The Bolivarian Revolution just got interesting
May 8, 2006 10:26 AM   Subscribe

Newsfilter: Chavez announces he may call a referendum asking voters to allow him to rule without further elections until 2031, well past the 2012 limit currently imposed by the Venezuelan constitution. Bluff? Naked power grab? Fatal mistake? Either way, watch what you say about it if you're in Caracas.
posted by loquax (248 comments total)
 
What? No "batshitinsane" tag?
posted by ZenMasterThis at 10:29 AM on May 8, 2006


He put that, he just spelt it the old way: "democracy".
posted by tiamat at 10:29 AM on May 8, 2006


I have been ambivilent about Chavez, but this would be the last straw for me.
posted by empath at 10:31 AM on May 8, 2006


You think this is scary? Imagine misreading the FPP the same way I did, and thinking it was talking about Cheney!
posted by Faint of Butt at 10:32 AM on May 8, 2006


Yes, but ... but ... he stands up to Bush! And he's a benevolent dictator! He only kills the rich people!
posted by pardonyou? at 10:33 AM on May 8, 2006


With talk like this he's just building the coffin the U.S. will happily bury him in.
posted by MasonDixon at 10:33 AM on May 8, 2006


I'm actually a little surprised this hasn't gotten more attention. Nothing (that I could find) on BBC.com, IHT.com, etc. Only about 15-20 hits on Google news. Pretty much only that AP report and independent commentary. Not to worry though, FOX news was all over it.
posted by loquax at 10:34 AM on May 8, 2006


Um, he's not actually a Dictator. Yet.

Looks like he might be one very soon though...
posted by Artw at 10:35 AM on May 8, 2006


Chavez has spent too much time trying to become the next Castro. Hopefully his people will not let him take that country down a similar path. It is a disgrace that he gets as much support from Americans as he does from people who rely on the anti-intellectual and facile rhetoric of "I support him because he opposes Bush." He really is a bad apple and should be discounted as such.
posted by dios at 10:37 AM on May 8, 2006


Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez on Saturday said he might call a referendum on remaining in office until 2031 if opposition parties boycott presidential elections in December. Chavez, heavily favoured for re-election in opinion polls, said he would call such a referendum by decree if opposition groups “accuse us of cheating, fail to acknowledge our victory, or pull out” before the election. Venezuela’s current constitution, approved in 1999, allows a president to be re-elected only once. But that rule can be changed by referendum.

Hmm... so it's IF opposition parties boycott the election. Also it's uncelar if there would be elections between now and 2031,which would make it an extention of term limits.
posted by Artw at 10:41 AM on May 8, 2006


A good article on Chavez from the Observer.

People like to bitch Chavez out for being a dictator in training, but as far as I can tell he is still the democratically elected leader of the county, and still has popular support -- by a good margin. So far he's done a good job at helping the poor in his country. He's bought up debt from other South American countries. I'd say he's a good force for South America.

Also, as far as I can tell, it's the US friendly parties in the country that like to play undemocratic games.
posted by chunking express at 10:44 AM on May 8, 2006


Chavez doubles tax for oil firms.

Which is a bit like saying "Chavez demands CIA hit squas, a US backed right wing coupe and/or an invasion by a coalistion of the willing". No wonder we're hearing odd slightly distorted stories about him declaring himself el Presidente for life on Fox...
posted by Artw at 10:44 AM on May 8, 2006


Chavez said Friday that he said he might seek "indefinite" re-election through a referendum if the opposition boycotts the presidential vote.

Putting aside the article's poor writing, the Globe and Mail offers traditionally right-wing reportage, whose ownership would, in all likelihood, benefit from presenting and amplifying anti-Venezuela propaganda at any opportunity.

The larger irony is whether "traditional democracies" like those in Canada or the United States can allow other people like, say, Palestinians, Iraqis, or even Venezuelans the right to choose their own leadership, instead of a puppet state installed by developed countries.

If this article is true, which is questionable, at least these voters are choosing their form of government.

If rewriting a country's Constitution is not okay in Venezuela, why should it be okay in, for example, the United States, with leadership that ignores many civil liberties and equal protection clauses, where protestors are labeled as "hecklers" by the MSM, or worse, become targets of illegal investigations by the federal government?

Further, with complaints about South American dictatorships, it should be noted that stockholders in the United States and Canada have benefitted for more than a century from autocratic rule in this continent. It seems ironic that leadership in North America is complaining now. Perhaps it's just a question of which dictator is in place at any given time, or how much tribute they expect in exchange for their country's natural resources.

As always, it pays to consider the source of the complaint.
posted by Mr. Six at 10:46 AM on May 8, 2006


Remember this is still a democracy and if Chavez wins an election which he gets to be President for eternity, its what the people want. The problem with democracy is that it has the rope to hang itself with. I know some people have read Fukuyama's writings, but democracy alone will not save anyone. Bush, Hitler, and Chavez are all in the same boat, but it still goes back to "the people."
posted by j-urb at 10:48 AM on May 8, 2006


To save time, I'll just post my comments from another thread where I (and others) predicted this is exactly what would happen: description, historical context of worry, further proof, and rebuttal to disingenuous argument that is always made in these situations.
posted by Falconetti at 10:52 AM on May 8, 2006


Fukuyama lol
posted by keswick at 10:53 AM on May 8, 2006


j-urb, how does the creation of a ruler for life = democracy? Popular support doesn't mean the same thing as democracy.
posted by Falconetti at 10:57 AM on May 8, 2006


Remember this is still a democracy and if Chavez wins an election which he gets to be President for eternity, its what the people want.

Well, that's what the eligible people who chose to vote wanted at the time of the election. After about 25 years, "the people" won't look much like they once did.

The problem with democracy is that it has the rope to hang itself with.

The problem with democracy is that it's the worship of Jackals by Jackasses.
posted by Kwantsar at 11:03 AM on May 8, 2006


Mr. Six: The globe was just republishing an AP report.
posted by loquax at 11:05 AM on May 8, 2006


Democracy is more than just people voting. I hate Ayn Rand Institute as much as the next person, but this was a good article on the subject, "Freedom vs. Unlimited Majority Rule". Chavez becoming supreme ruler or his country, like Bush in America, does not a democracy make.
posted by chunking express at 11:08 AM on May 8, 2006


God bless Chávez for his ability to make all the right people nervous, here on MeFi and elsewhere -- after all he's survived attempts of a fascist coup, a recall, and he's still been elected more fairly than certain other tough-talking, messianic gringo leaders. so, despite all his limitations, God bless that anti-imperialist demagogue who -- in a beautiful reversal -- is sitting on all that sweet, sweet oil.
posted by matteo at 11:10 AM on May 8, 2006


The problem with democracy is that it's the worship of Jackals by Jackasses.
posted by Kwantsar at 11:03 AM PST on May 8 [!]


Good thing America is a Republic so that can't happen in America.
posted by rough ashlar at 11:11 AM on May 8, 2006


Mr. Six: The globe was just republishing an AP report.
posted by loquax at 11:05 AM PST on May 8 [!]


And the AP never EVER gets a story wrong!
posted by rough ashlar at 11:12 AM on May 8, 2006


Wow, Mr. Six, you are way way off base. First off, as loquax points out, that's an AP article, not Globe & Mail propaganda.

Also, pointing out that the US has been OK with past antidomocratic governments does exactly zero (0) to justify what Chavez is up to.

Supporting Chavez for his "ability to make all the right people nervous" is the exact moral equivalent of the US supporting Saddam against Iran in the 1980s. Either you believe in human rights and democracy or you don't.
posted by ibmcginty at 11:13 AM on May 8, 2006


Chávez is not reacting to an opposition that just wants to have free and fair elections. He's been confirmed numerous times in the Venezuelan polls, in elections that have been certified free and fair, and enjoys massive support on account of his social programs. The "opposition" overthrew him briefly in a military coup in 2002, which was immediately backed by the United States government; it was undermined by massive, spontaneous popular support for Chávez in response. We aren't talking people planning some farcical Color Revolution; Chávez was the direct and immediate victim of a coup. His policy cannot be considered without taking this into account.

The US and its allies have a vested interest in not allowing any alternatives to neoliberal capitalism. This kind of sloppy reportage is a propaganda tool used to demonize any governments that stand opposed to the imperial will. Chávez is not becoming a dictator; he's the only one in that country interested in democracy. The US has never been interested in democracy in Latin America; if you doubt that, ask the president of Chile.
posted by graymouser at 11:14 AM on May 8, 2006


Chávez is not becoming a dictator; he's the only one in that country interested in democracy.

Perhaps you are confusing one-ruler style communism with democracy? This is the first step on the path to totalitarianism. History has taught us this lesson time and time again. The faults of the US do not somehow morally absolve everyone else in the world. Can't we condemn both as being ultimately bad for people? It's not a zero-sum game.
posted by Falconetti at 11:28 AM on May 8, 2006


The US has never been interested in democracy in Latin America; if you doubt that, ask the president of Chile. ZING!
posted by adamvasco at 11:29 AM on May 8, 2006


The problems in the Venezuelan electoral system, Part 1 and Part 2
There are two real problems in Venezuela that make it almost impossible to run a decent political campaign where the country can be offered real choices. The first one is the governmental abuse of the state resources and the second one is the Maisanta list that makes it very difficult to counter the Chavez campaign....

During the Recall Election process of 2003-2004 the Chavez administration ... came up with a system to intimidate public sector workers into voting for Chavez at Referendum time. This device consisted in gathering, courtesy of the CNE that should have never provided this information, the names and ID numbers of all of those who signed to request a recall election on Chavez tenure.


The new kid in the barrio
They call him the the new Che Guevara. Loved and loathed in equal measure, Venezuela's President Hugo Chávez has become the poster boy of the international left, revered by his disciples at home but reviled in Washington. On the eve of Chavez's visit to Britain, foreign affairs editor Peter Beaumont travels to Caracas and asks if the Castro-loving, Bush-hating, head of state is a revolutionary democrat or a dictator in the making? ...

As a democrat, Chávez has won election after election largely fair and square since his first campaign in 1998. Thereare few egregious human rights abuses, little serious repression and, despite a new media law, Venezuela enjoys a lively and usually critical press.

If the middle class-led opposition has failed to remove him democratically it is not because of widespread skulduggery; it is because its movement is fragmented and represents, for all its claims to the contrary, a minority . But there is another prism through which Chávez's democratic credentials look more dubious. On top of his leadership of the failed coup, and his relationships with left -wing revolutionary guerrillas, there is the fact that in his seven years in power he has consolidated personal control over all of Venezuela's institutions.

posted by dhartung at 11:39 AM on May 8, 2006


Chavez is a demagogue and a crowd pleaser; however he has done a lot for his impoverished corrupt nation, though not in ways generally approved of by those who wish a say in such matters eg US government. He has an almost messiac desire to reform a version of Simon Bolivar's Gran Colombia. He takes great delight in winding up teh Repupublican government of USA and normally suceeds; this alone gains him much simpathy throughout the region as well as further afield. Venezuela has no honest organised opposition and Chavez knows this; however his megalomania is a destabilising influence in the area in the long run.
posted by adamvasco at 11:39 AM on May 8, 2006


The US never been interested in democracy in US, so don't even talk about other countries.

And don't make me laugh about the "democracy" thing, the people in charge is all a big illusion.

So I prefer an enlightened despot over an asshole of a president
posted by zouhair at 11:40 AM on May 8, 2006


The faults of the US do not somehow morally absolve everyone else in the world.

Sorry, it's all about moral relativism now, with the U.S. at the bottom of the totem pole. You know, enemy of my enemy, etc.
posted by pardonyou? at 11:41 AM on May 8, 2006


Chávez was the direct and immediate victim of a coup. His policy cannot be considered without taking this into account.

Chavez was also the direct and immediate mastermind of a failed military coup. His policy cannot be considered without taking this, too, into account.

Honestly, I don't understand how people can defend him without even a shred of skepticism, simply because he stands up to the United States and the Bush administration. As the article says, it's not clear right now how this will play out. For the moment he has not made a concrete or formal proposal, only floated a trial balloon of sorts. As I've said in other threads, his presence in the presidential seat is the legitimate expression of the will of the electorate. But how could rewriting the rules at the zenith of his popularity to keep him in power for 25 years, or indefinitely, possibly be a good thing?
posted by donpedro at 11:41 AM on May 8, 2006


I'm curious about this, Chavez seems very popular, why does he need to follow this path? Why not just groom an ideological match as a successor?

I was largely ambivalent about Chavez, he seeks to do right (or his conception of it) by the majority of his people, but the US, big oil, and his nations elite are willing to do everything in their power, legal or illegal, to prevent him from doing that. It is unfair to hold him to first world standards of democracy and justice with so many forces acting against a democratically elected government.

But Chavez also seems to overstep this delicate balance between preventing outright sedition and stopping any opposition, and with this action he seems to totally topple it. He is popular now, but 25 years is far to long for a people to commit to the vision of a single leader.
posted by I Foody at 11:43 AM on May 8, 2006


Honestly, I don't understand how people can defend him without even a shred of skepticism, simply because he stands up to the United States and the Bush administration.

I think a lot of people like him because he has been a positive force in South America, not just because he talks a lot of smack. And I think most people in this thread who support him would agree that his getting a 25 year term wouldn't be a good thing.
posted by chunking express at 11:44 AM on May 8, 2006


I wish we could edit comments so that I could append to my comment above:

It is a disgrace that he gets as much support from Americans as he does from people who rely on the anti-intellectual and facile rhetoric of "I support him because he opposes Bush"
.....as you will witness in the following comments:

posted by dios at 11:44 AM on May 8, 2006


The US never been interested in democracy in US, so don't even talk about other countries.
posted by zouhair at 1:40 PM CST on May 8


Do you get even the slightest bit embarrassed when making such ignorant comments for rhetorical effect?
posted by dios at 11:46 AM on May 8, 2006


Yes Dios, because everyone that likes Chavez must do so because he's anti-bush. It's all so simple.
posted by chunking express at 11:49 AM on May 8, 2006


Really, Chavez is just following the career of his hero Bolivar, who after doing many good things for South America declared himself dictator in 1828.
posted by Falconetti at 11:56 AM on May 8, 2006


I think a lot of people like him because he has been a positive force in South America, not just because he talks a lot of smack. And I think most people in this thread who support him would agree that his getting a 25 year term wouldn't be a good thing.

I've been around a bunch of Chavez threads, and they always degenerate into talk of "the enemy of my enemy" and "standing up to U.S. imperialism." But reading back through the thread, you're right, there hasn't been too much of that here. Refreshing.
posted by donpedro at 11:57 AM on May 8, 2006


Those criticising Chavez - it does not seem clear to me that he is this bad guy. By my standards, he is a bad guy, but he also seems to be the best guy that most people in the country have had for a long time, and the best guy they could currently hope for. In which case getting rid of him would be bad. Nothing to do with him antoganising, Bush or whatever.

It seems that much (most?) of the criticising of Chavez is just as bankrupt as lauding him because he opposes Bush.
posted by -harlequin- at 11:59 AM on May 8, 2006


So I prefer an enlightened despot over an asshole of a president
posted by zouhair at 11:40 AM PST on May 8 [!]


And what if you get an unenlighted despot?
posted by rough ashlar at 12:07 PM on May 8, 2006


I don't doubt there are people that read a headline about Chavez calling Bush an Asshole and think, "oh hells yes!" I just think it's simple and stupid to assume that because he's very anti-American he is by default bad for his country. Given America's track record in South America, I get the impression the opposite is true in fact.

He has done a lot of things that I find questionable, and a lot of things that I think are very good. I can say that about a lot of leaders around the globe.

Also, the US has no qualms dealing with despots like Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan, or supporting military Juntas like that in Pakistan. As such I find American criticisms of Chavez shallow and hypocritical.
posted by chunking express at 12:09 PM on May 8, 2006


The US never been interested in democracy in US, so don't even talk about other countries.
posted by zouhair at 1:40 PM CST on May 8

Do you get even the slightest bit embarrassed when making such ignorant comments for rhetorical effect?
posted by dios at 11:46 AM PST on May 8 [!]


The US isn't interested in democracy.

from:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html

"Government type: Constitution-based federal republic"

If there was this interest as you are claiming Dios, why is the US of A a Republic?
posted by rough ashlar at 12:11 PM on May 8, 2006


Actually, I suspect that the strong opposition to Chavez in the USA is an example of propaganda in action. He has done things to be critical of, but how he is generally viewed in the US seems to go way beyond that - it feels very much like the fear Americans suddenly developed out of the blue that Saddam was going to nuke them - very manufactured.
posted by -harlequin- at 12:15 PM on May 8, 2006


socialism = slavery

must be abolished
posted by b_thinky at 12:16 PM on May 8, 2006


I like how he gives the Bushes conniptions with his thumbnosing but that's just dictatorial bullshit. He'd lose a lot of credibility the world over and give the bushes the ammo they need to discredit him further. Sounds like he wants to take Fidel's place as #1 USA persona non grata in the same hemisphere.
posted by Skygazer at 12:17 PM on May 8, 2006


He says he'll hold this referendum if the opposition boycotts the presidential election. This seems to suggest that if the opposition does not boycott the presidential election, he won't hold this referendum, non?

Also, last I heard, a referendum was a democratic process. However I have to admit, 25 years is virtually indistinguishable from "President for Life" and would be a serious mistake in terms of world opinion.
posted by George_Spiggott at 12:19 PM on May 8, 2006


Actually, I suspect that the strong opposition to Chavez in the USA is an example of propaganda in action.

How could that be? America has the fourth estate - professional journalists who seek only the truth!

Propaganda is that stuff done by Soviets and Nazis. So it could not survive the light of Truth the US of A projects all across the globe.
posted by rough ashlar at 12:20 PM on May 8, 2006


The US isn't interested in democracy.
from:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html

"Government type: Constitution-based federal republic"


I have a rule that I don't respond to you rough_ashlar because your comments towards me are rarely substantive, but for the sake of the discussion since you were actually topical, let me just say that I highly doubt that distinction is what that poster meant. No honest person puts forth the argument that because the US has a republican form of government, it therefore has no interest in democracy.

Now, I'll let him respond to try to argue his point that the US isn't democratic.
posted by dios at 12:23 PM on May 8, 2006


socialism = slavery. must be abolished

It's so true. I think what the US should do is overthrow Chavez through a CIA backed coup, and then put a military leader in power that will toture and kills hundreds of thousands of people, all while playing friendly with the states. The US has experience with this sort of thing. It would work. And then the world wouldn' tneed to worry about teh evil communisms!!?!

dumbaclot.
posted by chunking express at 12:24 PM on May 8, 2006


25 years is virtually indistinguishable from "President for Life" and would be a serious mistake in terms of world opinion.

Which makes the chances that this is just political rhetoric higher. If you were in his place, would you seriously start announcing "dictator for life" at this point in time?

If that was his real intent, I don't see why he wouldn't hold off on the public declaration for some years, his term's not due to be over for quite a while.
posted by sonofsamiam at 12:26 PM on May 8, 2006


Let's read Dios call this another case of "librul group think" and derailing the thread:

Both Bush and Chavez are pigs and I wouldn't put it past Dubya for a second to try and grab a third term if some serious shit comes down in the way of an attack or a pandemic
posted by Skygazer at 12:26 PM on May 8, 2006


It's so true. I think what the US should do is overthrow Chavez through a CIA backed coup, and then put a military leader in power that will toture and kills hundreds of thousands of people, all while playing friendly with the states. The US has experience with this sort of thing. It would work. And then the world wouldn' tneed to worry about teh evil communisms!!?!

dumbaclot.
posted by chunking express at 12:24 PM PST on May 8 [!]


So... you're saying socialism works then?
posted by b_thinky at 12:27 PM on May 8, 2006


As bullshit as I think the statement "socialism = slavery" is, I gotta say this 25-year referendum is fucking gross, and Chavez is a seriously sketchy leader with authoritarian tendencies much worse than Bush. So I guess that puts me with pardonyou? and dios on this one, if anyone's keeping track of my tiny little opinions.
posted by furiousthought at 12:28 PM on May 8, 2006


corporatism = serfdom

Just, know, for balance.
posted by George_Spiggott at 12:31 PM on May 8, 2006


s/know/y'know/
posted by George_Spiggott at 12:32 PM on May 8, 2006


Skygazer: only you can stop forest firesderails, so don't bait posters under the guise of accusing them of attempted derails.

b_thinky: if you are going to post something inflammatory, why don't you explain why socialism is commensurate with slavery. The onus is on you to establish the truth of your assertion, not for others to prove its opposite. Socialism is the road to serfdom, I agree with Hayek for the most part, but it is pretty easy to point to Scandinavian countries that are fairly socialist and that haven't devolved into slavery.
posted by Falconetti at 12:33 PM on May 8, 2006


I just think it's simple and stupid to assume that because he's very anti-American he is by default bad for his country.

I'm not sure if I've given the impression that I believe this to be true, but I most definitely do not.

He has done a lot of things that I find questionable, and a lot of things that I think are very good. I can say that about a lot of leaders around the globe.

Agreed, he's a mixed bag of nuts. I guess for me, the troublesome stuff generally outweigh the instances in which I agree with his policies.
posted by donpedro at 12:34 PM on May 8, 2006


donpedro:

The thing is, Chávez is most likely not even floating a trial balloon; he is using rhetorical bombast to fire back at the anti-democratic opposition, which is talking of boycotting the elections, and thereby attempting to delegitimize another Chávez victory. He is saying "You think I'm illegitimate? The people would elect me president for life," not, "I am going to get myself elected president for life."
posted by graymouser at 12:34 PM on May 8, 2006


C'mon people sometimes you have to call a spade a spade. Barring cataclysmic circumstances, there is no justifiable reason to waive elections. None.

I don't care what the US has done or what the US is doing now, the Venezualan people need to stand up now and make it clear THEY run the government.
posted by ozomatli at 12:34 PM on May 8, 2006


Now, I'll let him respond to try to argue his point that the US isn't democratic.
posted by dios at 12:23 PM PST on May 8 [!]


I do not have to 'try', for the founding documents of the United States of America established a Republic. A Republic is what they ment. They understood why a democracy is a bad idea.

You are the one claiming the US of A has an interest in democracy. You have the burden of proof to show the documents and actions to back up your position. Attempting to re-frame the argument as "argue the US isn't democratic" was a nice try.

Unless you want to claim the CIA is wrong.
posted by rough ashlar at 12:35 PM on May 8, 2006


... his term's not due to be over for quite a while.

Actually he's up for re-election later this year. Assuming he wins (he will, and easily), he would be constitutionally barred from running again when the new term expires in 2012.
posted by donpedro at 12:36 PM on May 8, 2006


So... you're saying socialism works then?

No, i'm calling you a dumbaclot. There is a difference.

(And to not be a jerk: How would you define socialism? As far as I can tell, there are lots of different definitions and it's a very broad area of study. But, if we want to be simple, a system where the means of production are owned collectively doesn't imply slavery in my books. I am guessing most peopel would agree.)
posted by chunking express at 12:37 PM on May 8, 2006


keep picking that nit rough ashlar...
posted by ozomatli at 12:37 PM on May 8, 2006


Granted, blood on US hands does nothing to absolve Chavez, but lets not pretend that if "Washington despises Chavez" it's because of his undemocratic ways.
posted by dreamsign at 12:38 PM on May 8, 2006


socialism = slavery

must be abolished
posted by b_thinky at 12:16 PM PST on May 8 [!]


Yes! Exactly! For in America, which is not socialist no matter how hard Milwaukee kept socialists as mayors, no one is enslaved by their car payments, house payments, lifestyle choices to a corporate derivied paycheck. Loans are freedom! Taxes are another expression of freedom, a throwing off the shackles of oppression!

Any taxes paid to pay for private prisons to lock up a few bad apples is a small price to pay so the rest of the citizens can be free to make the house, car, and consumer goods payments! If it was not for nations that sponsor the drug traffic, there would be even fewer people in lock up....such nations who produce, say opium or cocaine should get US troops to stop the growing of these dangerous items. You are with me on this, right b-thinky?
posted by rough ashlar at 12:49 PM on May 8, 2006


dios 1
rough ashlar 0
posted by caddis at 12:52 PM on May 8, 2006


rough ashlar writes "I do not have to 'try', for the founding documents of the United States of America established a Republic. A Republic is what they meant. They understood why a democracy is a bad idea."

This tangent is stupid, and purely semantic. We all know what "democracy" means in its common modern usage.

chunking express writes "Also, the US has no qualms dealing with despots like Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan...."

This isn't completely fair. The US was highly critical of Uzbekistan following the crackdowns last year; Karimov responded by kicking the US out of their Uzbekistan airbase. The relationship is definitely hostile now. Russia and China are the countries most guilty of coddling Karimov...
posted by mr_roboto at 12:52 PM on May 8, 2006


The Venezualan people need to stand up now and make it clear THEY run the government.

That's exactly right. The Venezualan people need to do this, not the American people or it's government, military, or intelligence services.

That said, this deal Chavez is trying to pull is rotten through and through.
posted by moonbiter at 12:54 PM on May 8, 2006


I suspect, and hope, that you are correct graymouser.
posted by caddis at 12:57 PM on May 8, 2006


keep picking that nit rough ashlar...
posted by ozomatli at 12:37 PM PST on May 8 [!]


http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/outusgov/ch1.htm
"It was under these inauspicious circumstances that the Constitution of the United States was drawn up. In February 1787 the Continental Congress, the legislative body of the republic,"

Not 'of the democracy'

"Americans then, as now, had widely differing opinions on virtually all issues, including the wisdom of breaking free of the British Crown. During the American Revolution a large number of British loyalists — known as Tories — had fled the country, settling mostly in eastern Canada. Those who stayed behind formed a substantial opposition bloc, although they differed among themselves on the reasons for opposing the Revolution and on what accommodation should be made with the new American republic."

"Virginia was sharply divided, but the influence of George Washington, arguing for ratification, carried the state legislature by a narrow margin on June 26, 1788. In New York, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay combined to produce a remarkable series of written arguments for the Constitution — The Federalist Papers — and won a narrow vote for approval on July 26. In November, North Carolina added its approval. Rhode Island held out until 1790, when its position as a small and weak state hedged in by a large and powerful republic became untenable."

Dios and others may be confusing the Declaration of Independence with the Constitution:
"The essence of American democracy is contained in the Declaration of Independence, with its ringing phrase, "All men are created equal," and the follow-up statements "that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."" But the laws - Its a Republic.

The citizens and governement could become a Democracy in law, if that is was the true interest was.
posted by rough ashlar at 1:02 PM on May 8, 2006


I must say, I find all the comparisons to Cuba and Castro to be pretty funny. People talk about Cuba like it's Iraq.

Anyways, Chavez's ego really is just too big for his britches. If he had any sense of decency, he'd be satisfied with handpicking his successor and passing on his near-tyrannical powers. This is why most revolutions fail. And this will give the US and co. free reign in trying to further destabilize the country, all under the guise of spreading freedom.
posted by nixerman at 1:04 PM on May 8, 2006


rough ashlar, I think if you try a little harder you might be able to inject a little more noise into the thread. Just like I have with this comment.
posted by chunking express at 1:08 PM on May 8, 2006


rough ashlar writes "Dios and others may be confusing the Declaration of Independence with the Constitution"

No. They're just using the word "democracy" as typical English-speakers in the year 2006 use that word. I'd link to a wikipedia article or something, but I'm pretty sure you're just being difficult and disingenuous. You sure are putting a lot of effort into it, though....
posted by mr_roboto at 1:10 PM on May 8, 2006


I also hope you are correct, graymouser.
posted by donpedro at 1:10 PM on May 8, 2006


dios 1
rough ashlar -1
posted by caddis at 1:16 PM on May 8, 2006


Yeah, pretty much have to agree with you there.

Otherwise we get into "OMG Britain has a Queen it is not teh democracy!!!!!" territory...
posted by Artw at 1:19 PM on May 8, 2006


If there was this interest as you are claiming Dios, why is the US of A a Republic?

I do not have to 'try', for the founding documents of the United States of America established a Republic. A Republic is what they meant. They understood why a democracy is a bad idea.

You are the one claiming the US of A has an interest in democracy. You have the burden of proof to show the documents and actions to back up your position. Attempting to re-frame the argument as "argue the US isn't democratic" was a nice try.


Was that really bad satire? Because otherwise, rough ashlar must be reading wikipedia though the business end of a straw to see that narrowly...

A representative republic isn't a democracy? The things you learn on MetaFilter...
posted by SweetJesus at 1:19 PM on May 8, 2006


We all know what "democracy" means in its common modern usage.
posted by mr_roboto at 12:52 PM PST on May 8 [!]


http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/ says:

"republic
• noun a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch. "

(With corporations being declared people, how is the above not true?)


"democracy /dimokrsi/
• noun (pl. democracies) 1 a form of government in which the people have a voice in the exercise of power, typically through elected representatives. 2 a state governed in such a way. 3 control of a group by the majority of its members. "

Care to make the case where the above 3 items reflect the laws and application of laws in the US of A? Rhertoric - sure.


No. They're just using the word "democracy" as typical English-speakers in the year 2006 use that word. posted by mr_roboto at 1:10 PM PST on May 8

And here *I* thought that is what a dictionary was for. When the dictionary changes to "the laws and actions of the United States of America" then Dios and you will be correct.

Untill then, the US of A is a Republic that isn't interested in democracy in its own borders to become a Democracy.
posted by rough ashlar at 1:24 PM on May 8, 2006


-2
posted by caddis at 1:25 PM on May 8, 2006


Well now that that's settled...
posted by chunking express at 1:26 PM on May 8, 2006


Defenders of Chavez need to look much more closely at his actual policies and records. Almost everything positive economically which has happened under his rule is because of high oil prices. Most of his policies to lift the poor have been relatively ineffective, and are extremely short-sighted. Rather then heavy investments in education, infrastructure, and other long-term solutions, he has been offering 'free stuff' that doesn't have the necessary long term impact.
posted by cell divide at 1:29 PM on May 8, 2006


Care to make the case where the above 3 items reflect the laws and application of laws in the US of A? Rhertoric - sure.

RA, in a dictionary, only one of the numbered definitions is expected to apply. In the case you show, the first one is an accurate summation of a republican (note small R) form of government, hence, it is a democracy.
posted by George_Spiggott at 1:30 PM on May 8, 2006


And here *I* thought that is what a dictionary was for. When the dictionary changes to "the laws and actions of the United States of America" then Dios and you will be correct.

You're an idiot... Wikipedia snip:
"Democracy" may be used either narrowly to describe a nation-state (government) or more broadly to describe a free society. As a form of government, a democracy is the people ruling themselves collectively, usually via majority rule employing some system of voting and representation. However, as a liberal society, democracy is the people ruling themselves individually via private property, civil rights and civic duties (individual liberty and individual responsibility), which extends the concept of distributed power all of the way to individual citizens. Indeed, in democratic society, sovereignty originates in the people and is delegated to government rather than vice versa.

Republican democracy is a republic which has democracy. One meaning of the word republic is "thing for the public" or "object for the people." An alternative definition of republic in a more modern understanding of the term is a government that is administered by the people, and where the people are sovereign.
posted by SweetJesus at 1:30 PM on May 8, 2006


Was that really bad satire? Because otherwise, rough ashlar must be reading wikipedia though the business end of a straw to see that narrowly...

A representative republic isn't a democracy? The things you learn on MetaFilter...
posted by SweetJesus at 1:19 PM PST on May 8 [!]


Go read the CIA factbook:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html

The department of state:
http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/outusgov/ch1.htm

If the CIA and Department of State are wrong, better work on firing them and getting in people who can do their job and correct that data to say 'democracy'. Shouldn't be all that hard if you have truth and a Democracy on your side.
posted by rough ashlar at 1:36 PM on May 8, 2006


Now I remember why he was on my "don't bother responding to or engaging in a conversation with" list.
posted by dios at 1:38 PM on May 8, 2006


On topic....

One characteristic common to modern South American constitutions is a strict term limit on the chief executive. It might be interesting to look at a couple examples in which these limits have been changed or shortcircuited in recent years. In Peru in the early 90s, the judiciary (which was pretty much in the pocket of the president) ruled that term limits there did not apply to Fujimori; he wound up hanging on way too long, became an ineffectual autocrat, and was eventually driven out of his country (he's under arrest in Chile now, right?) Last year, the Colombian constitution was amended to allow Uribe to run for another term. He's super-popular; we'll see if there's another amendment in four years...

As for Chavez: I just get a bad vibe off of the guy. He's got "wannabe autocrat" written all over himself. This news is not heartening.
posted by mr_roboto at 1:38 PM on May 8, 2006


Yes, the US is a democracy.

It doesn't necessarily follow the US is interested in creating other democracies. Indeed, the history of the 20th century proves this--KSA and Egypt to name just two totalitarian regimes established and currently propped up by US and other "democratic" Western allies.

Iran is probably the best example. The US, and especially the CIA and British intellegience, overthrew an elected government in 1953 and replaced it with a king ("shah"). This wasn't an exception, it's the general rule.

"Self-interested democracy" might be the best term.
posted by bardic at 1:41 PM on May 8, 2006


This is such a trollish derail, I hope the last few comments and this can put the debate to rest.

"Democracy" versus "republic":

"The definition of the word "democracy" from the time of old Greece up to now has not been constant. In contemporary usage, the term "democracy" refers to a government chosen by the people, whether it be direct or representative.

There is another definition of democracy, particularly in constitutional theory and in historical usages and especially when considering the works of Aristotle or the American "Founding Fathers." Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle never used the words democracy or republic interchangeably. According to this definition, the word "democracy" refers solely to direct democracy, whilst a representative democracy is referred to as a "republic". This older terminology also has some popularity in U.S. Conservative and Libertarian debate.

Modern definitions of the term Republic, however, refer to any State with an elective Head of State serving for a limited term, in contrast to most contemporary hereditary monarchies which are representative democracies and constitutional monarchies adhering to Parliamentarism. (Older elective monarchies are also not considered republics.) "
Link.
posted by Falconetti at 1:42 PM on May 8, 2006


dios, I have a suggestion as to where you can put your precious list. E-mail in profile if interested.
posted by bardic at 1:42 PM on May 8, 2006


And what Falconetti said. This is like a bad 8th grade civics class.
posted by bardic at 1:43 PM on May 8, 2006


If the CIA and Department of State are wrong, better work on firing them and getting in people who can do their job and correct that data to say 'democracy'. Shouldn't be all that hard if you have truth and a Democracy on your side.

They're not wrong, you're just in way over your head and don't understand what they're talking about...

All republics are democracies, but not all democracies are republics.
You see it's like wearing jeans. All jeans are pants, but not all pants are jeans, you see what I'm saying? It's like arguing that because I'm wearing jeans, I'm not wearing pants - wholly idiotic.
posted by SweetJesus at 1:45 PM on May 8, 2006


RA, in a dictionary, only one of the numbered definitions is expected to apply. In the case you show, the first one is an accurate summation of a republican (note small R) form of government, hence, it is a democracy.
posted by George_Spiggott at 1:30 PM PST on May 8


Ok for this to be true:

"1 a form of government in which the people have a voice in the exercise of power, typically through elected representatives. "

The following would have to be be true:
People (flesh and blood) going to an elected official in the US of A and have the same influence as the artifical construct of a corporation.

If you accept that corporations are people, then according to the OED, America is a Democracy, the CIA is wrong and the Founding Fathers who wanted a Lasting Republic have been shown to be failues.

Or, you'd have to claim that a citizen has the same actual power as a corporation.
posted by rough ashlar at 1:46 PM on May 8, 2006


chavez is not acting for the good of his country in doing this ... what happens in 10 years if the people are sick of his leadership and he's still got 15 years to go as president? ... most likely, a coup or even a civil war

it's the usual scenario of a man letting power corrupt him ... a balanced person would take the popularity he has and use the 6 years he has left as president to improve the country in ways his supporters would approve of ... but that's not good enough for him

i see him as a manipulative person who uses political issues to gather power for himself
posted by pyramid termite at 1:47 PM on May 8, 2006


Or, you'd have to claim that a citizen has the same actual power as a corporation.

So what were we before 1886, smart guy?
posted by SweetJesus at 1:48 PM on May 8, 2006


chavez is not would not be acting for the good of his country in doing this.
posted by Artw at 1:54 PM on May 8, 2006


Chavez: He's given billions of dollars in loans to Brazil and Argentina so that they can pay off their soul-crushing IMF debt ahead of schedule (and therefore allow them to give the finger to the Washington Consensus once and for all); he's going to help Bolivia develop its petrochemical industry so that it no longer has to depend on foreign technicans from foreign companies that have been robbing Bolivia blind for the past 20 years; he's selling petroleum to Cuba at a fair rate so that the Cuban people can finally overcome 20 years of the US economic embargo; he's selling cheap natural gas to poor people in the US; and in his own country he's been teaching people how to read and write, building housing and in general funneling the majority of that oil wealth back into social programs.

HE MUST BE STOPPED!


i hate him
posted by sic at 1:57 PM on May 8, 2006 [1 favorite]


They're not wrong,

So the CIA isn't wrong? Then why are Ireland and Iseral labeled a democracy:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ei.html
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/is.html

There must be something different to get the different label.

All republics are democracies, but not all democracies are republics.

Well here are 3 republics:

People's Republic of China
(old name) Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic
Republic of Cuba

And a 4th:
Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela
posted by rough ashlar at 2:00 PM on May 8, 2006


Too bad about Chavez. As other commenters have pointed out, he was elected legitimately, has done a good job of helping the poor in his country, and has stood up to US-backed coup attempts - I count these all as plusses. However, there were always inklings of a little bit of batshitinsanity lurking, he started arresting opposing members of the press, and now it's definitely coming to the fore with this president-for-life crap.
posted by jellicle at 2:02 PM on May 8, 2006


Whereby Hugo Chavez overthrows the old dictator and places himself in as the new dictator but pretends it is a democratic choice by having people vote for it.

Nice trick.

Castro is indeed an influence in this regard.
posted by Rashomon at 2:03 PM on May 8, 2006


So what were we before 1886, smart guy?
posted by SweetJesus at 1:48 PM PST on May 8 [!]


A Republic. Just like America is now.

Unless you are so much more smart and wish to explain how slavery and women not voting fits into the Democracy framework.
posted by rough ashlar at 2:04 PM on May 8, 2006


dios 2
rough ashlar -4
posted by caddis at 2:04 PM on May 8, 2006


For the sake of the thread:

Rough Ashlar: You win. You're right. The United States of America is not a democracy. Argument over, and you get to be the winner!
posted by mr_roboto at 2:04 PM on May 8, 2006


i see him as a manipulative person who uses political issues to gather power for himself
posted by pyramid termite at 1:47 PM PST on May 8 [!]


Which describes the bulk of politicos. One does need to ask however if the report of 'vote me in for 25 years' is accurate and/or taken out of context. I can't find a full copy of the source speech anywhere. And for all the thrashing about in the thread, you'd think someone would have posted a link.
posted by rough ashlar at 2:10 PM on May 8, 2006


I can't see anyone with good motives wanting to become a de facto dictator. Its a bad move, a bad bad move. It absolutely cannot end well. Even if you get lucky and have the "benevolent" type, the precedent has been set, making it that much easier for the next person to wield such power.

If the people give Chavez this power, the blood of their children will be on their hands.
posted by ozomatli at 2:10 PM on May 8, 2006


The Roman Republic was more often than not ruled by a dictator; Athens often found itself being run by Tyrants like Draco. Both are ostensibly the models for modern democracy (using the popular definition of the term), and rightly so. The presence of an authoritarian leader does not imply the presence of an authoritarian government.

Objectively speaking, if Chavez were to be elected supreme leader until 2031, we would not be able to judge the true nature of Venezuelan government until the next transfer of power occurred. Any judgement or action taken before that point would be...of dishonest intent.
posted by solipse at 2:16 PM on May 8, 2006


All republics are democracies, but not all democracies are republics.
posted by SweetJesus at 9:45 PM GMT on May 8


True, rough-ashlar, there are examples of non-democratic republics (some are particularly badly named). However, why is Ireland not a democracy? I take it that you accept it is a republic?
posted by dash_slot- at 2:18 PM on May 8, 2006


It may be that the AP distorted the intent of Chavez's speech:

Fortunately, Agence France Press (AFP) got the story right. The opening sentence of AFP's Spanish-language report reads, "Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez claimed Saturday that, if the opposition decides not to run candidates in the December presidential election, he could decree a referendum to permit his reelection for multiple terms until 2031."

However, I don't know if I trust that site as an unbiased source. Also, given his control of the media, suppression of free speech and iron grip on the electoral comission, ending term limits is the absolute equivalent of a life term. After all, those Eastern European communist dictators had elections every 4 years, didn't they?
posted by loquax at 2:22 PM on May 8, 2006


Saddam was elected with 100% of the vote and 100% turnout.
posted by dios at 2:25 PM on May 8, 2006


So what were we before 1886, smart guy?
posted by SweetJesus at 1:48 PM PST on May 8 [!]

A Republic. Just like America is now.


Ok, uh, yeah, that's right... So we're in agreement? Oh wait, that's right, you don't consider republics to be democracies. That's what we were arguing about in the first place. *sigh*

True, rough-ashlar, there are examples of non-democratic republics (some are particularly badly named).

North Korea is not a republic because no-one votes for a representative. Same thing with The Democratic People's Republic of Congo. In fact, the brutality of a regime is inversely proportional to how "free"-sounding the name of the country is.
posted by SweetJesus at 2:26 PM on May 8, 2006


Unless you are so much more smart and wish to explain how slavery and women not voting fits into the Democracy framework.

You're kidding, right? You may have heard of ancient Greece, where democracy originated? Where slaves and women and non-landowners couldn't vote (until Solon)?
posted by me & my monkey at 2:30 PM on May 8, 2006


However, why is Ireland not a democracy? I take it that you accept it is a republic?


Because
parliamentary democracy describes the political system and Country name:
conventional long form: none
conventional short form: Ireland
local long form: none
local short form: Eire

are the names per the CIA.

So I'm not in agreement on the name.
posted by rough ashlar at 2:31 PM on May 8, 2006


This derail is insane. Talk about the government of your silly country elsewhere.
posted by loquax at 2:34 PM on May 8, 2006


Saddam was elected with 100% of the vote and 100% turnout.

Tin foil hatted conspiracy theorists declared Saddam's election to be rigged, since the mathematics would not allow such discrepancies between the (unofficial, in this case) exit polls and the official tally.
posted by sonofsamiam at 2:35 PM on May 8, 2006


Because
parliamentary democracy describes the political system and Country name:


Seriously, this is like, trans-stupid stupid - meta-stupid. Because the CIA website lists Ireland as a republic, you don't consider it a democracy? Fuck it, this is going nowhere slowly...
posted by SweetJesus at 2:38 PM on May 8, 2006


Yeah, I'm thinking that this smells a lot like just more unfounded anti-Chevez propaganda to herd the US masses.

A year from now, most people that heard this story (as spun for propaganda) are still going to be under the impression that he was planning to get himself elected for life (and is thus unquestionably a bad guy), when it sounds entirely plausible that it is an attempt to preserve elections and democratic legitimacy by pointing out potential consequences of an opposition trying to undermine democracy instead of working within it.

ie Chavez smeared for life in the minds of the masses. Looking at this thread, the spin is working.

If it's not spin, then the outrage would be correct, but jumping to that conclusion at this point seems witless.
posted by -harlequin- at 2:39 PM on May 8, 2006


Yeah, this is a heap of steaming bullcrap. Yay Liberal media!
posted by Artw at 2:40 PM on May 8, 2006


You're kidding, right? You may have heard of ancient Greece, where democracy originated? Where slaves and women and non-landowners couldn't vote (until Solon)?
posted by me & my monkey at 2:30 PM PST on May 8 [!


So a funtional democracy has slaves, non land holders and women as non participants?
posted by rough ashlar at 2:41 PM on May 8, 2006


If it's not spin, he's a flat-out moron.

So I suspect it's spin. He may not be the greatest guy; I don't think he's completely lost it yet.
posted by sonofsamiam at 2:41 PM on May 8, 2006


So, um, on the whole stupid democracy debate... are there any democracies at all if you use the strict definition? becuase if not it's a pretty useless definition.

Also why hasn't the guy who always tells us antisemitic can mean hating arabs too shown up?
posted by Artw at 2:44 PM on May 8, 2006


Because the CIA website lists Ireland as a republic, you don't consider it a democracy? Fuck it, this is going nowhere slowly...
posted by SweetJesus at 2:38 PM PST on May 8


Considering the CIA said "parliamentary democracy" and the name "Ireland" not "Irish Republic" or "Republic of Ireland" are you sure your position is correct on this?
posted by rough ashlar at 2:48 PM on May 8, 2006


when it sounds entirely plausible that it is an attempt to preserve elections and democratic legitimacy by pointing out potential consequences of an opposition trying to undermine democracy instead of working within it.

So why does he have to keep running the show? It doesn't concern you that he's arming citizen militias? That he's suppressing the press and criticism of the government? That he's manipulated the Senate and the Supreme Court and stacked both with loyalists? How much of the threat to democracy in Venezuela is because the opposition is not participating and how much is because Chavez is stopping them from doing so? The opposition is boycotting the process because there is no process! Democracy in Venezuela has already become a joke. Nobody has a chance of speaking ill about Chavez, let alone beating him in an election. Chavez twisting this around in his favour is a masterstroke.

Chavez learned his lessons well from Messers Castro, Ceausescu, Jaruzelski, Tito, et al. The external imperialist forces that plant saboteurs and seek to stifle the great revolution will never succeed as long as Chavez is protecting the Republic! It's just sad that anyone buys his rhetoric and doesn't see him for what he is - a populist strongman that will stop at nothing to rule the country however he sees fit, laws, ideology and the people be damned.
posted by loquax at 2:50 PM on May 8, 2006


Considering the CIA said "parliamentary democracy" and the name "Ireland" not "Irish Republic" or "Republic of Ireland" are you sure your position is correct on this?

Considering I don't even know what the fuck you're arguing for anymore, I'll defer to your obvious expertise in international diplomacy as it relates to dictionary definitions...
posted by SweetJesus at 2:53 PM on May 8, 2006


@Mr. Six: I think you mean The National Post. The Globe and Mail has forever been a left-leaning Canadian paper. It's the Post that presents a right-leaning slant to National Canadian news coverage.

And about the U.S. and Canada: sure we're ostensibly democracies, but fundamentally I wonder if we're not really closer to being plutocracies.
posted by illiad at 2:53 PM on May 8, 2006


Chavez was a paratrooper?
*respect inches up slightly*

Chavez restricts the press and punishes disrespect for his government?
*respect falls into abyssal*

Maybe -harlequin- is right.
Maybe it’s what he’s gotta do to preserve the process, but I don’t know that restricting the press is conducive to mantaining elections. But if it’s B.S. it’s B.S., but we’ll see if the place is in lockstep or not - or going to be - according to his actions.
posted by Smedleyman at 2:54 PM on May 8, 2006


Gotta burn the village to save it huh?
posted by ozomatli at 2:55 PM on May 8, 2006


Saddam was elected with 100% of the vote and 100% turnout.

My point exactly. During the 1980's, Reagan sent shipments of cash and weapons to Saddam to support his genocidal regime. Hell, he even sent Rumsfeld to shake the guy's hand.

Democracies do not necessarily breed democracies. Chavez is a bit of tool, but quite harmless compared to some of the sweethearts America has backed up during the last 30 years in the name of "progress."

But with the administration in free-fall, and no ability to capture ObL, enter swarthy tinhorn potential menace, stage left. Anyone who considers this news is a rube.
posted by bardic at 2:57 PM on May 8, 2006


Why do Americans think that everything has to be about them? A quick Google (.ve) search will review that this news is all over the Latin American press. Is that for consumption of the American public as well?
posted by mr_roboto at 3:00 PM on May 8, 2006


I don't really know enough about Chavez to have a particularly strong opinion on him one way or another.. However in this context, as the link "Bluff?" to the blog "Oil Wars" in the original post pointed out, this seems to be a lot more about political brinkmanship than a sincere desire by Chavez to have himself become a dictator. The crucial element here being as people have pointed out, that the referendum on his extension of rule until 2031 is conditional on the opposition parties not running campaigns in the upcoming election.

In "Oil Wars" the writer states that it seems to be a bluff but he or she can't figure out how the opposition would benefit from not running an opposition. It seems, that if the opposition to Chavez knows that it is extremely likely to lose, the strategy they could get the most benefit out of, from their perspective, would be to de-legitimize Chavez's presidency by making him look like a dictator by giving the entire electoral process the appearance of a sham election. Making him out to be a dictator falls well into the thrust of the current narrative of anti-Chavez rhetoric, they may even consider it a useful step toward possible outside intervention.

From Chavez's perspective, being a legitimately elected presidential candidate is his best case scenario, and is more advantageous internationally than being a dictator as well as less likely to stoke the kind of domestic popular oppositional resentment that could lead to an armed resistance at home. However since the opposition is going to push him into the category of dictator while still having all the political weaknesses of being a democratically elected president, he's calling their bluff by threatening to assume all the power of the position they are planning on portraying him as having. So the ball is back in the opposition's court in deciding whether making Chavez to be a dictator by not running an opposition worth the consequence of him actually potentionally becoming one?
posted by coogerdark at 3:03 PM on May 8, 2006


are there any democracies at all if you use the strict definition? because if not it's a pretty useless definition.
posted by Artw at 2:44 PM PST on May 8 [!]


On a national level? I doubt it. I willing to bet in the parliamentary democracies of Ireland and Israel have inequality with respect to citizen representation. (and to tie to your ' antiemetic can mean hating arabs' idea I believe there is documentation showing non-Jewish citizens of Israel get different treatment than Jewish citizens) I don't think any of the small little nations in Europe that have populations under 10000 are an actual Democracy.

Democracy as an idea has a use as a definition. To achieve such with an educated population who voted and acted for the greater good, with self sacrifice as needed to achieve that good might be one of the greatest nations on Earth. Such a place would be dangerous to other nations and would have to be stopped.
posted by rough ashlar at 3:05 PM on May 8, 2006


So a funtional democracy has slaves, non land holders and women as non participants?

It doesn't sound too "fun"tional to me, but yes, a democracy needn't extend voting rights to everyone. It merely describes the relationship between those who can vote and the state.
posted by me & my monkey at 3:08 PM on May 8, 2006


To achieve such with an educated population who voted and acted for the greater good, with self sacrifice as needed to achieve that good might be one of the greatest nations on Earth. Such a place would be dangerous to other nations and would have to be stopped.

Haha! Now it makes sense: you're a utopianist. Have fun at Brook Farm with your rose colored glasses, hippie :-p
posted by SweetJesus at 3:10 PM on May 8, 2006


So why does he have to keep running the show?

Same reason Bush or Blair do - politicians will run the show for as long as they can push their electoral mandate. Hell, Chevez is currently more legimate than Bush or Blair in the sense that if all three were to have the UN take a fair and impartial referendum right now, Bush and (probably) Blair would be out on their ear and Chevez wouldn't.

It doesn't concern you that he's arming citizen militias?

I live in the USA. The most militaristic and militant nation in the area, by far, is the USA. Since I live in the USA, the USA becomes my baseline in a lot of ways. With the USA is my baseline, his attempt to arm militias looks like a long-overdue attempt to stop killing national defense and at least pay some (laughable) lip service to it.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander - with the USA as my baseline, Chevez's crimes don't seem out of line with what our own guys are up to. IN fact in most cases, they're exactly the same crimes. Since I do in fact think the USA of today is out of line, I do also think Chevez is out of line, however the reaction to Chevez has been manipulated into something way out of proportion to what he's actually done, and I think that's the bigger danger here - like Iran and Iraq, it looks like the US people are being prepped to eventually give carte blanch to any action against Chevez that the US government wants to take, and that can't be allowed to happen.

Chavez has to be kept in perspective, or a much greater crime than any that he could commit, may be allowed to happen.
posted by -harlequin- at 3:11 PM on May 8, 2006


A quick Google (.ve) search will review that this news is all over the Latin American press. Is that for consumption of the American public as well?
posted by mr_roboto at 3:00 PM PST on May 8 [!


So then where is the text of the original speech? I haven't spotted it yet.


So why does he have to keep running the show? It doesn't concern you that he's arming citizen militias? That he's suppressing the press and criticism of the government? That he's manipulated the Senate and the Supreme Court and stacked both with loyalists? .... to rule the country however he sees fit, laws, ideology and the people be damned. posted by loquax at 2:50 PM PST on May 8 [!]


Other than arming citizens the above sounds familiar, if not a bit less person-centric. Change the "he" to a group name and such a description fits in other places.


Anyone who considers this news is a rube.
posted by bardic at 2:57 PM PST on May 8 [!]


Considering the history of reporting and governments/corporations being deceptive over resources in foreign lands, such a postion is understandable.

Too bad the seeds of deception have been sown, grew and reaped for years so one can't trust eh?
posted by rough ashlar at 3:17 PM on May 8, 2006


Has the average citizen's quality of life in Venezuela improved or become worse during Chavez's reign?

That is, IMO, the only truly important measure.
posted by five fresh fish at 3:17 PM on May 8, 2006


Haha! Now it makes sense: you're a utopianist.
posted by SweetJesus at 3:10 PM PST on May 8 [


Which is why the United States of America isn't a Democracy.
posted by rough ashlar at 3:20 PM on May 8, 2006


Am I the only one who just busted a gut reading rough ashlar's posts?
posted by Pacheco at 3:21 PM on May 8, 2006


Does anyone notice anything similar to a limitless term with those who have been/are pulling the strings of GOP administrations? Rove/Rummy/Cheney/Etc?
posted by rollbiz at 3:23 PM on May 8, 2006


And for God's sake can we please stop the democracy/republic derail?
posted by rollbiz at 3:24 PM on May 8, 2006


Has the average citizen's quality of life in Venezuela improved or become worse during Chavez's reign?
posted by five fresh fish at 3:17 PM PST on May 8 [!]


The understanding I have based on press reports is with resource depletion funds (oil money) going to the population, the 'standard of living' has increased. Just like most oil exporting nations which spend the money on grand social programs.

Such a nation will have issues when the oil runs out. If demand dropped to 0, either everyone is dead or some better source of energy has been found.
posted by rough ashlar at 3:24 PM on May 8, 2006


Does anyone notice anything similar to a limitless term with those who have been/are pulling the strings of GOP administrations? Rove/Rummy/Cheney/Etc?
posted by rollbiz at 5:23 PM CST on May 8


Wtf are you babbling about?
posted by dios at 3:26 PM on May 8, 2006


Has the average citizen's quality of life in Venezuela improved or become worse during Chavez's reign?

That is, IMO, the only truly important measure.
posted by five fresh fish 3 minutes ago


It doesn't matter if Chavez was Santa Claus shitting candy canes into the hands of every Venezuelan child, the long term consequences of losing self rule is staggering. The only way you can get that back is thourgh war and misery, if you can even get it back at all. The ends do not justify the means.
posted by ozomatli at 3:26 PM on May 8, 2006


rough ashlar writes "So then where is the text of the original speech? I haven't spotted it yet. "

You can probably find video in the Aló Presidente archives. My Spanish kind of sucks, so I'm not going to spend any time looking for it.
posted by mr_roboto at 3:27 PM on May 8, 2006


Does anyone notice anything similar to a limitless term with those who have been/are pulling the strings of GOP administrations? Rove/Rummy/Cheney/Etc?
posted by rollbiz at 5:23 PM CST on May 8

Wtf are you babbling about?
posted by dios at 3:26 PM PST on May 8 [!]


The same crowd of people running your country for the last thirty years, interrupted only by Clinton.
posted by Artw at 3:32 PM on May 8, 2006


Woah, just throwing the idea out there buddy.
posted by rollbiz at 3:33 PM on May 8, 2006


Yeah, artw...That's precisely what I was babbling about.
posted by rollbiz at 3:34 PM on May 8, 2006


The fact that Republicans keep getting elected means that they have limitless terms?
posted by dios at 3:34 PM on May 8, 2006


Artw writes "The same crowd of people running your country for the last thirty years, interrupted only by Clinton."

C'mon, the Ford administration wasn't actually "running" anything. And I know Carter is a forgettable president, but...
posted by mr_roboto at 3:35 PM on May 8, 2006


I didn't say that. In a discussion (except for your derail) about 25-30 year terms, I asked if there was something similar about the bunch running our country. Don't put words in my mouth. Thanks.
posted by rollbiz at 3:37 PM on May 8, 2006


The same crowd of people running your country for the last thirty years, interrupted only by Clinton.

Is that why Republicans seem to hate Clinton so much? I'm Canadian, so I don't have the benefit of cultural osmosis when it comes to U.S. politics.

I liked the Australian take on the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal: "Thank God we got the convicts and they got the Puritans."
posted by illiad at 3:38 PM on May 8, 2006


Clinton is hated because he was the first wildly popular Dem president since Kennedy.
posted by rollbiz at 3:39 PM on May 8, 2006


rollbiz: To answer your question, there isn't anything similar.
posted by Pacheco at 4:15 PM on May 8, 2006


The same crowd of people running your country for the last thirty years, interrupted only by Clinton.
posted by Artw at 3:32 PM PST on May 8 [!]


But how have the end results been really different, no matter who's in charge?
posted by rough ashlar at 4:25 PM on May 8, 2006


But how have the end results been really different, no matter who's in charge?

What the hell are you looking for, a revolution every 8 years?
posted by SweetJesus at 4:26 PM on May 8, 2006


@Mr. Six: I think you mean The National Post. The Globe and Mail has forever been a left-leaning Canadian paper. It's the Post that presents a right-leaning slant to National Canadian news coverage.

Not according to Wikipedia:

Following the tenure of chief editor Edward Greenspon in 2002, the Globe and Mail has been criticized for returning to its conservative tradition; its editorial cartoonist Brian Gable has mocked it as sensationalistic, and its columnist Lawrence Martin has called for the creation of a new national newspaper [1]. In the 2006 federal election, the Globe and Mail endorsed the Conservative Party, endorsing a different party than the Liberals for the first time since 1993.

The corporate oligarchy that owns Canadian and United States media outlets would benefit greatly from a war with Venezuela.

As to concerns about comparisons of the neo-fascist conservative leadership of the United States and Canada with the rule of Chavez in Venezuela, and whether North American corporate interests are stirring war with the South, all I can say in return is cry wolf in Iraq and don't be surprised at the rational, healthy skepticism that results.
posted by Mr. Six at 4:32 PM on May 8, 2006


So Chavez is a populist for actually helping his poor, with eyes on being an absolute dictator. While the latter is a fault, the former impulse gets some presidents elected in the US and is considered "good politics."

In the spectrum of bad guys, Chavez is very small potatoes compared to, say, Saddam. I'll take localized aging socialists over the real, genocidal monsters the US invents and then supports any day.
posted by bardic at 4:41 PM on May 8, 2006


What the hell are you looking for, a revolution every 8 years?
posted by SweetJesus at 4:26 PM PST on May 8 [!]


Ewwww. Even more messy than having an actual democracy.

How about more than a dimes bit of difference between the Repulocrats or the Demopublicans?

The last go around on the biggest spending issue - a shooting conflict in a foreign land you had a choice between a policy of borrow and spend to shoot things up and borrow and spend to shoot things up MORE.


How about an actual decleration of war? Or not borrowing for the conflict? Difference to mix things up.
posted by rough ashlar at 4:43 PM on May 8, 2006


@ Mr. Six: Nothing is useful without context. Hold up the Globe and Mail and the National Post. Shine the same light on both. Which one is more left-leaning and which one is more right-leaning?

In this context, the Globe reflects Canadian left-leaning interests a lot more than the Post ever did, claims by hard-leftists such as L. Martin notwithstanding.
posted by illiad at 5:23 PM on May 8, 2006


@ Mr. Six: Nothing is useful without context. Hold up the Globe and Mail and the National Post. Shine the same light on both. Which one is more left-leaning and which one is more right-leaning?

Within the context of its content and editorial bent, the Globe and Mail is a right-leaning tabloid publication. Relative comparisons with the Post or any other publication are non-sequitors, no disrespect meant.
posted by Mr. Six at 5:29 PM on May 8, 2006


No term limits? Repeated reelection with no end in sight? Bastard sounds like he wants to be noted mid-century American dictator Franklin Roosevelt!
posted by Makoto at 6:02 PM on May 8, 2006


Ewwww. Even more messy than having an actual democracy.

Ha! A utopian-anarchist who's for new violent revolutions every election season! You sure don't see many of those these days. Better arm yourself, the mid-terms are in November!

On Topic:

So Chavez is a populist for actually helping his poor, with eyes on being an absolute dictator. While the latter is a fault, the former impulse gets some presidents elected in the US and is considered "good politics."

But it's more than that. You can't compare politics in a country like Venezuela with the United States, because it's just so different. They've undergone three attempted coups in the last 15 years, and they live next door to a country that's been in civil war for the last 50 years. That whole area of the world has a much more black and white separation between the haves and have-nots.

There are probably three main candidates in the Venezuelan Election - Hugo Chavez (natch), Julio Borges, and Teodoro Petkoff. There are others, but they have no chance at winning. Even with those two people running, Chavez will almost certainly win, and probably with similar numbers to the 1999 constitutional resolution (78% support). Borges is a former federal marshall in the ANV and a member of the Justice First Party. Justice First boycotted the last national election, and as a consequence, lost the eight seats they had in 2000. They're anti-Chavez, and probably enjoy the widest support from the anti-Chavez population. Petkoff is a independent quasi-socialist/communist who is very critical of Chavez, but also has known to defend him in the past. No political party, as of yet, as put their support behind him. There are a handful of other anti-government candidates as well, but along with the previous two, it just serves to split what little anti-Chavez support there is.

But even if they did have the popular support, which they don't, Chavez stacked the National Election Commission well over two years ago with his buddies to ensure he be fine. Even when the new board was elected two weeks ago, after operating illegally for years, it remains stacked with Chavez-tied appointees. If that wasn't creepy enough, Chavez is distributing a software package called "Maisanta", which contains statistical information on every registered voter in Venezuela. With either a name or an ID number, the software can look up "[a person's] date of birth, whether he signed or not to recall Chavez, address (sometimes with telephone), as well as the voting center that he uses. Additionally, he is "rated" as whether he is a good voter or not, based on his recent activity as a voter. Finally, the software is cross-referenced with whether the voter is a member of two of the Government's social missions, Mission Ribas, the program to graduate people from high school in a short time, and Vuelvan Caras, a "scholarship" by which the Government gives people a monthly stipend to participate in projects to work against poverty and social exclusion". So that should be enough to freak out the both the resident libertarians, and progressives alike that hang out around here.

Chavez is the new Lenin - Plow Shears for Automatic Weapons.
posted by SweetJesus at 6:13 PM on May 8, 2006


Chavez is Lenin because an unsourced anti-Chavez blog has fuzzy screenshots of something. You heard it here first.
posted by Makoto at 6:21 PM on May 8, 2006


Well, FDR had a max term of 16 years, which didn't serve fully at all. And rather . . . extenuating circumstances. And, it wasn't as if FDR reversed legislation or the Constitution to allow this. . . it was just against precedent.

Anywho, back to seriousness, I do think that Chavez is a megalomaniac that wants himself in power to do the best for his country . . . unfortunately, what is best is that he leaves when his time his up. Venezuela is a republic, the public thing, which means the most important thing is the law, not anyone person. Hell, in Athenian democracy, you used to ostracize people for being too popular. Not for being visibly dangerous, but because popular (even well-intentioned) is dangerous.

We should be wary of anyone, anywhere who wants that much unchecked political power, even for good. If passed, the next 25 years would make Chavez and Venezuela indistinguishable from each other.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 6:26 PM on May 8, 2006


Despite what you think about Manista, it exists... Would you be comfortable with members of the RNC selling a DVD of election metrics, indexed by SSN, to anyone with $30,000 and a similar ideology?
posted by SweetJesus at 6:27 PM on May 8, 2006


Justice First boycotted the last national election, and as a consequence, lost the eight seats they had in 2000.

Foot, meet bullet.

The database SweetJesus describes is damn scary.
posted by five fresh fish at 6:32 PM on May 8, 2006


Would you be comfortable with members of the RNC selling a DVD of election metrics, indexed by SSN, to anyone with $30,000 and a similar ideology?
posted by SweetJesus at 6:27 PM PST on May 8 [!]



Its so much better that such metrics cost more from data companies like Choicepoint.
posted by rough ashlar at 6:37 PM on May 8, 2006


God bless Chávez for his ability to make all the right people nervous... God bless that anti-imperialist demagogue...

Your alleged Resistenza ancestors would be proud.
posted by Krrrlson at 6:43 PM on May 8, 2006


Its so much better that such metrics cost more from data companies like Choicepoint.

What the fuck are you talking about? That software was created by the Venezuelan government using Venezuelan citizen's private data, collected via private government records, as a tool for breaking, literally and metaphorically, the backs of the opposition - and you're comparing it to a company that sells information about what type of orange juice I buy to marketers? You're nuts.
posted by SweetJesus at 6:46 PM on May 8, 2006


Yes, I noticed that the one unsourced anti-Chavez blog linked to the other unsourced anti-Chavez blog as proof of the veracity of its claims. The mainstream media, in suppressing such "irrefutable proof," has obviously been coopted by the Bolivarian revolution.

For the benefit of argument, though, I am willing to accept that these people found a Venezuela government database on eMule. It appears to collate publicly available information. If some of that information was not available to the public, and if it was being used for the purposes of political oppression*, and if the program was real, and if its creation was indeed ordered by Chavez, then it would indeed be cause for concern.

*Vcrisis weasel-words this claim, but provides no further information.
posted by Makoto at 6:48 PM on May 8, 2006



*Vcrisis weasel-words this claim, but provides no further information.


Download it yourself, Capt. Skeptic. While you're at it, read what those facists at the EU Free-Elections Commission think of the 2005 elections under Chavez. I used to like him, but I do less and less every day.
posted by SweetJesus at 6:56 PM on May 8, 2006


I wonder if it's basically a big excel database, like a diebold product.
posted by Artw at 7:16 PM on May 8, 2006


I'm not claiming that a database doesn't exist, SweetJesus. What I am questioning is who it was made by, for what purpose it was made, and whether its existence was dependent on information known only to the government.

If it could have been cobbled together from public information, I am just as ready to believe it was a product of the anti-Chavez oppostion to discredit him in the run-up to the election as opposed to an official or quasi-official product. If it was indeed produced by someone within the government, the use to which it was put would be an important factor. As I said above, if the government made it at Chavez's behest, and it was then used to deny services to those who were opposed to him, that would be rather damning.

But the EU report only gives one line noting the existence of the database as a source of unease among the electorate, without discussing its provenance or usage. The anti-Chavez blogs certainly think it's been used for nefarious purposes, but they provide no support for those claims. If sourced accusations appeared in some mainstream venue, they would undoubtedly be worthy of consideration; but the track record of the anti-Chavez opposition for placing truth above ideology is as bad if not worse than Chavez's own. I have zero faith in their claims absent 'smoking gun' evidence.
posted by Makoto at 7:19 PM on May 8, 2006


You can't compare politics in a country like Venezuela with the United States, because it's just so different.

Professors and students of political science would disagree with you.

If anything, the turmoil in parts of South America only lends credence to the idea that yes, Chavez is bad, but he's kept in check by the economic (i.e., American) interests of his neighbors.

Your argument boils down to: the US is a perfect incubator for Democratic progress, while those ungainly, jungled SA nations have all sorts of white-man-burden types of problems.

I heartily disagree. Chavez is pretty bad. Compared to dictators created and/or propped up in that region by the US over the last 50 years? He's a cream-puff. And like a good internet troll, he lurves it when American go all apeshit over his actions, and so do his loyal followers.
posted by bardic at 7:19 PM on May 8, 2006


You're nuts.
posted by SweetJesus at 6:46 PM PST on May 8 [!]


And you make up shit.

A utopian-anarchist who's for new violent revolutions every election season! As Cheney would say 'fuck off' or 'go fuck yourself' whichever version makes ya feel better

But lets stick to actual datum eh?

The Democratic party keeps a list of who signs petitions, so do the Republicans. Both parties beat the lists against marketing databases. And if one goes to OpenSecrets, one can see who's given how much to various politicos.

You asked the question "Would you be comfortable with members of the RNC selling a DVD of election metrics, indexed by SSN, to anyone with $30,000 and a similar ideology?" and the answer is such a list exists for far more from private companies. And I would not be shocked to hear that old timers in the games of politics sell off their compiled data to the newcommers. I know local activists who will sell their petition data. So the only point up for debate is how much is data sold to the other RNC memebers for?

I was unaware of vcrisis link, and the images they offer of memos does remind me strongly that political animals are nasty pieces of work.
posted by rough ashlar at 7:21 PM on May 8, 2006


You know, just because it's said by the US and it's it portrays Chavez in a bad light, that doesn't mean it isn't true. Not to say we shouldn't verify . . . but actions are actions are actions. We'll see, I guess. Someone look over the trascript who speaks Spanish.

The amount of benefit of the doubt I'm seeing for Chavez is down right odd.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 7:22 PM on May 8, 2006


Someone look over the trascript who speaks Spanish.

You have a location of a transcript?

The amount of benefit of the doubt I'm seeing for Chavez is down right odd.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 7:22 PM PST on May 8 [!]


Consider the history of governments/industry and information presented as fact that later turn out to be wrong. And how when such is done over resources, the long term outcome turns out problematic. So far you have a bunch of blogs repeating the same thing, but no transcript. So no context in which it was said, with one post early on claiming that there is a context issue and others saying the reason for the context issue is oppression.
posted by rough ashlar at 7:34 PM on May 8, 2006


I'm not claiming that a database doesn't exist, SweetJesus. What I am questioning is who it was made by, for what purpose it was made, and whether its existence was dependent on information known only to the government.

The anti-Chavez blogs certainly think it's been used for nefarious purposes, but they provide no support for those claims. If sourced accusations appeared in some mainstream venue, they would undoubtedly be worthy of consideration; but the track record of the anti-Chavez opposition for placing truth above ideology is as bad if not worse than Chavez's own. I have zero faith in their claims absent 'smoking gun' evidence.


Well, the EU report actually states "The EUEOM takes note of the fact that wide sectors of the Venezuelan society do not have confidence in the electoral process and in the electoral administration. This standpoint, which has its roots in the high polarization that divides the Venezuelan society, became especially apparent during the Recall Referendum in 2004 as well as in the run up to these elections. The disclosure of a database containing more than 12 million citizens’ personal data and their political preference (the so called “Maisanta" Program) expressed during the signature collection for the Recall Referendum generated widespread fears that this information could be used for intimidation purposes and undue influence on voters. This fact played a significant role in favor of the abstention." It's pretty bad.

Unless you speak Spanish, which I don't, I imagine you're not going to find too much about inter-Venezuelan politics on the web, especially because of Chavez's crackdowns on the Press. You can read about those at Human Right's Watch.

Professors and students of political science would disagree with you.

Really? Because I had a professor of political science tell me that exact thing about South American politics a year ago.

And you make up shit.

Coming from a guy who doesn't consider America a democracy because it's a republic, that's quite a statement.
posted by SweetJesus at 7:38 PM on May 8, 2006


If anything, the turmoil in parts of South America only lends credence to the idea that yes, Chavez is bad, but he's kept in check by the economic (i.e., American) interests of his neighbors.

Really? Like Brazil becoming energy-independant, and importing extra gas from Bolivia, which just nationalized it's energy reserves with support from Venezuela. Do we even need to talk about the US's economic interests in Colombia? They can get by fine without the US.

What did they used to say about Mussolini? That he was a crooked-fuck, but at least the trains ran on time.
posted by SweetJesus at 7:48 PM on May 8, 2006


Coming from a guy who doesn't consider America a democracy because it's a republic, that's quite a statement.
posted by SweetJesus at 7:38 PM PST on May 8 [!]


I look forward to you having the CIA change its entry in the world factbook then.
posted by rough ashlar at 8:05 PM on May 8, 2006


From loquax's last link:

"Amendments to Venezuela’s Criminal Code ....
extend the scope of existing provisions that make it a criminal offense to insult or show disrespect for the president and other government authorities. Venezuela’s measures run counter to a continent-wide trend to repeal such “disrespect” (or “desacato”) laws. In recent years, Argentina, Costa Rica, Paraguay, and Peru have already repealed such laws, and other countries like Chile and Panama are currently considering legislation that would do so. "


Yeah, so we got a dude who would like to run things for 25 years, and you're aren't allowed to say anything bad about it.

If that ain't dictatorship, then what is?
posted by storybored at 8:07 PM on May 8, 2006


I look forward to you having the CIA change its entry in the world factbook then.

Do you know the difference between Democracy and democracy?
posted by SweetJesus at 8:12 PM on May 8, 2006


Relative comparisons with the Post or any other publication are non-sequitors, no disrespect meant.

How on earth does one consider left or right without a comparison as backdrop? If you're simply comparing the transformation of the Globe, that it was more left-leaning until recently, what use is that in any practical sense?

Wouldn't that be like complaining that FOX News is now left-leaning because Bill O'Reilly suddenly thinks Fair Trade is a good idea? Heavens.
posted by illiad at 8:16 PM on May 8, 2006


They don't say anything about Mussolini and trains running on time, unless they are trusting a secondary source and not checking their facts.
posted by asok at 8:19 PM on May 8, 2006


As they say on Metafilter, coogerdark has it.
posted by asok at 8:25 PM on May 8, 2006


Well, the EU report actually states... one line noting the existence of the database as a source of unease among the electorate, without discussing its provenance or usage.

Would you characterize that excerpt differently?

As for the press laws, they have been rehashed endlessly on various Mefi Chavez posts. The thrust of HRW's objections seem to be that the laws proposed standards that HRW considers too vague and open to hostile interpretation if severely enforced. Yeah, and they could also not be. If those interpretations are made and they are enforced in such a fashion, then there will be cause for concern. They also seem concerned that investigations of several media companies may be politically motivated. Why? Maybe their psychic told them; they certainly don't say here.

As with all of the other anti-Chavez accusations aired here, this provides a great deal of fodder for those who would like to point to something vaguely but plausibly nefarious. But there are no real accusations: there are insinuations, suppositions, unfounded fears and a large dollop of slippery slope hysteria.

If this was the extent of the charges that could have been leveled against Lenin for disrespecting civil liberties, my History of Soviet Russia professor was egregiously libeling the man.

storybored: Yeah, so we got a dude who would like to run things for 25 years, and you're aren't allowed to say anything bad about it.

1. That law already exists.

2. It predates Chavez.

3. The majority of Latin American countries have equivalent laws.

Now you might want to take the government to task for not repealing that law, and its actions to extend it are certainly questionable, but no one has ever had the legal right to 'disrespect' (whatever that might mean) most Latin American heads of state. That didn't make them dictatorships.

Personally, I'd only be concerned for Venezuelan democracy if--and, as others have noted, there is contradictory evidence about this--Chavez were to amend the Constitution to allow him to be elected for a single life term, especially if he dismantled the recall provisions. Merely removing term limits doesn't strike me as especially worrisome, provided elections continue to be free and fair. If he can win elections every four years until he dies, more power to him. (I'm not keen on the Twenty-Second Amendment to the US Constitution either, or any other arbitrary checks on the expression of the popular will (e.g. the Electoral College).)
posted by Makoto at 8:34 PM on May 8, 2006


What did they used to say about Mussolini? That he was a crooked-fuck, but at least the trains ran on time.

They used to say Hussein had WMDs, too. Isn't some level of skepticism rational, given the source?
posted by Mr. Six at 8:41 PM on May 8, 2006


How on earth does one consider left or right without a comparison as backdrop?

By the lean of the stories chosen by the editorial board of the paper?

Lining up one paper with another draws a false distinction: when both papers are of a political bent, one will by definition almost certainly be left of the other — but that doesn't necessarily imply that "leftist" publication has a liberal, centrist or even a right-wing editorial board.
posted by Mr. Six at 8:49 PM on May 8, 2006


I think there's been some serious overreaction to a badly reported statement that may or may not mean any of several things. Save the outrage until the elections are suspended, eh?

In the meantime, viva Chavez! He's done more for most Venezuelans than any previous leader, democratically elected or not.
posted by wilful at 8:49 PM on May 8, 2006


Venezuela News And Views

Written from the Venezuelan provinces, this blog started as private letters to my friends overseas, letters narrating the difficult days of the 2002/2003 strike in Venezuela. These letters became this mix of news, comments, pictures of the Venezuelan situation. Unknowingly, I have written the diary of Venezuela slow decent into authoritarianism, the slow erosion of our liberties, the takeover of the country by a military caste, the surrendering of our soul to the Cuban dictator.

A wealth of information and links to other anti-Chavez sites.
posted by loquax at 9:07 PM on May 8, 2006


(scroll down for detailed analysis of the electoral problems in Venezuela)
posted by loquax at 9:09 PM on May 8, 2006


They used to say Hussein had WMDs, too. Isn't some level of skepticism rational, given the source?

It was hyperbole aimed at bardic's idea that it's ok that Chavez is an autocrat, because he'll be in check because of the America's interest in the region. Don't read too much into it.

Well, the EU report actually states... one line noting the existence of the database as a source of unease among the electorate, without discussing its provenance or usage.

Well, it says that since the existence of the program has been leaked, the public's confidence in the fairness of their elections was lowered, and that contributed to the low turnouts (abstention) in the '05 vote. The '04 abstention rate was around 52%, which was historically low for Venezuela (average is around 65%). The 05' vote had an abstention rate of 75%, as high as 80% in some regions.

They also seem concerned that investigations of several media companies may be politically motivated. Why? Maybe their psychic told them; they certainly don't say here.

Of course it's politically motivated. The television stations and newspapers are owed by the rich, white former-ruling 1/5 of the population. They hate Chavez because he took down the previous military guy (I forget his name off the top of my head), who had protected their interests for years, in 1998. The media companies were instrumental in the attempted coup attempt of 2002, broadcasting propaganda about Chavez supporters killing innocent civilians. Chavez's crackdowns are designed to make sure that this never happens again - but that doesn't make it right to muzzle the press, no matter what the ends are.

As with all of the other anti-Chavez accusations aired here, this provides a great deal of fodder for those who would like to point to something vaguely but plausibly nefarious. But there are no real accusations: there are insinuations, suppositions, unfounded fears and a large dollop of slippery slope hysteria.

Whatever. I can point to threads here where I used to be really pro-Chavez (except the search feature sucks here), but I did a lot of reading up on the subject, and I flipped my opinion. The guy is going to destabilize the whole region even more than it is...
posted by SweetJesus at 9:14 PM on May 8, 2006


More links and analysis (I wish I had found these when I made the post).
posted by loquax at 9:18 PM on May 8, 2006


By the lean of the stories chosen by the editorial board of the paper?

Right...err...correct, but how do you determine the lean of the stories without a comparison point? I do agree it doesn't have to be another paper, but from the years I've read the Globe it's clear to me they lean left-of-centre in Canada. Which is, of course, a no more valid opinion than L. Martin's take, or even Wikipedia's.
posted by illiad at 9:27 PM on May 8, 2006


but from the years I've read the Globe it's clear to me they lean left-of-centre in Canada

I agree, unless you think the Liberal party is right-of-centre.
posted by loquax at 9:30 PM on May 8, 2006


SweetJesus, can we agree that their are degrees of vile when it comes to dictatorships? Until the US stops actively backing dictatorships in KSA, Egypt, Pakistan, and elsewhere, Americans (including myself) have no moral standpoint from which to point fingers (I'd consider Venezuela a potential dictatorship myself, but the point stands).
posted by bardic at 10:25 PM on May 8, 2006


SweetJesus, can we agree that their are degrees of vile when it comes to dictatorships? Until the US stops actively backing dictatorships in KSA, Egypt, Pakistan, and elsewhere, Americans (including myself) have no moral standpoint from which to point fingers (I'd consider Venezuela a potential dictatorship myself, but the point stands).

I completely agree with you until you say you don't have a moral standpoint from which to point fingers. You're not your government, so you're free to point out abuse without having to somehow weigh it on a scale against other abuses.
posted by SweetJesus at 10:32 PM on May 8, 2006


It's worth noting that we're talking about conjecture here, and that Chavez could be baiting his opposition into actually entering the race. One which is, I might add, heavily monitored by international inspectors.

Ultimately, I suspect that Chavez will rule legitimately for another six years, and then step down. If he doesn't, then he risks betraying everything he's fought for. Hopefully, he won't go that route.

That said, it does seem pretty candy-assed that the opposition is boycotting the elections... this after trying to drive Chavez out in a US-supported coup and in a US-sponsored & bankrolled recall election. Ultimately, they seem determined to paint Chavez as an illegitimate leader, which he clearly is not... at least yet.

Really, though, if Chavez actually led a drive towards something as sweeping as a 25-year extension to his rule, that would be very bad news indeed -- much different than a simple law overturning term limits. He hasn't done that yet though, and he talks smack all the time, so I guess we'll have to see what happens.
posted by insomnia_lj at 10:42 PM on May 8, 2006


SweetJesus, The reason I don't want to point fingers is that the sin of hypocrisy is worse than the sin of inaction, IMO. Why don't we clean up our act with our totalitarian buddies and lead by example? That would be the--what's the word I'm looking for?--"American" thing to do.

And if you don't agree with me, fine--I'm not the issue. Guys like Chavez and Castro are, and they see no reason to clean up their act when the US seems to believe some dictatorships are more equal than others. Hell, they even base their foreign policy since the 1950's on it.
posted by bardic at 10:58 PM on May 8, 2006


SweetJesus, The reason I don't want to point fingers is that the sin of hypocrisy is worse than the sin of inaction, IMO. Why don't we clean up our act with our totalitarian buddies and lead by example? That would be the--what's the word I'm looking for?--"American" thing to do.

I think you need to stop thinking in terms of nationality, and start thinking in terms of humanity. You're not a nation state - you have no power other than your vote and your voice.
posted by SweetJesus at 11:09 PM on May 8, 2006


Wow, nice dodge. I'm actually thinking in terms of ideals and values. I'm still a fan of those, but frustrated by a president who lectures the entire world on how it should behave, while practicing venal, destructive policies. But since you seem to be hyperbolically challenged, I guess I shouldn't expect you to understand the device when I use it.
posted by bardic at 11:16 PM on May 8, 2006


Wow, nice dodge. I'm actually thinking in terms of ideals and values. I'm still a fan of those, but frustrated by a president who lectures the entire world on how it should behave, while practicing venal, destructive policies.

So what can you do about it? Are you going to take up arms, and storm the Bastille? No, you complain about it for 4 years, and vote the fucker out if you can. That's democracy in action. You just have to accept that the system is going to work itself out.

You talk about Bush's problems, I talk about Bush's problems, we all do - that's fine. But why do you feel it's hypocritical to talk about Venezuela's problems, as if have no bearing on us?

But since you seem to be hyperbolically challenged, I guess I shouldn't expect you to understand the device when I use it.

Maybe you should re-read what I said.
posted by SweetJesus at 11:28 PM on May 8, 2006


SweetJesus, can we agree that their are degrees of vile when it comes to dictatorships? Until the US stops actively backing dictatorships in KSA, Egypt, Pakistan, and elsewhere, Americans (including myself) have no moral standpoint from which to point fingers (I'd consider Venezuela a potential dictatorship myself, but the point stands).

Are you American? If so, please stop posting in this thread, your opinion doesn't count.
posted by Falconetti at 11:33 PM on May 8, 2006


Yes, I vote, and yes, I complain, and yes, I like to talk about politics. My opinion matters to the extent that I pay taxes to support a government that is entirely hypocritical, and it doesn't have to be. You pay them too, I imagine, and this makes us both complicit in a lot of messed up stuff that's going on in the world, and has been even before the occupation of Iraq. If you don't care about that, then I consider you to be a lazy citizen. That's OK I guess, you guys are an unfortunate majority these days.

Promoting democracy is a good idea--FDR was a pretty smart guy, as was Wilson, but perhaps too smart in the latter case. You do it, however, by setting an example. You start with things you can easily give or take away, like funding, much of it military, that goes to regimes which are, by obvious standards, not democracies.

Falconetti, telling me to shut up would go over better with your buddies at Freep. I'll make my point in smaller words you might understand (*fingers crossed!*)--call Chavez a dictator all you want. Hell, I might agree with you eventually, but as of now he strikes me as relatively benign compared to the actual fiends the US has supported in the last 50 years. His response, I imagine, would be along the lines of "Well, if the Saudi Royal Family can do it, why can't I?" More close to home, he could point to the Central American dictatorships funded in the 1970's and 1980's by guys like Negroponte. More historically, why not Iran 1953? Some dictators are more equal than others, and some functioning democracies (albeit imperfect ones) need to be overthrown and replaced with kings!

But I'm obviously not as smart as you and SweetJesus. Please enlighten me.
posted by bardic at 11:44 PM on May 8, 2006


Bardic, I think you're right on. Further, I think it's striking what a shocked and moralistic pose we tend to take in the US to potential threats to "Democracy" from people who are sitting on 15% of our national oil import supply.

In fact, I think you could derive an inverse corrolation between our tolerance of "dictators who threaten Democracy" worldwide and their willingness to play ball with us economically, human rights be damned.
posted by stenseng at 1:02 AM on May 9, 2006


this is such a sad post... my venezuelan buddy laughed when i sent it to him.

loquax, what a joke you and the AP obviously are.
posted by specialk420 at 1:08 AM on May 9, 2006


From Specialk420's link:

Fortunately, Agence France Press (AFP) got the story right. The opening sentence of AFP's Spanish-language report reads, "Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez claimed Saturday that, if the opposition decides not to run candidates in the December presidential election, he could decree a referendum to permit his reelection for multiple terms until 2031."

So the choice for the opposition is simple. If they don't want a referendum that would end presidential term limits, they shouldn't pull out of the upcoming presidential election. As far as I'm concerned, the threat of a referendum is a perfectly reasonable (and democratic) way to dissuade the opposition from trying to delegitimize Venezuela's electoral process.

When Venezuela's opposition knows it's going to lose an election, it has a tendency to try to delegitimize the electoral process. Instead of facing up to the fact that it is unpopular, the business-led opposition tries to shift the blame for its electoral misfortunes to the National Electoral Council (CNE). The opposition claims that the CNE could commit "fraud" and that the vote might not be secret. Opposition conspiracy theories of this nature are legion. Never mind that there have been international observers on hand that have testified to the fairness of Venezuela's elections. Never mind that even the opposition's own polls show that Chavez is much more popular than they are.

In other words, many members of the opposition aren't really interested in trying to win elections because they know that they lack popular support. Many in the opposition prefer, instead, to try to create the impression internationally that Venezuela's electoral process is illegitimate.
posted by stenseng at 1:19 AM on May 9, 2006 [1 favorite]


stenseng:

Thank you for a much clearer item. The amount of sheer bullshit, most of which comes from the US-funded Venezuelan "opposition," in this thread is staggering; we're talking about a conflict between a massively popular elected president and a US-backed group bent on getting him out by any means possible, not a "dictator" (a concept that was intimately related to democracy before it was stripped of all meaning during the period between World War I and World War II). The anti-Chavistas on this thread have no idea of what's going on in Venezuela beyond what the propaganda machine tells them; it says "dictator" and they have a knee-jerk reaction.
posted by graymouser at 3:44 AM on May 9, 2006


b_thinky:

"At yearend 2004 there were 3,218 black male sentenced prison inmates per 100,000 black males in the United States, compared to 1,220 Hispanic male inmates per 100,000 Hispanic males and 463 white male inmates per 100,000 white males."

That's the United States. Name me a social democracy with a record this poor.

Your rhetoric is bullshit. The United States was one of the last of the 15 Western Industrialized Nations to abolish slavery, and is unambiguously the slowest at eliminating its social effects. If someday you actually manage to finish the abolishment of slavery in your country, maybe than you can blither on about socialism being a form of slavery with out sounding an ignorant idiot.
posted by lastobelus at 4:28 AM on May 9, 2006


Specialk420, check this out: I already posted that very link.

And like I and many others have said, in a country like Venezuela, where Chavez controls the media and the electoral commission, doing away with term limits is the same as electing him president for life. I'm glad your buddy thinks it's so funny, he must have a great government job.
posted by loquax at 5:25 AM on May 9, 2006


...doing away with term limits is the same as electing him president for life

How? If you read carefully, he's not doing away with elections and installing himself indefinitely.

If the opposition refuses to run, he would apparently be asking the people to vote on whether or not to remove term limits that prevent him from running again in a democratic election.

Factually, what (legitimate) news article indicates a dictatorship would be installed?
posted by Mr. Six at 7:11 AM on May 9, 2006



All republics are democracies, but not all democracies are republics.

No.

China, Vietnam, Belarus -> republics, but not democracies.
Britain, Canada, Japan -> democracies, but not republics.

North Korea is not a republic because no-one votes for a representative.

No.

A republic is just a state without a monarch (king, emperor, pope etc.). Dictators are not monarchs.

Dictionary : 'A political order whose head of state is not a monarch and in modern times is usually a president. '
posted by plep at 7:14 AM on May 9, 2006


Falconetti, telling me to shut up would go over better with your buddies at Freep.

That is just silly and insulting (which is your style, I guess), and you can look through my postings if you want to see why that is so ridiculously wrong.

I was only following your advice, that Americans cannot vocalize opinions on issues for which the American government has no moral standing. I get your point, I just think the consequences of following it would be terrible. Moral standing is a concept about who has the authority to judge and a better ability to persuade, not about the inherent worth of a critique. When the government complains about Chavez, they lack moral standing for the very reasons you mentioned, but not individuals. But, you don't agree with me, so I am an idiot who can't read and a ultra-right wing Republican, so what do I know?
posted by Falconetti at 7:16 AM on May 9, 2006


(Ireland is both a republic and a democracy).
posted by plep at 7:18 AM on May 9, 2006


Factually, what (legitimate) news article indicates a dictatorship would be installed?

You don't get it. Chavez is already the "dictator" in Venezuela. There are no "free and fair" elections when almost all of the government apparatus is controlled by one party and one man. There can be no hope for opposition when the media is controlled by the ruling party. Democracy in Venezuela is already dead (whatever you think of Chavez's social policies), the only question is for how long. Eliminating term limits ensures that Chavez will be able to continue running Venezuela as he sees fit until he quits, dies or is overthrown. Whether or not he goes to the polls ever four years for a token confirmation of his presidency is irrelevant and comical. Blaming the opposition for not participating in this charade is like blaming Solidarity for not opposing the communists in a state of their creation and control, and a framework and conditions of their choosing.
posted by loquax at 7:55 AM on May 9, 2006


but the US, big oil, and his nations elite are willing to do everything in their power, legal or illegal, to prevent him from doing that


A possible scenario : "Big oil" compromises as they still are making boatload of money, now more then ever. "Nation elite" will get some of the nationalization money and graciously shut the fuck up (too busy spending it and not willing to go to jail) or support el presidente. What's left ? Some US government not liking others doing what they do much more elegantly (for instance convincing people there is a scarecrow named Osama etc etc war on this on that whatever ) and a part of corpocrate that really don't tolerate any interference with oil.


Rough ashlar « writes ""Yes! Exactly! For in America, which is not socialist no matter how hard Milwaukee kept socialists as mayors, no one is enslaved by their car payments, house payments, lifestyle choices to a corporate derivied paycheck. Loans are freedom! Taxes are another expression of freedom, a throwing off the shackles of oppression!


The difference is formal AND substantial. Yes you are correct, a lot of people have increasing problems making ends meet expecially if they are young and weren't born with a silver spoon or with some substantial capital behind their back ; it's not really a form of slavery, because nobody is forcing them to do or choose anything. Point being you don't need to force anybody when you have what they need and organize yourself in a corporative system, which isn't but an union of rich powerful people.
posted by elpapacito at 8:11 AM on May 9, 2006


'There can be no hope for opposition when the media is controlled by the ruling party'

The first thing the US backed coup participants did in Venezuela was to take the over the one TV channel that they did not control at the time. Even with complete control of the television media they were still faced by a huge spontaneous popular uprising.

I can understand why Chavez might feel a little angry at the commercial media, given their complicity in the coup and transmission of disinformation after the event.

Remember, the high court were so in the pocket of the antiChavistas that they ruled there was no coup. As a result noone has been prosecuted for the deaths of the 60 people shot and killed by the army during the coup. Danilo Anderson, who was attempting to investigate the deaths was assasinated by a car bomb in 2004.

Why would Chavez be arming the population, if he were attempting to create a dictatorship?

Also, this could be a comment on Berlusconi's Italy.
posted by asok at 8:16 AM on May 9, 2006 [1 favorite]


Nobody is falsing them to do or choose anything ...if they're not covered by medical insurance, and they die horribly of some disease, it's their choice!
posted by Artw at 8:19 AM on May 9, 2006


Whether or not he goes to the polls ever four years for a token confirmation of his presidency is irrelevant and comical.

I'm sorry, sir, but you are begging the question:

• Independent observers agree that he won his elections and recall referendum fairly

• There's no indication — other than through your unsupported assertion (and those of North American media oligarchies) — that he is a dictator, or that he intends to become a dictator, or that this new referendum is a pretext to installing a dictatorship

• Further, the language in the news articles being presented contradicts your assertion, as I indicate above

I appreciate your emotional state. Living in the United States I am sensitive to the fascistic tendencies of the current leadership, and find its policies and actions abhorrent to a free and civil society. If the leader of another country behaved the same as the leader of the United States, I would be upset, too.
posted by Mr. Six at 8:22 AM on May 9, 2006


• Independent observers agree that he won his elections and recall referendum fairly

What is the definition of fair? Did he stuff ballot boxes? Maybe not. Were the rules of the election and media coverage heavily slanted in his favour? Was the opposition paralyzed by harassment, arrests, restrictions and intimidation? Absolutely.

• There's no indication — other than through your unsupported assertion (and those of North American media oligarchies) — that he is a dictator, or that he intends to become a dictator, or that this new referendum is a pretext to installing a dictatorship


What is the definition of a dictator? I don't care particularly about the term itself. It seems plain that he is authoritarian, does not respect democracy or alternative philosophies, ideologies or even points of view, and that he wants to retain power as long as possible, constitution be damned. Whatever you call that, it's illiberal, undemocratic, and worrisome.

I strongly encourage you to read the blog I posted a few comments back. It may give you some context for the assertions I make.
posted by loquax at 8:44 AM on May 9, 2006


What is the definition of fair? Did he stuff ballot boxes? Maybe not. Were the rules of the election and media coverage heavily slanted in his favour? Was the opposition paralyzed by harassment, arrests, restrictions and intimidation? Absolutely.

This is more bullshit. The major media in Venezuela, factually - not in the fever dreams of the incredibly rich opposition - is in fact by and large against Chávez, viciously so, such that it would be shocking in the United States, because it is by and large controlled by the opposition.

Where's the evidence of harrassment, arrests, or intimidation of the opposition? You're touting the fantasy line of fascists, not the cold hard truth here.
posted by graymouser at 9:13 AM on May 9, 2006


You pay them too, I imagine, and this makes us both complicit in a lot of messed up stuff that's going on in the world, and has been even before the occupation of Iraq. If you don't care about that, then I consider you to be a lazy citizen. That's OK I guess, you guys are an unfortunate majority these days.

But we're not talking about Iraq, we're not talking about Bush - we're talking about Venezuela. Why you feel the need to shortsightedly compare Venezuela with our policies in Iraq, I don't know. It's the worst kind of moral relativism - because the Saudi's are bad, we can't talk about the Venezuelans. Well, the Saudi's are bad, but they're also an entrenched oligarchy that been around 100 years. Venezuela still has a chance to be saved, and you don't want to talk about it because you're afraid of being called a hypocrite because of the actions of your state from fifty years ago? What a wimp.

The thing that as a liberal (only on mifi would I be considered somehow "conservative") pisses me off about Chavez the most is that there was such promise for the people of Venezuela in 1998 to finally get a leader to was going to actually empower the poor, and use the country's oil money for something other than buying off foreign support and luxury goods from Louis Vuitton. But now he's arming his poorest, more fervent supporters with automatic weapons, restricting private free speech rights, and attempting to make it possible for him to run for president indefinitely. He's setting the table for despotism, even if he isn't a despot now. I've got a hard time believing a democracy is healthy when 75% of the population abstains from voting.

And if I'm so lazy, just what the fuck are you doing to take down the Saudi empire, or any of our state's corrupt buddies?

China, Vietnam, Belarus -> republics, but not democracies.

I should have been more clear, I was talking about truerepresentative republics. The three examples you cite are countries that hold elections (to some extent), but due to restricted communications and speech rights, and the lack of meaningful opposition parties to the state, the ruling class just goes on ruling. This is eventually what will happen in Venezuela if Chavez continues to corrupt the elections process, and intimidate the opposition parties.

Britain, Canada, Japan -> democracies, but not republics.

I know, I said not all democracies are republics.

• Independent observers agree that he won his elections and recall referendum fairly

Between 2004 and 2005 is when these election problems started rearing their heads. Independent international observers only looked at the voting procedure, not the actual vote that took place:
In the parliamentary elections of December 4, 2005, the party [Fifth Republic] won 114 out of 167 seats with allied parties winning the remaining seats. However, voter participation was a record low of only 25%, calling into question the legitimacy of the new national assembly.

All major opposition parties withdrew their candidates only days before the election in apparent protest at the general voting conditions. The main complaint was that the secrecy of the vote was compromised by voting machines that stored the time at which each vote was cast, allowing each persons vote to be worked out from knowledge of the voting order. The Organization of American States (OAS) and European Union (EU) endorsed the legitimacy of the actual voting procedure. Domestic election observer groups were highly critical of the conditions surrounding the election alleging voter intimidation, an inconsistent voter registry and accusations of misuse of public funds for campaign purposes by the MVR.
There's no indication — other than through your unsupported assertion (and those of North American media oligarchies) — that he is a dictator, or that he intends to become a dictator, or that this new referendum is a pretext to installing a dictatorship

Only if you're unable to see the forest through the trees...

Why would Chavez be arming the population, if he were attempting to create a dictatorship?

It's a tactical move against the Venezuelan National Guard. Because the Venezuelan National Guard is where the majority of his opposition lies, he's attempting to supplant the National Guard by arming peasant farmers. The National Guard has been a thorn in his side for a while now; they were instrumental in the 2002 coup, they helped Colombia kidnap a FARC leader out of Caracas' as a "fuck you" to Chavez, and on and on...

Where's the evidence of harassment, arrests, or intimidation of the opposition? You're touting the fantasy line of fascists, not the cold hard truth here.

That fucking Commie-Nazi Jimmy Carter at the Carter Center says otherwise, but why would you want to listen to him?
posted by SweetJesus at 9:24 AM on May 9, 2006


"And like I and many others have said, in a country like Venezuela, where Chavez controls the media and the electoral commission, doing away with term limits is the same as electing him president for life. I'm glad your buddy thinks it's so funny, he must have a great government job."

Yeah, uh...Loquax, you're full of shit up to your pointy little head on this one. Under Chavez, for the first time in a long time, Venezuela has had pretty much free and uncensored media, with the vast majority of the tv channels controlled by anti-Chavez big money interests. The fact is that there is far freer speech in the media under Chavez than there ever was under the pro-us regime before.

Chavez controls exactly one tv channel - the equvalent of C-Span here.
posted by stenseng at 10:43 AM on May 9, 2006


Venezuela has had pretty much free and uncensored media

Compared to North Korea, I agree wholeheartedly. Also, pointy head?

The control of the media

There was a time where a case could be made that the Venezuelan media held an unfair advantage against Chavez. This did not stop him from getting all what he wanted, but it sure made a good story for the pages of sycophantic rags such as Le Monde Diplomatique. This situation has not only totally changed but it has reverted into an advantage for Chavez that the private media never held, even in 1999-2000, the highlight of the confrontation.

Today the balance sheet is as follows:

TV. Only RCTV and Globovision present opinion shows that criticize strongly the government. Venevision and Televen have been neutralized and have no opinion program worth mentioning. Meanwhile the government who originally held only VTV has now added to it, even through cable all across the land, ViveTV, ANTV, and Telesur. The first three are nothing more than a semi permanent talk show supporting Chavez and trashing the opposition in a way that this one cannot do on Globovision and RCTV. ViveTV is leavened with some “documentaries” which are meant to reflect the joy of the people now liberated from the shackles of neo liberalism and the empire. On TV now (and I am not counting the regional TV stations) the government disposes of a total majority, and a militant one at that. It remains to be seen if opposition candidates, as per law, will be allowed to run adds there or even participate on given talk shows on an equal footing with Chavez. To add insult to injury, VTV, Vive TV, ANTV, Telesur and the other are financed at 99 % Venezuelan tax payer expense, something that would not be tolerated for a second for, say, the BBC or PBS or DW or TVE. Of course, whether “the people” watch state TV is another matter and that seems to be a problem for Chavez as poor neighborhoods seem to be spotting more and more satellite dishes.

Radio. The situation is even more dramatic. By law no radio system can have a nation wide coverage. The only one is RNV which is also an all support Chavez system. In some rural areas RNV is the only one of 2-3 radio stations that can be heard. To this the government has added some private regional networks. There is no opposition radio system that covers the whole country, perhaps not even half of the country. Taxes and pressures have taken care of this. Only Union Radio does cover the main markets but it is not allowed to expand and cover smaller markets such as San Felipe where you can get Union Radio only if you subscribe to expensive Direct TV. There is also a fast growing network of "community" radio stations which are supposed to be independent but that are in fact financed by the government to some degree. These, by their very local nature, seem to have some effect.

Press. Here the opposition holds better. Chavismo has been unable to produce a newspaper that people are actually wanting to pay to read. All have failed. Chavismo can only count on sympathetic newspapers such as Ultimas Noticias or Panorama. VEA, Temas and other rags are heavily subsidized (99% state advertisement) and exist on stands because some chavistas need to buy them to know the official line and thus know exactly what to say at work. Just as people who read Granma, or used to read Pravda did: you do not buy them for information.

Controlled news. The problem of chavismo is that a majority of the population finds official media or even sympathetic media boring. Thus opposition outlets still have a much bigger audience than chavista propaganda tools. To counter that since 2004 the government disposes of the infamous Ley Resorte. With such a law the government has effectively limited the amount of criticism that can be hurled at it between 7 AM and 11 PM. Self censorship is now the rule, even in Globovision. Oh, it not too bad, major news still can pass but they must be presented in such a way that their impact is somewhat neutralized. This self censorship is also seen every day in newspapers where certain topics are just ignored as they could provoke annoying actions such as spurious law suits or visits from controlling agencies (CONATEL) and heavy fines (SENIAT).

Forced broadcasts. But the ultimate weapon to reach those who refuse to watch state TV is the forced broadcast. There are two types of broadcasts. The worst offender is the “cadena”, a forced simultaneous broadcast on all radio and TV. Any activity the government might think important is enough excuse to chain the country, leaving it with only two options: turn off TV or subscribe to cable. It is most of the time a lengthy Chavez speech at prime time, and at election time it becomes an shameless political add that lasts anywhere from 15 minutes to 3 hours. The other tool to serve chavismo is very insidious. As for the “ley Resorte” the government is allowed, free of charge, to pass on TV a certain number of minutes of “institutional” adds daily. As election approaches these adds are turning more and more like mere propaganda. A recent one shows Chavez inaugurating a new thermal plant in what can only be judged as a flagrant violation of the spirit of the law. But the CNE and CONATEL remain silent. In other words, Chavez will not need to pay for political advertisement and any protest lodged by opposition candidates will be received and promised to be investigated AFTER the election, Chavez getting at best an “exhortation” (I kid you not) to tone it down some.


Viva Chavez!
posted by loquax at 10:52 AM on May 9, 2006


Chavez controls exactly one tv channel - the equivalent of C-Span here.

HA! The equivalent of CSPAN? It's more like the BBC than CSPAN, but as long as we're being disingenuous, It just so happens that the one media station he (the state) owns is the only media station not subject to the 2004 media reform laws.

*snip* The law establishes an 11-person Directorate of Social Responsibility, part of whose mandate is to enforce the law and punish infringements. Seven members of the directorate are government appointees. Its president, the Director General of the National Telecommunications Commission (CONATEL), is appointed by the president and does not enjoy fixed tenure. *snip*

Oh boy, a standards board which gets to decide what is or isn't decent, dole out penalties for what it finds indecent, and is accountable to no one except the President, although it doesn't apply to him. That's real fucking democratic...
posted by SweetJesus at 11:01 AM on May 9, 2006


loquax:

Your source is a partisan hack. It doesn't claim that Chávez has done anything (other than the institutional advertisements) to censor TV, just that some of the opposition stations have "been neutralized" and others reflect the massive popular support for the man. Likewise, it complains that corporate interests haven't been allowed to buy up enough of the airwaves. Sorry, but that isn't a free press, it's a corporate press, and I have no problem with limitations on the amount of air time corporations can buy up. Meanwhile, nothing whatsoever on the other ludicrous claims, even from your opposition hacks.
posted by graymouser at 11:04 AM on May 9, 2006 [1 favorite]


I give up. If you really insist on giving him the benefit of the doubt, be my guest. The slightest bit of research will show that he has trampled on laws, rewritten the constitution, and suppressed opposition. Now he wants to eliminate term limits and be (freely and fairly, of course) elected over and over again. If you're willing to overlook authoritarianism and oppression so long as Chavez pays lip service to socialism I'm not so sure that you can call yourself any kind of liberal.

Of course, from your comments, I doubt very much that you are anything resembling a liberal.
posted by loquax at 11:13 AM on May 9, 2006


Your source is a partisan hack. It doesn't claim that Chávez has done anything (other than the institutional advertisements) to censor TV, just that some of the opposition stations have "been neutralized" and others reflect the massive popular support for the man.

You're a partisan hack. You present no source other than your own misguided asserting that "it's fine", and Chavez is better than the last guy. Meanwhile, Human Rights Watch, and Amnesty International are saying pretty much the same thing that guy says, and you just write it off because it's "anti-Chavez". That's the definition of partisan...
posted by SweetJesus at 11:14 AM on May 9, 2006


"Now he wants to eliminate term limits and be (freely and fairly, of course) elected over and over again."

No, he doesn't, for chrissakes! What he's doing is brinksmanship, you dolt! Anti Chavez forces know they can't win in a straight up election, so they're willing to totally undermine the government by making it look like the whole system is rigged. Chavez is saying "Ok, you want to do that, well, here are the consequences."

In everything that's happened in Venezuela, Chavez has been the one to uphold the government, the Venezuelan Constitution and the rule of law, and his big money opponents have been the ones to undermine the same, even going so far as to throw a failed coup d'etat.

I don't think Chavez is the greatest thing since sliced bread, but he's no Pinochet, or any of the dozens of other thugs and true despots the US has supported over the last 45 years, and all I've seen from the anti-Chavez people is a willingness to kill their own people, lie, cheat, steal, and undermine a democratically elected government, to get what they want.
posted by stenseng at 11:19 AM on May 9, 2006


>>>>>"Now he wants to eliminate term limits and be (freely and fairly, of course) elected over and over again."

No, he doesn't, for chrissakes! .... Chavez is saying "Ok, you want to do that, well, here are the consequences."


Are one of those consequences he is saying that he would "eliminate term limits and be (freely and fairly, of course) elected over and over again."
posted by dios at 11:22 AM on May 9, 2006


Look, if a complete repeal of term limits, or a "Presidente for Life" thing was really what Chavez were after, he'd just do it. He has the support. The guy polls like the anti George Bush.
Even Amnesty International agrees that he was elected and re-elected freely and fairly.

Chavez doesn't have any interest in becoming el Jefe, because he knows that would completely isolate his government from the world, Cuba style. The man is not stupid.
posted by stenseng at 11:29 AM on May 9, 2006


Dios: No, he's saying the opposition would be allowing him to put such a thing to the people in a referendum if the opposition tried to undermine the democratic system.
posted by -harlequin- at 11:31 AM on May 9, 2006


I think you could say that it's potentially a consequence though, since the point of his bluff-calling is that it's plausible that the people might vote "yea" on the hypothetical referrendum.
posted by -harlequin- at 11:35 AM on May 9, 2006


I don't think Chavez is the greatest thing since sliced bread, but he's no Pinochet

Vote for Chavez: Hey, at least he's no Pinochet!

Chavez doesn't have any interest in becoming el Jefe, because he knows that would completely isolate his government from the world, Cuba style

Wow, you really don't know what you're talking about, do you...
posted by SweetJesus at 11:38 AM on May 9, 2006


Dios: No, he's saying the opposition would be allowing him to put such a thing to the people in a referendum if the opposition tried to undermine the democratic system.

Again. The opposition did not undermine the democratic system, Chavez already has. The opposition has no hope of competing in the elections, let alone winning. Chavez somehow convincing you that his opposition is "forcing" him to run the country in perpetuity because his opponents have subverted the system is pure evil genius.

Chavez doesn't have any interest in becoming el Jefe, because he knows that would completely isolate his government from the world, Cuba style. The man is not stupid.


Thanks stenseng. I'll sleep better tonight. You're right, I'm sure Castro regrets becoming dictator for life, and tells Chavez this every time they conference call. I'm sure the 16 billion dollars of the Venezuelan's people's money that Chavez has spent on influence elections elsewhere in South America is just for sport.
posted by loquax at 11:38 AM on May 9, 2006


"You're right, I'm sure Castro regrets becoming dictator for life, and tells Chavez this every time they conference call. "

Oh please with the histrionics.

I don't give a shit what Castro does or doesn't think, I'm talking realpolitik here - Chavez knows (regardless of personal motivation) that if he were to take Venezuela down Cuba's path, the odds are real good that the US led international business community would either a: isolate Venezuela completely, cripple their exports, and force them trade oil for subsistence, or b: Declare Chavez part of the Axis of Naughty, invade, and install another pro-US strongman to keep the oil a-flowin'.

Chavez is walking a very tenuous line, and he knows it.
posted by stenseng at 11:43 AM on May 9, 2006


I'm sure the 16 billion dollars of the Venezuelan's people's money that Chavez has spent on influence elections elsewhere in South America is just for sport.

No, from a philosophical perspective, it's to help South America get out from under North America's bootheel and have some level of self-reliance and self-determination on the global field.

From a pragmatic perspective, it's to make sure that a: Chavez has a lot of friends who will keep pressure on for the US to leave him be (for what that's worth) and b: to give him access to strategic trading partners while under the stormy cloud of what amounts to a growing unofficial US-led embargo.
posted by stenseng at 11:46 AM on May 9, 2006


stengseng - and that's why he's doing his level best to co-opt Cuba, Peru, Brazil, Bolivia and anyone else he can get his hands on.

Regardless, isolation is not a problem for megalomaniacs. Just for the peons they rule over.
posted by loquax at 11:47 AM on May 9, 2006


Yeah, I know. George W. Bush is my president too.
posted by stenseng at 11:48 AM on May 9, 2006


The opposition has no hope of competing in the elections, let alone winning.

How many groups need to say the elections weren't rigged before you believe as much? The opposition lose because they aren't popular in the country. Maybe they should start pandering to the poor. It's an idea. Of course, then they would be COMMUNISTS. :O :O :O
posted by chunking express at 11:49 AM on May 9, 2006


loquax:
Chavez somehow convincing you that his opposition is "forcing" him to run the country in perpetuity because his opponents have subverted the system is pure evil genius.

Your imagination is running away with you. I wrote "allowing" and you heard "forcing". I wrote "if the opposition tried to undermine" and you heard "because his opponents have subverted the system".

No more strawmen please.
posted by -harlequin- at 11:49 AM on May 9, 2006


I don't give a shit what Castro does or doesn't think, I'm talking realpolitik here - Chavez knows (regardless of personal motivation) that if he were to take Venezuela down Cuba's path, the odds are real good that the US led international business community would either a: isolate Venezuela completely, cripple their exports, and force them trade oil for subsistence, or b: Declare Chavez part of the Axis of Naughty, invade, and install another pro-US strongman to keep the oil a-flowin'

Dude, do you know what Bolivarianism is? It's the unification of Latin America into one county. He's looking to create a modern Gran Colombia. Chavez doesn't want US interests in Latin America, and could care less about the US buying their oll in the long term. We need their oil more than they need our markets. They have us where they wasn't us - over a barrel of expensive crude everyone wants a piece of.

As for "b)", Chavez is already fighting a proxy war against the US via his interdiction into Colombian territory in support of the FARC. If it wasn't for Sept 11th and Iraq, we would probably already be down there.

How many groups need to say the elections weren't rigged before you believe as much?

The 1998, 2000 and (to an extent) the 2004 elections were fairly corruption free. The 2005 and upcoming 2006 elections are not, and Humans Rights Watch, Amnesty International and The Carter Center have all said as much in the links I've posted here.
posted by SweetJesus at 11:55 AM on May 9, 2006


Know what really gives Chavez creds?

The fact that Bush tried to have him deposed.

And, yes, the elections were free and fair.
But, of course, as we're seeing with Palestine, that means nothing to the Bushies as they love them some crony dictators, long as tehy shovel money to their friends.
Bush even likes to hold hands with those crony dictators!
posted by nofundy at 12:05 PM on May 9, 2006


Dude, I'm well aware of what Bolivarianism is, thanks. I know all about Gran Colombia. I'm also aware of what reality is, as is Chavez. I don't think his vision of the "Bolivarian Revolution" is about creating some grand South American Empire, but about liberating the governments of South America starting with his own, from being run lock and stock by western corporate interests. It's about self determination, and the ability to use their own resources for their own people in the way they see fit.

That said, I believe Chavez is a realist, and he knows that he CAN NOT afford to completely alienate his government from the west - hence cheap oil for the east coast, etc.

He's going to keep jabbing at Bush, because it plays well to his base, but not so much as to cause a destabilizing event, as he figures he can wait the Bushies out, and see if he can't establish somewhat better relations with the next incoming (and likely Democratic) administration.
posted by stenseng at 12:06 PM on May 9, 2006


Chavez wants a South America that isn't dependent on the United States, the IMF, and the World Bank? Shocking! He really is one crazy sonuvabitch. I'm glad Americans are hard at work figuring out ways to get rid of him.
posted by chunking express at 12:09 PM on May 9, 2006


The Bush administration really, really hates socialism, and really, really cares about free speech and elections.

The focus on Chavez by certain factions of the American political landscape stems only from the purest of principled stances. That's why the same people are so concerned about voting irregularities in America's own elections.
posted by sonofsamiam at 1:03 PM on May 9, 2006


The critics of Chávez cannot account for the fact that the opposition is tiny, rich, and tried to overthrow him. They are a counter-revolutionary party, and relying on them for information about Venezuela would be akin to relying on the Mafioso exiles in Miami for information about Cuba (which the US government and to a large extent the media do). Venezuelanalysis.com has a good counterbalance, but it is just that -- a different partisan view. What the criticism relies upon is just a different party press, so I am fully justified in calling them partisan hacks. I am no less biased; the difference is that I'm not in a party that intends to put a military junta in power in Caracas.
posted by graymouser at 1:24 PM on May 9, 2006


"Venezuela has had pretty much free and uncensored media"

It's not perfect, sure, and there are rather agressive and skewed media battles being waged from both sides.

That said, Reporters Sans Frontieres, who has been independently covering press freedom issues for years, recently ranked Venezuela as #90 in press freedoms.

Sure, that's not great. It's right around the middle of their list. Still, it's ahead of countries such as Mexico, Peru, Turkey, India, The Philippines, Jordan, Kuwait, the UAE, Russia, Afghanistan, Israel (in the occupied territories), and the US (in Iraq).
posted by insomnia_lj at 11:50 AM on May 10, 2006


And, yes, the elections were free and fair. But, of course, as we're seeing with Palestine, that means nothing to the Bushies as they love them some crony dictators, long as tehy shovel money to their friends.

Would you care to elaborate how Bush's treatment of Hamas is contradictory to his alleged support for free elections? Or does a free election come with a guarantee of American money these days?
posted by Krrrlson at 9:56 PM on May 10, 2006


« Older We're sending our love down the well   |   Ancient observatories - from space Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments