see table). The report compared the prices of 100 randomly selected goods at each of 24 American retailers with those items that were also available on Amazon.com. It found that almost half of the goods were listed on the online retailer’s site too, and that Amazon’s prices for individual products were on average 11% below those of the stores. The study also noted that Amazon’s discounts were in many cases deeper than those offered by the retailers’ own websites.

Admittedly, as an online outfit Amazon does not pay sales tax in American states where it has no physical presence. Many cash-strapped states are now keen to pass laws that would change this—a move Amazon is loudly and unsurprisingly opposing. But the William Blair study concludes that even if it has to cough up more tax, Amazon will still be able to offer prices that are lower than many rivals’. The firm’s huge scale and its massively popular website, which it will use to promote the Kindle Fire, give it an edge. And it enjoys another advantage too. “Amazon does not have to worry about the impact of its pricing on a legacy store system,” explains Kirthi Kalyanam, a professor at Santa Clara University’s Retail Management Institute.

Amazon Web Services (AWS), which rents computing capacity in its giant data centres to customers, has also won a reputation for being cheap. Comparing cloud-computing prices is tricky, but observers of the market report that AWS is typically one of the lowest-cost providers. “Amazon operates with economies of scale that are practically impossible to match,” says Reuven Cohen of Enomaly, which runs SpotCloud, an online marketplace where firms sell excess cloud-computing capacity.

The cloud is crucial to the success of Amazon’s gadget strategy. Most analysts think that the firm loses money on the hardware that it sells. But it hopes that its cheap tablet will be wildly popular and therefore boost sales of Amazon’s cloud-based content, just as the Kindle e-reader boosted sales of e-books. It’s like free parking outside Walmart—you want potential customers to see what’s in the window.

The good news for Amazon is that tablet users seem more inclined to splash out on stuff than web shoppers who use PCs, according to Forrester, another research firm. One possible explanation for this is that tablet buyers tend to be richer; another is that the immersive experience tablets create encourages more impulse buying.

Whatever the reason, Amazon will have to hope that its gambit works, because its business model has at least one worrying downside. Its profit margin is a page-thin 3-4%, partly because it has invested so heavily in the cloud. Now it is going head-to-head with Apple, which made a juicy $7.3 billion net profit on revenues of $28.6 billion in the latest quarter. Apple may not want to provoke a price war in the tablet market, where it sees plenty of growth to come. But if it does return fire, Amazon could get its fingers toasted.

Politica brasileira: um retrato do Brasil de ontem, de hoje, de sempre...

O Brasil de hoje é o Maranhão de 1966

José Nêumanne, jornalista, escritor, é editorialista do 'Jornal da Tarde' 

O Estado de S.Paulo, 28/09/2011

Nesta semana, este Estadão ainda não se livrou da censura imposta pelo Judiciário às notícias a respeito da Operação Boi Barrica, na qual a Polícia Federal (PF) investigou negócios suspeitos da família Sarney. Esta também foi aliviada com a notícia de que o Superior Tribunal de Justiça (STJ) invalidou as provas que a referida autoridade policial levantou na dita investigação. O YouTube revelou a cinéfilos e interessados em política um curta-metragem de propaganda feito pelo baiano Glauber Rocha, ícone do Cinema Novo e da sétima arte no Brasil, por encomenda do então jovem governador do Maranhão, registrando o início de uma carreira política que, contrariando as previsões mais otimistas, o levou à Presidência da República. E a um poder, na presidência do Senado, que ora lhe permite substituir no Ministério do Turismo um indicado, Pedro Novais, afastado por suspeita de corrupção e evidências de má gestão, por outro, Gastão Vieira, cuja única virtude notória é a de ser mais um ilustre desconhecido e leigo nos assuntos da pasta a assumi-la.

O filme de Glauber Rocha, Maranhão 66, suscitou um debate inócuo em torno das intenções e dos verdadeiros interesses do cineasta e da notória sagacidade do político profissional que patrocinou um comercial da própria posse e terminou por financiar um documentário vivo e cru da dura realidade do País e de seu Estado miserável. Questionou-se se o cineasta foi leal a seu patrocinador ou se se aproveitou do patrocínio dele para, com imagens chocantes, denunciar o abismo existente entre o discurso barroco do empossado e a revoltante miséria de seu eleitorado. Também foram levantadas dúvidas sobre o papel do protagonista do filme no relativo ostracismo em que a obra mergulhou, não merecendo a fortuna crítica que obras como Deus e o Diabo na Terra do Sol e Terra em Transe viriam a ter. Glauber foi um militante de esquerda, mas aderiu à ditadura em seus estertores quando voltou ao Brasil, chegando a chamar o ideólogo da intervenção militar contra a pretensa República sindicalista, general Golbery do Couto e Silva, de "gênio da raça". O Sarney por ele filmado era da "Bossa Nova" da UDN, com tinturas pink, mas aderiu ao regime autoritário e, depois, se afastou dele para entrar na chapa que lhe pôs fim no colégio eleitoral.

Personagem e autor podem, assim, alinhar-se na galeria das "metamorfoses ambulantes" em que Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva se introduziu, inspirando-se em Raul Seixas, para justificar na prática sua adesão ao lema de Assis Chateaubriand, segundo o qual "a coerência é a virtude dos imbecis". Mas, com todo o respeito às boas intenções de quem entrou no debate, não é a incoerência do material do curta-metragem que interessa, e sim exatamente o contrário: a permanência das práticas denunciadas com a imagética bruta da fita sob a gestão do orador inflamado e empolado, que as usava para detratar seus antecessores, dos quais assumiu os mesmos vícios ao tomar-lhes o lugar nos braços do povo que, "bestializado", na definição de José Murilo de Carvalho, o ouvia e aclamava.

O autor deste texto é glauberiano de carteirinha: presidi o Cine Clube Glauber Rocha em Campina Grande um ano depois de o curta ter sido produzido, mas nunca me interessei por ele. Graças ao mesmo YouTube que trouxe de volta obras-primas perdidas da música para cinema no Brasil, como as trilhas de Sérgio Ricardo para Deus e o Diabo na Terra do Sol e de Geraldo Vandré para A Hora e a Vez de Augusto Matraga, Maranhão 66 emergiu. E despertou o debate errado: não importa se Glauber exaltou ou execrou Sarney nem se este foi elogiado ou ludibriado pelo cineasta contratado. Interessa é perceber a genialidade da peça cinematográfica no que ela tem de mais poderoso: a constatação de que a cena de um homem fazendo um penico de prato antecede outra em que urubus sobrevoam um lixão, ao som da retórica barroca e vazia de um demagogo, retratando o Maranhão daquela época e, sem tirar nem pôr, o Brasil de agora.

Sarney, que preside o Senado e o Congresso e põe no Ministério do Turismo de Dilma Rousseff quem lhe apraz, é o símbolo vivo do Brasil em que, no poder, o PT da presidente, associado ao saco de gatos do PMDB do senador pelo Amapá, mantém incólume "tudo isso que está aí" e que Lula prometeu a seus devotos exterminar. O problema do filme feito para exaltar a esperança no jovem político que assumiu o poder prometendo mudar tudo não é ter seu diretor traído, ou não, o acordo feito com o financiador ao expor as mazelas que ele garantiu que acabaria e não acabou. A tragédia é que nada mudou.

E não é o caso só de Sarney. A vassoura com que Jânio Quadros varreria o Brasil terminou sendo posta atrás da porta do Palácio do Planalto para expulsá-lo do poder. O caçador de marajás Fernando Collor foi defenestrado sob a acusação de ter executado com desenvoltura as práticas daninhas que usou como chamarizes para atrair eleitores incautos e, depois do período sabático fora do poder, voltou ao Congresso para bajular os novos guardiães dos cofres da viúva. E estes também desempenharam com idêntico cinismo o papel de restauradores da moralidade que engrossaram o caldo sujo da malversação do erário, primeiro, sob Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva e, depois, sob Dilma Rousseff, cuja meia faxina em nada fica devendo aos arroubos de falso moralismo de antanho.

Desde sempre, vem sendo cumprida a verdadeira missão dos políticos no poder no Brasil sob qualquer regime e com qualquer bandeira partidária: "O Estado brasileiro usa as leis para manter os maus costumes", definiu, magistralmente, o antropólogo Roberto DaMatta na entrevista das páginas amarelas da Veja desta semana. Foi por isso que aqui se inverteu o aforismo de Heráclito de Éfeso: o rio em que nos banhamos tem sido emporcalhado a jusante por quem promete limpar a água - Sarney, Jânio, Collor, Lula, Dilma, etc.

China dependencia: uma analise do Citi

Emerging Markets Macro and Strategy Outlook: Is China all that's left?

David Lubin, Johanna Chua, Joaquin Cottani

Citi, September 29, 2011

• ‘China-dependence’ is no new phenomenon in the global economy, but its importance has been reinforced in the past few months. Back in March, Citi expected 24% of global GDP growth to be generated by China in both 2011 and 2012. Our forecasts now show this contribution rising to 28% this year, and to 30% next year.
  
• China, in turn, has become increasingly reliant on investment spending to deliver GDP growth, which reflects the way in which the exceptionally large credit stimulus was implemented after the Lehman crisis. This has caused an upward shift in China’s share of global commodities consumption.
  
• The credit stimulus remains substantial, and appears to create something of a virtuous circle: since credit extension remains high, so does investment spending; and since investment spending remains high, so does GDP growth; and since GDP growth remains high, asset quality in the financial sector remains healthy-looking. Yet the recent decline in the marginal efficiency of investment spending raises some questions about how easily this virtuous circle can be sustained.
  
• On the face of it, China seems less vulnerable to an external shock than it was pre-Lehman, since net exports are making a much smaller contribution to GDP growth than they used to — another consequence of the credit stimulus. Yet China’s vulnerability to global slowdown shouldn’t be underestimated: total exports account for more than a quarter of GDP and the export sector employs a big army of labor.
  
• China has plenty of room to deliver new stimulus measures, both fiscal and monetary. But the efficiency of additional credit stimulus may be weaker than it was post-Lehman; and it might take a shock to asset prices in order for the Chinese authorities to put stimulus measures in place.
• In view of these risks, we put together a very simple framework to help investors think about what economic contagion risks might result from a sharp China slowdown. But this is tentative. Absence of the Chinese engine for global GDP growth would contain very broad risks.

Palestina - Los BRICS y América Latina se equivocan: Jorge Castaneda

Los BRICS y América Latina se equivocan
Jorge Castaneda
InfoLatam, 29/09/2011


En la votación celebrada en las Naciones Unidas hace 64 años sobre lo que se conoció como la partición, a raíz de la cual se creó el Estado de Israel, y posteriormente se le otorgó la condición de miembro de pleno derecho, varios países latinoamericanos –Brasil, El Salvador, Argentina, Colombia, Chile y Honduras- se abstuvieron o, en el caso de Cuba, votaron en contra de las resoluciones pertinentes. En el tema de la partición México se abstuvo, pero votó a favor de admitir a Israel en las Naciones Unidas unos meses después, y más tarde reconoció al Estado judío, pues comprendió que no tomar ninguna postura en el embrollo de Medio Oriente servía más a su interés nacional.
En las siguientes semanas la mayoría de los países latinoamericanos votarán a favor de alguna forma de membresía en las Naciones Unidas o reconocimiento como Estado que la Autoridad Palestina está solicitando. Sin embargo, algunos países no lo harán. No es un asunto sencillo para Brasil y Colombia, los dos países latinoamericanos que son miembros no permanentes del Consejo de Seguridad, ni para Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Costa Rica, Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Ecuador, Perú, Uruguay y Honduras, que ya reconocieron a Palestina, pero aún no han votado para darle la condición de “observador” en las Naciones Unidas.
Para ser miembro de pleno derecho de las Naciones Unidas, el Consejo de Seguridad debe hacer una recomendación a la Asamblea General; pero igualar la categoría de la Autoridad Nacional Palestina a la del Vaticano –que en teoría le permitiría participar en muchos organismos de las Naciones Unidas, incluida la Corte Penal Internacional – requiere solamente dos tercios de los votos de la Asamblea General. En cualquier caso, las consecuencias políticas relegan a segundo plano los asuntos legales o burocráticos. Obligar a los Estados Unidos a usar su veto en el Consejo de Seguridad u obtener el apoyo de más de 150 de los 193 Estados miembros de las Naciones Unidas en la Asamblea General sería una gran derrota para Israel y los Estados Unidos, por lo que el voto latinoamericano es importante.

Brasil ha señalado que tiene la intención de votar en el Consejo de Seguridad a favor de recomendar la admisión de Palestina a la Asamblea General; Colombia ha dicho que planea abstenerse. La mayoría de los otros países latinoamericanos votarán probablemente a favor de alguna forma de estatus ampliado de la Autoridad Nacional Palestina.
La comunidad judía de los Estados Unidos, y en menor medida la administración del Presidente Barack Obama, han intentado convencer a Chile y a México, que aún no han dado a conocer su postura, que de nada serviría aislar a Israel (o, para ese caso, a los Estados Unidos) en este asunto. En efecto, el que la Autoridad Nacional Palestina fuera un Estado de pleno derecho no cambiaría nada en la práctica si Israel y los Estados Unidos no lo aceptan –y México y Chile podrían perder mucho al distanciarse de un aliado en un asunto de gran importancia para él.
En resumen, como hace más de medio siglo, la región no se ha expresado con una sola voz en estos asuntos cruciales. Ahora como entonces, la mayoría de los países de América Latina no han tomado una posición de principio –a favor o en contra de Israel o de los palestinos. En cambio, han seguido un camino de conveniencia en función de la influencia y fuerza relativa de sus comunidades judías o árabes, y de la insistencia de Washington o del llamado bloque ALBA, compuesto por Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Bolivia y Paraguay.
La falta de convicción de los latinoamericanos en asuntos tan serios como ese –a excepción de los países del ALBA, que tienen ideales equivocados, pero al menos creen en ellos casi religiosamente- ha marginalizado a la región en otros asuntos internacionales importantes, como la reciente crisis en Libia, y la que se desarrolla en Siria. En cuanto a la resolución de las Naciones Unidas que establece una zona de exclusión aérea y la protección de civiles en Libia, Brasil, junto con los otros tres “BRICS” (y aspirantes a potencias mundiales) –Rusia, India y China- se abstuvieron. El cuarto, Sudáfrica, aceptó pero a regañadientes.Y ahora, en lo que se refiere al intento estadounidense y europeo de imponer sanciones aprobadas por las Naciones Unidas al Presidente de Siria, Bashar al-Assad, los BRICS han ido de mal en peor. Primero, enviaron una misión de tres países (Brasil, India y Sudáfrica) a Damasco para “persuadir” a Assad de que no mate a su pueblo. Huelga decir que no les contestó que, en efecto, había asesinado unos cuantos miles, pero que ahora que lo mencionaban trataría de tener más cuidado.
Hicieron declaración tras declaración argumentando que Siria no era Libia y que no permitirían otra intervención occidental para cambiar el régimen en otro país árabe sólo porque su pueblo parecía molesto con el dictador local. Un alto funcionario de una ONG de derechos humanos dijo que: “Están castigando al pueblo sirio porque no les agradó que la OTAN transformara el mandato de protección a los civiles en Libia en uno para cambiar al régimen.”
Dada su creciente participación en la economía global, es comprensible que los países latinoamericanos más grandes, junto con los demás BRICS, estén buscando un papel mundial de mayor influencia. Esta no es la forma de lograrlo.

Estudantes que nao estudam? Ou nao pesquisam? A universidade virou uma colonia de ferias?

Recebi a demanda seguinte de um estudante, esta tarde: 

Olá Paulo Roberto de Almeida,

sou Pxxxx Bxxxxx, aluno de jornalismo da Uxx. Gostaria de saber se você poderia responder um questionário sobre o Wikileaks, pois preciso fazer uma matéria sobre o tema. (...)

Atenciosamente,

Pxxxx Bxxxxx

Eis o questionário:

 1- De modo bem claro, gostaria de saber como, quando e porque surgiu o Wikileaks?

 2- Quem é o fundador do site. Qual a sua principal proposta quando o fundou?

 3- Quais foram os principais problemas, casos, gerados pelas publicações do Wikileaks, entre Estados nacionais?

 4-O Wilkileaks é a materialização da influência dos meios de comunicação sobre os Estados, governos nacionais? Essa influência é vista de modo claro por meio da ação deste site?

 5- Alguns autores, como Sérgio Amadeu da Silveira, teórico da UFBA, ponderam a influência do Wikileaks sobre os governos e o poder dos atuais meios de comunicação sobre os governos, pois acredita que o fenômeno Wiki jamais modificou alguma posição diplomática e governamental de algum governo em relação aos demais. Gostaria que você, por gentiliza, comentasse tal afirmação.

Minha resposta: 

Meu caro Pxxxx Bxxxxx,

Vi o questionario, e constatei que se trata de um questionario generico, de perguntas absolutamente corriqueiras sobre o Wikileaks, que qualquer estudante de jornalismo, ou qualquer jornalista poderia responder, bastando pesquisar o assunto.

Se voce espera que eu vá fazer esse trabalho para você, está muito enganado.

Basta você pesquisar e terá todas as respostas de que precisa, sem pedir que outros façam aquilo que você mesmo precisa e deve fazer.

Esta deveria ser a sua primeira, e única, na verdade, lição de jornalismo.

A única pergunta "pessoal" que você me faz é um pedido de comentário sobre uma afirmação de um outro acadêmico, o que eu poderia, a rigor, fazer, mas acho a pergunta, e o posicionamento, do acadêmico em questão totalmente subjetivos.

Posso até dizer que concordo com ele, mas isso acho que não adianta muito.

Se você quer fazer jornalismo, vá pesquisar, e encontre suas próprias respostas, sem ter de pedir aos outros que façam o seu trabalho.

Meu comentário agora: 

Eu sinceramente não compreendo o que estudantes universitários estão fazendo de seus cursos, atualmente.

O primeiro recurso em face de um trabalho qualquer é ir para o Google. Aí o indivíduo acha alguém que escreveu sobre o tema em questão -- no meu caso, dois ou três trabalhos para o Wikileaks -- e o "gênio" resolve pedir uma "ajudinha" para esse alguém, achando que todo mundo tem a obrigação de ajudar um pobre estudante preguiçoso.

Vou interromper meu comentário por aqui, pois acho que o estudante em questão não merece que eu perca mais o tempo.

Aliás, só postei o que vai acima para dissuadir outros engraçadinhos...

Paulo Roberto de Almeida

Cancer participativo (com perdao dos casos reais, e familiares), a mais nova invencao do Lider Supremo

Participatory Cancer in Venezuela

Javier Corrales

Professor - Department of Political Science, Amherst College

The Center for Hemispheric Policy, September 29, 2011

Hugo Chávez, Venezuela’s president, has cancer.   His survival in office—and in life—is now in question.  The third-longest-serving, democratically-elected president in the Americas might not make it alive—politically or otherwise—to the presidential elections scheduled for October 2012.   There is a lot of talk about Chávez’s cancer in Caracas and Washington, and even hope for a transition to a new post-Chávez era, but not enough discussion of the risks associated with an ailing president.

Initially, the government tried to hide the president’s illness.  He hid in Cuba to receive his first treatments.  For a few weeks, ministers openly denied that the president was even sick, let alone hiding.  But since July, cancer is all that Chávez wants to talk (or tweet) about.  The few times that Chávez makes a public appearance nowadays, he won’t fail to mention that he is beating this disease, getting better by the minute and undergoing a born-again experience.  Oddly for a regime with Marxist leanings, the government now organizes collective prayer sessions throughout the country and abroad.  From Havana last week, where Chávez was receiving his reportedly fourth chemotherapy session, Chávez called The Riverside Church near Harlem, New York, to thank parishioners for their prayers. 

In the early years of the Chávez administration, the government talked incessantly about “participatory democracy,” the idea that a more inclusive form of democracy was being born.  Now, all the talk is about the president’s cancer.   Welcome to participatory cancer, the latest twist in the regime that Chávez is trying to implant in Venezuela. 

As with participatory democracy back in the early 2000s, the term “participatory cancer” as a moniker for the current regime in Venezuela is probably a misnomer.  Just as very few ordinary citizens actually got to participate in decision-making during the heyday of participatory democracy, an even more reduced number of Venezuelans knows anything, let alone participates in decisions about how to deal with the president’s cancer.  Not even his ministers seem to know for sure about Chávez’s health status. 

Nevertheless, also like participatory democracy six years ago, participatory cancer seems to be playing a political role.  All the talk about participatory democracy was intended to expand Chávez’s coalition beyond an initial radical-military faction into a mass movement, and perhaps hide how the president, more than any other actor, was slowly monopolizing  the political system.  Likewise, all this talk about cancer seems intended to attract votes, at least of the sympathy variety, and perhaps distract attention from serious problems in governance. 

As an electoral trick, participatory democracy worked, garnering the government enormous electoral victories until 2006.  Participatory cancer, in contrast, is not working.

It is obvious that the government is betting that all this talk about cancer and revival—with collective prayers and other tactics—will perform the expected miracle.  Yet, all polls suggest that cancer is not improving the popularity of the president, which has been stuck at around 50 percent for the past several years.  If anything, polls suggest that swing voters seem unlikely to vote for an ailing president, let alone a deceitful one, who claims to be getting better but is actually looking worse.  With the economy in shambles and the president sick, things do not look good for the government as it approaches the October 2012 presidential elections. 

Participatory cancer might not be having a positive impact on the government’s electoral prospects, but it is nonetheless having an impact within the president’s party, the Partido Socialista Unido de Venezuela (PSUV).  A party that not too long ago was famous for its obsequiousness and “yes, commander” mentality is now experiencing an earthquake.  Before cancer, nobody would dare question the president.  During cancer, the top party leadership (and military command) is thinking of succession, or at a minimum, on how to fill the power vacuum that exists. 

Disarray and internal competition for succession within the party is predictable in any “cancerocracy.”  The moment party leaders began to contemplate that Chávez might not be around too much or too long, or be strong enough to run a political campaign, instinctive forces were unleashed within the party leadership to decide which of the orbiting planets would take the place of the Sun King. 

The danger is not so much that the PSUV is thinking about succession while the president is thinking of re-election.  The danger is rather that party leaders might start thinking of cheating their way through the elections.  As the party recognizes that no chavista other than a healthy Chávez himself is electorally competitive, the party will enter a state of electoral panic.  Since 2004, party leadership has been fully convinced that it can win elections.  Now, it is not so sure.  All it can think about is how not to lose. 

One formula to avoid defeat was already provided by Adán Chávez, the president’s brother, who said it might be necessary to defend the revolution with arms.  Another formula would be to encourage the opposition to run divided, something that all major opposition candidates have agreed to avoid.  Another formula would be to resort to dirty tricks heading toward the elections.

There are already signs of future troubles.  Harassment of journalists is increasing.  Despite orders from an international court, the government continues to refuse to allow a well-liked opponent, Leopoldo López, to run for political office.  The electoral calendar has already been changed to shorten the duration of the campaign, and to decouple presidential elections from regional elections. Furthermore, the government seems disinclined to invite international observers for the election, has moved dollar reserves into Caracas, where they are safer in case of international sanctions, and has given job promotions to individuals who have talked about “not recognizing” a  victory by the opposition. 

If the government, out of panic, intensifies electoral cheating, one additional scenario automatically becomes probable:  Venezuela could succumb to an electoral crisis of the sort that we have seen elsewhere in the Color Revolutions that have undermined semi-autocracies in Georgia (2003), Ukraine (2004), Kyrgyzstan (2005) and Egypt (2010-11), and in the repressions that occurred in Belarus (2005), Iran (2009) and Bahrain (2011).  Electoral irregularities will most certainly scandalize the already-galvanized opposition.  In the event of a disputed election, a showdown between government and opponents could break out.  Participatory cancer will give way to participatory turmoil.  

An electoral crisis next year might end up catching the United States by surprise.  Whether we like the policy or not, the United States does have a policy to deal with Venezuela’s anti-American foreign policy—talk softly, sanction government officials softly and stay on the alert.  But the United States does not have a policy to deal with an electoral crisis in a regime that is looking to have a confrontation with the United States. 

In such a crisis, the United States could end up easily in a lose-lose situation:  if it tries to encourage protesters to calm down, the United States will be seen as betraying democracy.  If instead the United States encourages the government to play clean, it will be accused of harassing a popular government. 

It is time to think about the possibility of an electoral crisis in Venezuela.  We have a bit of time--a year--to be exact.  At the moment, conditions are aligning in the right direction for a perfect storm:  the opposition is moving toward unity and the ruling party toward disunity. 

The good news is that participatory cancer as a political regime-type tends not to last long.  Either the cancer goes away, or the patient goes away.  The problem is there is no certainty that this disappearing act will occur soon enough to save Venezuela from dangerous times.   

Javier Corrales is professor of political science at Amherst College in Amherst, Massachusetts.  He has been a Fulbright scholar in Caracas, Venezuela, as well as a fellow at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, D.C.  Dr. Corrales has also taught in Amsterdam, Washington, D.C., Caracas and Bogotá, and has worked as a consultant for several organizations, including the World Bank and the United Nations. His research has been published in numerous academic journals and he is the co-author of Dragon in the Tropics: Hugo Chávez and the Political Economy of Revolution in Venezuela (Brookings Institution Press, 2011), co-editor of The Politics of Sexuality in Latin America (University of Pittsburgh Press 2010), and author of Presidents without Parties: the Politics of Economic Reform in Argentina and Venezuela in the 1990s (Penn State University Press 2002).