Interesting debate about this (ever so unexpected ) new developement in Venezuala- Chavez seeking third term.

I was reading this piece of otherwise non-news except this stuck out for me: Is the process what the country wants, and if so, who are we to critisize thier choice? - not the debate questions really- but what got me thinking about posting this as a question.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20070817/wl_t...shforpermanence

Some excerpts for the purposes of debate:

Escarra was telling me then what Chavez himself told his critics this week from his lectern at the National Assembly, as he formally proposed the term-limit reform and a host of other constitutional changes: "I recommend," said Chavez, "that they take a Valium." In other words, Chill out. If French Presidents can seek re-election indefinitely, say the chavistas, why can't Venezuela's? If Americans could re-elect Franklin Roosevelt four times, they ask, why can't we re-elect Chavez as many times?

On the one hand, they've got a point. If Chavez had a reputation for winning the presidential palace by trashing the ballot box - like, say, most Mexican Presidents of the 20th century - But respected groups like the Carter Center in Atlanta have deemed his victories fair, the result of a remarkably incompetent Venezuelan opposition rather than rigged voting. And rather than ramrod the constitutional amendments by fiat, he'll put them to a national referendum. Just as there was a good chance that Chavez could have been ousted by the recall referendum in 2004, there is at least the possibility - one that would never exist in Castro's Cuba - that voters could reject his term-limit proposal as well. "At the end of the day," says Bart Jones, author of a new Chavez biography, Hugo!, "it's still a democratic process."

So-

Considering he is not "declaring" himself king for life- he is putting it up for an election- and supposedly- monitored from respected non-partison agencies from around the world to declare the elections free and fair=

1) Have the elections and recall referendums been free and fair.

2) IF you concede they are fair, do you consider him to be an expression of the will of the majority, or another tin pot dictator- what would make him the latter?

3) Is it the will of the poeple of Venezuela to oppose US policies, in other words, is Chavez merely expressing the voters will through his policies, or is his policies merely buying him votes?

1) Have the elections and recall referendums been free and fair.
His actions seem to fall more or less within the democratic playing field of Venezuela, so in that sense you could argue that his rise to power has been fair. He clearly is using the incompetency of the Venezualian political opposition to his own advantage. This in combination with his populistic politics has created room for him to take this next step.

2) IF you concede they are fair, do you consider him to be an expression of the will of the majority, or another tin pot dictator- what would make him the latter?He has gained a lot of political support from a big part of the Venzuelian voters, although he is also hated by the other side. Somehow his populistic speeches and politics have attracted many followers and in that sense his views and policies are an expression of the majority. On the other side, I think it is clear that Chavez has dictatorial aspirations. He is using the apparent weak democratic system as a platform to gain more or less absolute power.

3) Is it the will of the poeple of Venezuela to oppose US policies, in other words, is Chavez merely expressing the voters will through his policies, or is his policies merely buying him votes?
Both. It is clar that his anti-American stance has gained him a lot of votes. Many people applaud him for that and share his sentiments. On the other side his actions are not of the sort a respectable and responsible leader would be doing. But on the other hand, it is obvious that he is using the anti-American sentiments for his own gain. His populistic stance is buying him votes. No doubt about that.

1) Have the elections and recall referendums been free and fair.
No, they have not. Chavez hasn't had to rig the voting because he's been rigging the campaigning. His opponents aren't incompetent (well, some are, but certainly not all), they've been harassed, hobbled and hindered by his government. Imagine that the Bush Administration did the same things to its opponents as
Chavez has done, and you'll have your answer for the "free and fair" question.

2) IF you concede they are fair, do you consider him to be an expression of the will of the majority, or another tin pot dictator- what would make him the latter?
Not conceding that they're fair, what's to say that he couldn't be both. A tinpot dictator boosted to power by a majority that wants a tinpot dictator? Kinda sucks to be in the minority in such a situation though, doesn't it? What's the term for that? Oh, yeah, "tyranny of the majority".

3) Is it the will of the poeple of Venezuela to oppose US policies, in other words, is Chavez merely expressing the voters will through his policies, or is his policies merely buying him votes? Vote buying/pandering.

See I can be agreeable some times.

Bikerdad is right, you can't call it a a free and fair process if you've hobbled the oppostion and muzzled the media.

I mean I love democracy... but I don't recall having "sucker" tattooed on my forehead.

These democratic "presidents for life" do a great disservice to the hope for stable liberal democracy in Latin America. I've often said that the greatest thing George Washington did was leave power gracefully after his two terms.

Some may think I was poking fun but it is deadly serious business establishing the tradition of orderly transfer of power. Failing at that is likely the one thing, except an ostracized military elite, that guarantees a violent revolution and then everyone blames "democracy" as if that had anything to do with it.

Even knighting a successor is better than risking a personality cult. Venezuela is a beautiful country with loads of potential and a proud history, I hope to visit someday.

I hope even more Chavez will be gone by then.

BD- I agree with you to some degree- except that the opposition is COMPLETELY incompetant and even MORE corrupt than Chavez- that is why he is in power in the first place- and really, his control over his opponents, to the degree it is now- is AFTER 3 elections- not before! I would say that the gerrymandering in Texas AT LEAST equals what Chavez has been doing, and perhaps even worse, not to mention the pandering

Vote buying-pandering- it is a wash between the US and Venezuela, tyranny of the majortiy- it happened because of the corruption of the minority- really serves them right, if it wasn't bringing thier whole country down with them.

This is the turning point I was expecting. He has popular support and is using it to take over the country – indefinitely. So much for democracy in Venezuela if this passes.

CARACAS (Reuters) - Venezuela's leading opposition politician on Thursday attacked President Hugo Chavez's bid to scrap presidential term limits as an attempted coup and a sign of "puerile egomania."

Chavez proposed a raft of legal changes on Wednesday that increase the presidential term from six to seven years, end limits on re-election and strengthen the state's expropriation powers as he consolidates his hold over the OPEC nation. The changes would have to be approved by a popular referendum.
Critics of the Venezuelan leader say he has steadily edged his oil-producing nation to a dictatorship but, through use of petroleum dollars, Chavez has secured strong support among the poor majority with free health and education projects

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/i...526395420070816

Ted- it is only "so much for democracy"- when Chavez LOSES popular support and rules by fear and brutality to stay in power- as long as the majority of his countrymen support him- and vote him in accordingly- then it is still a democratic nation, whether we agree with that majority or not.

CR come on please. Notice below he now has the power to “make law by decree”. So we can be sure that he will always have the ability to ignore the “majority” and he will “make” the majority. IMO there will never be another “free” election in Venezuela. He has control of the media and as in the old SU he will always be “elected” just as the monsters who ran that country were.


"Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is announcing a proposed change to his country’s constitution that would remove term limits and allow him to serve indefinitely

Chavez has already nationalized his nation’s electricity, telecommunications, and oil companies and forged alliances with Cuba and Iran. He recently said that citizens in Venezuela "should be given the right to keep a president in power as long as they like, whether it be for five years, 12 years, 40 years.”

The proposal is also expected to include new limits on the authority of elected governors and mayors.

The National Assembly in January gave Chavez the power to make law by decree."

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/8/15/144329.shtml

I am not saying it won't happen- I believe it will- but at this time, the voters have pretty much okay'd this behavior. Really- thier bad.

This, if anything, could be a proven case of the tyranny of the majority leading to a cult of personality dictator- demagoguery and the whole bit. But aproved by voters?

1) Have the elections and recall referendums been free and fair.

According to my friend whose mother is from Venezuela, Chavez is a dictator. Talking out about him will earn you a visit from the local street gang. Although these gangs are not technically associated with the government, nobody misses the message. Chavistas I believe they are called.

“Socialism, patriotism or death” signs are to be found throughout the capital. It shows you where the opinion about the "loyal opposition" lies.

If we look at Chavez's history we see that he was on the wrong end of a failed coup and the right end of a failed coup. The military (Chavez is a career military man) has a huge influence there. Chavez rules with a communist "bottom up" control structure. Crime is a huge problem and although the police are everywhere they never seem to be around when you need them.

In this type of atmosphere, how can elections be "fair"? The old saying that it isn't the votes that count but it's who counts the votes that counts applies directly to Venezuela. Chavez is head of the national election board.

2) IF you concede they are fair, do you consider him to be an expression of the will of the majority, or another tin pot dictator- what would make him the latter?

Castro is also "popularly elected" but that does not make him any less of a dictator. A dictator is one man running things. Chavez rules by fiat and is now amending the Constitution so that he can rule the country as long as he wants. He has bribed those he could and intimidates everyone else.

3) Is it the will of the poeple of Venezuela to oppose US policies, in other words, is Chavez merely expressing the voters will through his policies, or is his policies merely buying him votes?

Why would some poor slub in a slum in Caracas care about US policy? Ah, because El Presidente blames all their problems on the Americanos. The place is Nazi-esque.

I find it funny that with all Chavez's talk of raising the poor, over 50% remain poor. He continues to pander to them, using rhetoric that the Americans and middle and upper classes are to blame. Chavez has done nothing to help these people and he is running his country into the ground.

And according to a friend of mine who has spent a lot of time in Venezuela, the Bolivarian revolution ongoing there is the best thing since sliced bread. Gangs visit you when you talk out about Chavez? Is this more reporting from your friend whose mother is Venezuelan? Sounds like a reliable source. Seems weird though... I mean, the majority of the media in Venezuela is still controlled by the opposition. The two big papers, El Nacional and El Universal, regularly run strongly anti-Chavez editorials. The government runs 2 radio stations, but the majority of the rest of the radio there is strongly anti-Chavez. Do you suppose these gangs of Chavistas (a general term that Chavez supporters have taken, by the way) visit these big media companies? Strange that this oppositional voice, available in the two biggest daily papers, hasn't yet been silenced, either through intimidation or through legal means...



Explain this, please. A dictator who rules with a "bottom up" structure. Interesting. I'd love to hear how this works. Isn't dictatorship by definition a "top down" sort of thing?



International monitors declared it a free and open election. The US elections in 2000 and 2004 weren't internationally monitored. Key states in 2004, particularly in Ohio, had it set up prior to the election that the votes would be counted by Republicans. You don't provide any real analysis of the elections there. You just say they couldn't possibly be fair because... you heard from your friend's mother that Chavez was a mean bad guy.

Let's look a bit at the 2004 referendum election. The opposition's claims of fraudulent results were based around the use of electronic voting machines. There was no observable evidence of fraud, however a team of Computer Science folks from Princeton and Johns Hopkins voiced a general concern about electronic voting, after concluding there was no observable fraud in the Venezuelan elections:

(source)

In other words, the same concerns about election results as we have here.



Wow, that's a bit of a leap, wouldn't you say? And hardly a generous portrayal of the average Venezuelan. Tell me, in Nazi Germany, was the majority of the media privately owned and anti-Nazi? Tell me, in Venezuela, are some ethnic groups being rounded up and killed off? Is Venezuela invading all its neighbors? What, exactly, is "Nazi-esque" about a country in the midst of a social-democratic reform?



I find it funny that with all your authoritative language in this post, you failed to fact-check.





I wanted to focus on this a bit. This is an interesting thing to say. He has done nothing for them.... mmmhmmm. "Nothings" like free health care clinics in the slums - reaching 18 million people. Literacy programs - the 'mobile libraries' - that have increased literacy by over 1 million people in a few short years. Almost eliminating hunger through subsidised grocery stores that service some 13 million people. The co-ops that have been making significant inroads against unemployment. The highest minimum wage in Latin America (286$/mo). A 2006 GDP growth rate of 10.3%. A GINI index of 49.1.

I respect your intellect and reasoning on this board to a large degree, Amlord. Yet this post seems to be nothing but the hearsay from your friend's mother, and the repeating of the types of talking points we see every day in the conservative media. You may not agree with Chavez. You may think socialist reforms are the purest form of evil. You may have an excuse - I mean an explanation - for every number I have written here. But those numbers are, ultimately, the only real "facts" we have. The rest is just arguing about whether we like the methods or not.

Everybody loves a democracy when their guy wins, but when he loses, then the system is corrupt, rigged, and run by a dictator. Chicken Little Politicos. Chavez is winning his elections, not in close races, or disputed elections, but Reagan-esque Blowouts. 60%-40% is Chavez' closest election. And the parallels to FDR are accurate. Clinton or Reagan, might have lost their 3rd elections, but who is to say their second terms would have been so controversial if there was an option for a 3rd term, or more. Would Bush/Cheney be governing with such hubris if they had to win re-election?

Chavez has a plan that will take a generation to change. The roots of capitalism must be ripped from the grounds and the ground must be tilled in order for his Revolution to take root. All the cries of "Dictator" have to be coupled with horror stories of oppression. But I hear no stories. There are no mass graves. There are no torture chambers. There aren't any rape rooms. The thing I hear about Chavez is "Nationalize." Since when did nationalize become synonymous with cannibalism? The man has a different economic plan than the US. SO WHAT?!

Opposing US politics is more popular in the US than any country abroad. A majority of our citizens do not approve of our policy. Chavez is not the only national leader that opposes our policies, he's just one of the most vocal. And the reason his voice resonates, is because he is messing with a lot of rich people's investments. So the media is going to tell their side of the story and paint Chavez as a madman. When in fact he is perfectly sane.

1) Have the elections and recall referendums been free and fair.

Yes, I think so.

2) IF you concede they are fair, do you consider him to be an expression of the will of the majority, or another tin pot dictator- what would make him the latter?

The majority of Venezuelans seem happy with Chávez. Many of them also love to bash him. (It kind of reminds me of life under Clinton.) I'm suspicious of Chávez because I'm generally suspicious of state power, and because of the failed coup that briefly gave him power in the early 90s -- before he was elected.

I also think Chávez gets a lot of his popularity from the fact that he has a lot of cash to spread around: an unearned windfall from high oil prices. What happens if prices drop? I'm guessing a "state of emergency."

3) Is it the will of the poeple of Venezuela to oppose US policies, in other words, is Chavez merely expressing the voters will through his policies, or is his policies merely buying him votes?

No se.


It's the communist rhetoric that scares people: "the roots of capitalism must be ripped from the ground"? You don't hear the echoes of the kulaks shipped off to Siberia so they wouldn't complain about the "land reform" process? Or the millions who starved in the aftermath? The same story got repeated in China a few decades later. Cambodia was even worse, but I wouldn't compare Chávez with Pol Pot.

What's the most you can expect from Chávez's socialist revolution? Castro's Cuba? They're doing better than some of their non-communist neighbors like Haiti, but they're pretty backwards for a "progressive" country.

1) Have the elections and recall referendums been free and fair.

2) IF you concede they are fair, do you consider him to be an expression of the will of the majority, or another tin pot dictator- what would make him the latter?

3) Is it the will of the poeple of Venezuela to oppose US policies, in other words, is Chavez merely expressing the voters will through his policies, or is his policies merely buying him votes?

1) Haven't seen any convincing evidence to the contrary.

2) I imagine a free and fair election reflects the will of the majority of voters. That's how it's supposed to work. I don't know what would make him a tin-pot dictator, and I'm not sure what that means anyway. Doesn't sound good, but it's an undefined term. He's not a tin soldier who got in by a military coup, which might be what's meant. But I don't know, just a guess.

3) He's putting oil profits into social programs and doesn't like GWB. This beats putting oil profits into tin-pot monarchies and terrorists. I'll define tin-pot as being old-school, as in regressive government that sets up kingdoms and theocracies, not democracies. Looks like the guy's trying to set up something for the long haul and hitting two very important social issues: health care and education. I imagine his people like this and prefer it over capitalism, as that hasn't done them any good.

I also see where he's spending on defense, which is what the US does quite a bit. Of course all this comes from oil profits, so there you go. Don't like what this guy's doing? Push for alternative energy and put big oil out of business.

There's a book out on Chavez:

Hugo & Oil

That's probably interesting reading.

I broadly agree, but I remain deeply suspicious of the cult of personality that has grown up around Chavez. Whatever revolution is to be achieved in Venezuela is not the product of one man's imagination or initiative. On the one hand, it is true that those who resent the vigilance committees and the other manifestations of "proletarian dictatorship" have U.S. interference, including virtual sponsorship of a coup, mostly to thank for these things. On the other hand, at some point, it is necessary to have regular constitutional forms if revolutionary changes are to endure. Longer and longer presidential terms for Hugo Chavez run counter to this. "Chavez has a plan," indeed! Do the workers of Venezuela not have a plan?

I would criticise Castro on the same basis. While I heartily salute his many achievements in Cuba and elsewhere, he has done socialism no favors by remaining in office for so long or by suppressing dissent so much. True enough, Cuba is under constant threat of U.S. subversion, but the forces of counter-revolution also win when they induce the Cuban regime, in the name of defending the revolution, to adopt politically oppressive policies.

In terms of revolutionary forms, the Cubans at least understand the need for the Party. That at least gives you an institutional basis for continued socialism and for some sort of bottom-up flow of interest. I am not sure that there is anything comparable in Venezuela, where everything seems to be tied to Chavez personally. To me, that looks insecure and brittle, even if you completely trust Chavez the Great Man.



I would say they're doing extremely well for a small Carribean country that has been subject to a longterm U.S.-orchestrated hemispheric trade embargo. Their principal exports are sugar, rice and tourism, the principal market for which would be the United States, if the embargo did not exist. They did receive some help from the Soviet Union while it existed, but this was little by comparison to what would have been the simple gains of trade with the U.S. and the other nations of the hemisphere.

Futhermore, their security situation is colored by the U.S. giving safe haven to groups who actively foment disturbances in Cuba, and who even commit acts of terrorism there. Had Cuba simply been allowed to remain a participant in the hemispheric economy, and not subjected to these external threats, undoubtedly it would have made much more progress since the revolution.

This is not entirely offtopic, since the revolution in Venezuela has gone a long way toward loosening the U.S. stranglehold on Cuba. Also because of Venezuela's large oil supplies, the U.S. can't engineer an embargo against it. So, supposing for the sake of argument that there does exist a Venezuelan revolution, its longterm prospects are much brighter than what we've seen in Cuba.

So let me get this right. Those of you here saying it's ok because it's a democratic process, and he has the support from the will of the people?

Let me ask you this. After 9/11 when George Bush had between a 80 and 90 percent approval ratings, you would have been perfectly fine with him wanting to change the constitution so that he could run for unlimited terms...because surely at that time it was the will of the people?

Sleeper-

Do you agree, that every poster has agreed they are upset that Hugo is STARTING a cult of personality, and it is bad?

Even Vladimir- a communist, has expressed his dislike of this developement?

So why say otherwise?

EVERYONE HAS SAID IT IS NOT OKAY- mmmm,kay?

No, and indeed if you read my post, you will see that is precisely the aspect of Chavez's government that makes me doubtful of him. I have no idea whether what is being done is legal under the existing Venezuelan constitution, do you? But I suppose that it is.

I think it may be reasonable to suppose that some constitutional changes would be in order in a country where the representatives of the working class had just taken power, after a long period of rule by aristocrats and industrialists; I would not object to that in itself. Certainly some laws would change, why not the constitution? Even so, although I'm a committed socialist, I reject the idea that one man is so important to the revolution that everything depends on him. And I worry that the seeming dependence of Venezuelan revolutionary change on Hugo Chavez may imply that it will be short-lived.



What worries me as a Communist is the apparent absence of the Party, or at any rate a party, which would be the vanguard and organizing principle of a Venezuelan revolution, and which would be expressive of the workers' longterm interest as distinct from the wishes of the current Great Man. What I see instead -- and I must admit that my perspective is a rather ignorant one -- is Chavez and a bunch of former military officers. Maybe some sort of party is being built in Venezuela. It had better be, or soon enough Chavez will be just another tinpot dictator, albeit with a copper helmet instead of a brass one.

With this quote right here:



Seems like you are perfectly fine with Chavez removing term limits as long as he has support.

My take short and sweet: I'm fine with it as long as Venezuelan citizens have a preexisting amendment process (or something like it) with which to express their desire for lifting term limits. Personally I don't think the U.S. should have presidential term limits unless the same is imposed on Congress. The 22nd Amendment IMO was a snub at a dead president Republicans couldn't defeat in life. No one can tell how long you will need a war or peace president, so why set limits?

I'm not familiar with Venezuela's government and can't comment, though I wouldn't be surprised el come #$%!@* Chavez is skating towards another power grab.

Bingo- if Chavez loses his popular support- and does not respect the will of his poeple- and then changes to a rule by force- this is a bad developement.

If it is the will of the Venezuelan poeple to pursue the kind of reforms that Chavez wants to put into law- whether it be as far as socialistic policies or term limits- then I may disagree with the policies, but I don't think "dicatator" is appropriate as well.

Yes. And apropos of your comments in another thread, the analogous is true of Fidel Castro.

You don’t get it yet do you. If you control the media and change the rules enough then you will always have the “support of the people”. Just like some of the worst butchers that ever lived – Stalin for example.

Does anyone think Castro has the support of the majority of Cubans? How would you know?

One of the greatest criticisms of parliamentary democracy in the 20th Century by collectivists, particularly fascists, was that democracy can be akin to tyranny. And this criticism is somewhat correct. Unfettered democracy leads to a tyrannical majority that rides populist opinion. Political philosopher Carl Schmitt used much of this rhetoric to justify his friend v. enemy dichotomy for politics. He saw democracy as hypocritical since it pretended to be something it is not. Schmitt's ideals are well founded in fascist literature, particularly with the Nazis. But it was Benito Mussilini, dictator of Italy, who most captured the criticism of democracy in his many writings and speeches on fascism. From his logic, Italy was a democracy, with him being the popular ruler. Of course, we know better than that. Democracy is a form of government, a means to an end. It can be tyrannical if wielded incorrectly but it could also be the greatest means towards individual liberty. Just because Hugo Chavez is riding this populist opinion doesnt make him any less of a dictator. In order to accept this logic, one would have to accept that the destruction of democracy is necessary for the existence of democracy. This is a clear contradiction. Chavez is following the textbook example of how to turn a once democratic nation into a dictatorship. So much so that we could probably predict what his moves will be in the near future with increased consolidation of centralized power and continued defiance of the Western world.

Ted, I've already pointed out that the majority of Venezuelan media is not controlled by the state - that indeed, much of it is boldly anti-Chavez. Like Vladimir, I am concerned with the cult of personality that seems centered around Chavez. But to compare him to Hitler or Stalin is so far off the mark it only reveals you have not studied Venezuela at all. Seriously. Do you just make stuff up, or do you get it from worldnetdaily or newsmax? Or is it perhaps a freeper meme? Sorry, but I don't go for the whole 'repeat the lies until they are taken for truth' ideology.




Oooh, now I can add Mussolini to the list. Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini... wow. Again, I do have concerns about Chavez as an individual. But so far he has not, in fact, followed your 'predictable' path. Evidence the lack of centralized control of the media; the co-ops (take the time to research these - they'll horrify your Hayekian mindset but they aren't dictatorial); the free clinics; the literacy programs (the predictable dictator doesn't want the poor to become literate, he wants them to only buy into his propaganda).

Frankly, I have higher hopes for the "21st Century Socialism" beginning to take root in Correa's Ecuador. It's the best of the Bolivarian movement without the trappings of the cult of personality that troubles Chavez.

I don't see anything sacred about term limits. The US did this after FDR, then locally in recent history. Does this mean the US was a dictatorship before the 22nd Amendment?

Of course not.

The premise of the rolleyes is highly questionable. GWB had high approval ratings because he's the President, not because anyone liked him. It had nothing to do with him personally.

One real question does come to mind -- how could Chavez just snap his fingers and change the term limits thing? Must not have been part of the constitution of that country, maybe just a rule, maybe an unwritten one at that.

With direct regard to your last statement, this is hardly a difficult prediction to make, but its coming to pass would not, in itself, imply that Chavez had become a dictator. We see a tendency toward "consolidation of centralized power" in the U.S. executive, for example. And since when was "defiance of the 'Western world' prima facie evidence of democracy's absence?

Like many Americans and most libertarians, you equate formal democracy with real democracy. Real democracy is exists when the people of a country, the working classes if you like, enjoy actual power to determine political outcomes -- and do so. Formal democracy exists almost everywhere, but as history shows it is quite easy to ensure that merely formal democracy always produces results favorable to the ruling classes. That is particularly true when the press is owned by the same people who own everything else. And that is what, I maintain, existed in Venezuela before Chavez.

Formal democracy is not even necessary for real democracy, for example during a revolution, but I would argue that it is necessary for its longterm survival. It might also be worth pointing out that in Latin America, the forces opposed to real democracy have not been at all reluctant to suspend formal democracy when doing so suited their interests. Notable examples of that were the overthrow of the Allende government in Cuba and the Arbenz government in Guatemala -- in each case with direct U.S. sponsorship. Oh, and I seem to remember that there was a U.S.-sponsored coup attempt against Chavez.

The world-historical struggle isn't between democracy and those who perversely wish to overthrow it; it's between the working classes and the owning classes. And this plays out not only within systems of formal democracy.

I wasn't comparing Chavez the person to Hitler, Stalin, or Mussolini. I was comparing his position as a populist leader who assumed that he was the voice of the people and thus did not need democratic institutions any more. In that context, the comparison is apt. Just because he was elected by a popular majority does not mean he has free reign. Would you, or CruisingRam say George W. Bush has free reign to impose whatever policies he wanted because he was elected by a majority? I would think not.


First of all, the media, while perhaps not directly controlled, is monitored and occasionally shut down if they run views counter to the state. RCTV which was shut down by Chavez had Venezuela's largest viewership with 10 million of the country's 26 million people. Secondly, every totalitarian nation that I can think of had certain programs that would make any leftist happy and want to forget about all the other things that a totalitarian nation holds. The USSR had very high literacy. Healthcare in Nazi Germany was top notch. So please do not think for a second that Chavez's literacy programs is something that I should envy. When you pass an Enabling Act and destroy democratic institutions in order to fulfill a socialist utopia, then you are dictator, even if you are populist.



We certainly do see a consolidation of central power in the US executive, and that does worry me. But I recognize that while power is increasing, that we still have a Congress and a Judiciary with significant powers that can impede any large power grabs.



Not of democratic absence. Again, democracy is just a system of government. You could be dictator of a democracy, which Chavez is coming close to being. But defiance of the Western world has historically been a trait of dictators and tyrants in order to mobilize their populace towards collectivist policies. Usually, it is fear of an outside power that is the only thing allowing a leader to hold onto power. This defiance is usually just propaganda, particularly when we do big business with the said nation ala Venezuela.



I don't buy your real v formal democracy. Even in a formal democracy every individual has a single vote. The power is equally divided between every individual in this regard. So the working classes would be much greater in number that the ruling classes.



So democratic rule be damned?

Why are you repeating the lie that Chavez controls all the media- when the opposite has already been proven- hte opposition controls the media-

how do you explain that Ted?

Why in the world are people concerned with Chavez's power grab, if indeed it turns out to be a power grab, when our government doesn't have a problem with China? Just because human rights abuses occur out of earshot doesn't mean they don't happen.

In the Cuban thread Amlord wrote:


Except of course for China because our Wall Street investors and neoliberal politicians are more interested in having access to their markets than being "principled" and abstaining from cheap labor, inferior products that harm the Chinese more often than us, and above all wealth. China may never be as ideologically strident as it used to be but it will remain an authoritarian regime.

What do you care if Venezuela turns into a dictatorship when you don't care that our government trades with China and others like Singapore, "the most business-friendly economy in the world" according to the World Bank? As long as we remain Venezuela's leading trade partner Venezuela will eventually come to and everything will turn out honkey dorey according to free trade capitalists.

You guys "care" because our government makes some noise about possible threats Venezuela poses and your suspicion predictably turns into alarm. Slough off the trappings of faith in the rightness of our government, take a look around and perhaps you'll start caring consistently. That may be enough for the world to start giving a damn what the U.S. has to say about evil men again.

Under our system of education and ideology, we are of course taught that once everyone has the vote, and elections are "fair," you have democracy. Well in a definitional sense you do, if that is your definition of democracy. My own political philosophy is one in which democracy is defined not in terms of rights, but of outcomes. If in fact you have government in accordance with the interest and will of the broad masses of the people, then you have democracy, regardless of whether you have all these constitutional trappings (however I have said that over the long term, these trappings are indeed desirable). If you don't, then you don't, nothwithstanding that the people in power may have won a "fair" election under some constitution or other. For example, the first "election" of George Bush was prima facie undemocratic, under my schema, in spite of its being perfectly correct under the U.S. Constitution.

Also under the present system of elections in the U.S., and I include the system of institutionalized bribery of government officials under the cloak of "contributions" that is an essential part of it, it is clear that what exists here is in some degree a democracy not of people, but of dollar bills: every dollar bill has exactly equal voice. This system is entirely comfortable to the ruling classes, since as the owners of almost everything, they much more than others can control political outcomes. It is also perfectly legal under current U.S. law. But I deny that it is democratic.

Really, besides the organized bribery, you have a press that is fully owned by and almost entirely subservient to the ruling elites; and you have systematic attempts to disenfranchise the poor under the cloak of preventing vote fraud.

You can see on its face that the system isn't democratic, under my application of that term, since political outcomes in the United States typically favor the small ruling class at the direct expense of the very numerous working class. There are manifold examples, but notable are the Bush tax cuts. You can say that these outcomes are "democratic" because they occurred under a formal constitutional structure within which every vote counts the same (well, Wyoming votes count more than Ohio votes, but I pass over that), but I will say that these outcomes had very little chance of occurring under more democratic political system system, less skewed by the power of wealth.

You know, even the "democratic" elections that were held in Nicaragua and resulted in the removal of the Sandinistas from power were heavily affected the the popular Nicaraguan perception that that was the only way to end the war of terrorism that the U.S. was sponsoring against that country, and to avoid a Cuba-style economic blockade. So in a technical sense these elections expressed the popular will, but it was popular will at the point of a very big gun. So no, I don't call that democratic. If the U.S. hadn't been intervening so aggressively in Nicaraguan affairs, there would have been no chance of the Sandinistas losing an election.



I don't say "Damn formal democracy," necessarily, even in cases where it's strongly skewed in favor of undemocratic outcomes. You can hardly expect to win a revolution if you can't win an election, so often the best path forward is to work within the system. Sometimes it isn't, however, and in those cases, those on our side of history understand that the important thing is the not the cloak of formal democracy, but outcomes that benefit the broad masses of the people -- in spite of the pain that this may cause to those who hold pieces of paper that supposedly entitle them to absolute control of society's entire set of productive assets.

On the other hand, I think that you can't have stability in the long run if you don't have formal democracy. But again, I do not equate formal democracy with Mitch McConnell's notion that each and every dollar bill has a perfect right to influence political outcomes.

The interesting thing from Ted's linked article (I'm hoping this was read further down then the headline: TV station chief: We are not afraid of Chavez



RCTV--the country's largest station--has been closed and is being replaced by a state run station. Only court action keeps RCTV on the air, at least temporarily. The other opposition station has been put on notice. The Venezuelan government accuses even CNN of being a propaganda machine.



Where's the defense of the Fourth Estate? Instead, the yawn is deafening. There are opposition stations! Yeah, until they're closed, I guess. Meanwhile, protestors are dispersed via tear gas and water cannons. I guess we can rejoince in the fact that they haven't gotten the real bullets out -- yet.

During the 2002 coupe, he blacked out all opposition stations because they split-screened him and the protests at the same time.

IFEX keeps a running list of Venezuela's freedom of the press violations.

As Amlold points out the big station is taken over, another closed and the the rest are marginal and will be easy to crush when the need arises.

Do you really think that man who has aligned and modeled himself after Fidel is going to allow opposition to ever take him out of power?

As this plays out the protests will increase, the popular support will subside (but not the reported support) and when necessary Chavez will crush any real opposition and blame it on “subversives”.

RCTV has been addressed in another thread. I don't recall participating there, maybe I should have. What you are saying is very misleading. Let's look at what happened.

1. RCTV, in violation of the laws of Venezuela, actively supported a coup against the government. They even ran ads encouraging people to take to the streets and overthrow the government. It hardly needs to be mentioned that if CBS did this, they would have a hard time getting their public airwave license renewed - which leads us to...

2. RCTV is not being shut down. They are free to broadcast via cable or satellite. The only thing that has happened is their license to broadcast via the PUBLIC airwaves is not being renewed. A choice any democratic country's government can make. The brief attempt to stop their cable and satellite broadcasts seems to have been stayed by the courts. It seems the government realized the structure of broadcast requirements for cable and satellite needed to be clarified. Should be an interesting issue to stay tuned in on.

3. RCTV refused to pay fines they owed to the Telecommunications Commission of Venezuela.

4. RCTV has refused to cooperate with tax laws.

To paint the RCTV situation as an anti-democratic action is a deliberate lie. I don't accuse you of lying, but I think your sources are perpetuating it based on the tired old meme of socialism = satanic nazi death monster.

Read this:

source

What about the station replacing RCTV? You say "state run" without adding anything to it.
(same source)

Look, it's fine to oppose socialism, if that's your thing. But repeating lies, throwing out uninformed accusations, is just falling back into the same old cold war mentality. There are reasonable philosophical arguments against socialism to be made - though I will disagree with them. There's just no need to try and make up some reality that doesn't exist.

Reading IFEX, and the ongoing struggle with RCTV, I think it is probable that the government would like to find a legal way to stop RCTV from broadcasting in Venezuela. I suppose that's understandable, in a way. I don't think it has anything to do with the station taking an oppositional position to the Chavez government. It has to do with RCTV actively supporting a coup; with broadcasting footage of Chavez supporters being attacked by coup snipers, and saying it was coup supporters being attacked by the government; breaking tax laws; refusing to comply with the Venezuelan equivalent of the FCC.

The reason I don't think it has anything to do with RCTV's philosophical stance is because the vast majority of private media in Venezuela also has an oppositional stance, and they aren't being censored or shut down.

I ask again - how long would CBS remain a broadcaster in America, if they actively supported violent revolution, ran constant advertisements advocating people rise up against the US government?

I also value IFEX as a good source of information. There are concerns about the media in Venezuela. As you may find by perusing their site, there are concerns as well about media in the US and many other democratic nations. Tell you what, Amlord. Read through the IFEX section on the US muzzling free expression. Will you agree, or will you take issue with what may seem to someone of your particular philosophical persuasion to be biased articles? Then reflect for a moment. If you don't buy what IFEX says about the US, what makes you buy it about Venezuela? Maybe you do buy what they say about the US. Good on ya if you do. I personally think they raise important issues about freedom of expression in Venezuela and in the US. What I don't see, in their reporting on Venezuela, is an indication of vast anti-democratic conspiracies by the Chavez government. I see more specific things. And the vast majority of the Venezuelan media takes a much more anti-government stance than the majority of the media does in the US, even.

Hell, how would CBS remain a broadcaster in America if they said that the war in Iraq was an imperialist escapade, whose purpose was to enrich Big Oil at the expense of everyone else, including the poor Joes in uniform?

"Correo del Caroní" suffering electrical outages, its journalist threatened; more cancellations of television frequency concessions threatened



Chavez has blatantly put the media on notice that their rights to broadcast are subject to the government, regardless of their licensing status.

So what? Didn't Bush do that last week?

president threatens action against Globovisión



Seriously, if CBS had its license revoked tomorrow and ABC was doing stories about it and then was threatened with a similar fate because it was doing stories about the revoking of the license, wouldn't you be a tad concerned? Instead, my take is "uninformed accusations" or "lies".

A journalist runs a story about corruption and two weeks later his car is torched in front of his house. Yeah, the press is free in Venezuela.

Look through the alerts about the United States. Sorry, but the stories don't have the same theme of government interference with reporters, or newspaper writers being attacked after running anti-government stories, or TV stations being shut down.

The media in Venezuela is still free, but those freedoms are under attack. The evidence is clear.

Okay- with issue to the free press Amlord- two things that you did not adress

1) RCTV calling for the assanation of Chavez, and actively calling for a coup

2) Switching the footage as QH pointed out- from the actual snipers- which were the opposition- and the victims- the pro-Chavez crowds.

Would have CBS or ABC been able to do these things without having thier license pulled, and, oh, some harrasment by the Secret Service and FBI in regards to thier culbability in asking for the assasination of the legal leader of the land?

Also- Amlord- you are intellectually aware of logic issues to know that corrlation doesn't neccesarily = causation.

Because a journalists car got torched, doesnt' mean the gov't did it- unless you are buying that America is at least as bad or worse than Venezuela on this issue?

No evidence at this point, just a "belief" someone is out to get him about his story- Córdoba believes the arson attack may be related to that threat.

RCTV has never called for the assassination of Chavez to my knowledge. Chavez accuses them of supporting those that do want him assassinated. A difference.

They did not call for a coup-- they favorably covered the coup in action. That was five years ago. It seems a little odd to close them NOW for it. It is also odd that other stations (RCTV was not the only station that was anti-Chavez at the time) have had their licenses renewed. So that cannot be the reason for the loss of the license.

Now, shoddy or manipulative journalism is certainly a cause for concern. But has RCTV or any of its employees been charged with a crime of conspiring against the government? Has it had a chance to defend itself?

Now, the four TV stations that were anti-government during the 2002 coup were RCTV, Globovision, Televen and Venevision. The latter two have change their stance on the government. Televen is considered neutral and has cancelled (in 2004) its program featuring anti-government firebrand Marta Colomina. Venevision now has a pro-government or neutal editorial line. Source. Only the first two, the two still targetting the government, are being threatened. RCTV is no mas and Globovision is an "enemy of the state" (Chavez's words). More than a bit suspicious.



This was broadcast on all TV networks in Venezuela.

Interview on the media in Venezuela

So you are saying that these stations didn't do anything wrong, and should have retained thier licenses, and if CBS or ABC where to do this, it would be no big deal?

Do what, exactly?

Show me the evidence. I've already provided testimony that the station never directly incited assassination. The line that the majority of the TV stations are opposition stations has also been disputed. Venevision and Televen are now neutral, and are not being punished for being anti-Chavez in 2002, leaving only Globovision as the opposition and the only one threatened by Chavez as an enemy of the state. That reminds me of the famous Louis XIV quote: "I am the state."

This has been said (with different phraseology) by most media for years. Esp. CBS, ABC, CNN and NPR – and esp. NPR affiliates.

Now you should appreciate that using the Communist catch phrases like “imperialist escapade” may not be used for good reasons (outside the fact it is untrue). But certainly the left has been prattling “no blood for oil” bla bla even before the war started.

It is widely accepted that the instigation of the coup was the sniper attacks on demonstrators. RCTV willfully manipulated their coverage of these attacks. Witnesses could all see that snipers were attacking chavista demonstrators; yet RCTV was telling the nation that it was chavista gunmen firing on peaceful anti-Chavez demonstrators.

As for the time gap, that too works against your argument. If Chavez was really against freedom of the press, why did he wait so long? In fact, the government spent that time in negotiation, and ultimately decided that when RCTV's license came up for renewal, it would not be renewed. Where he could have merely shut them down for actively supporting a coup, he instead followed the democratic rule of law which was in place in Venezuela from before Chavez became president.

Let's also look at the history here. RCTV had been censured and closed multiple times by previous governments in Venezuela. They were never censured or closed by Chavez even once. RCTV led all media outlets in Venezuela for infractions of Venezuela's existing communications laws - 652 infractions, to be exact.

Let's now take a closer look at media under the Chavez presidency. Shortly after his election, Chavez's government reformed the media laws. They made it so that anyone in Venezuela who can broadcast, can legally do so. You may note that this is not even the case in the U.S. There is no such thing a "pirate radio" in Venezuela - all such broadcasts are legal. The corporate media in Venezuela, including the two big dailies, as I mentioned before, are strongly oppositional to Chavez.

But what happened during the two-day Carmona government during the coup? You'd think that in two days they couldn't have done much. Wrong:

source

Earlier this year, Peru decided not renew the licenses of two TV stations and 3 radio stations. Where was the outcry from the so-concerned conservatives in the U.S.?

If you look at the bar for media legitimacy in Venezuela, and look at the hoops that must be jumped through in the U.S. (and the amount of money it takes), you may come to a different conclusion about where the media is truly more free.

In regards to Globovision - like RCTV, they manipulated their coverage of the coup. What may be hard for us to grasp in this country is the extent to which the corporate media in Venezuela contributed to the coup in 2002. With the U.S. backing it. Chavez is admittedly a firebrand, and like Vladimir, I am not fond of the leader becoming the personification of the revolution, rather than the servant of it. His rhetoric against Globovision was fiery to be sure. However, it remains to be seen if he will resort to extra-legal means to deal with their support of the coup against him, the coup against the democratic institutions of the Bolivarian constitution that the people so soundly supported in 2000.



Actually, it would have to more like: CBS taking footage of liberal gunmen shooting Republicans, then reporting it as "pro-Bush gunmen murder helpless liberals." Then, they would have to give air-time to those liberals, allowing them to repeatedly call for the violent overthrow of the government. That would be closer to what RCTV did. In other words, blatantly lie, reporting the opposite of what happened.

Quarkhead, you supply excellent information, and I would like to learn more. Where should I look?

Z magazine has an excellent "venezuela Watch" section.

Venezuela Analysis is a good site.

I also highly recommend the film "The Revolution will Not be Televised" (Chavez: Inside the Coup). It can be found on Google Video. Two Irish documentary filmmakers, in Caracas filming a documentary about Chavez, were in the presidential palace when the coup went down. Their video footage really put paid to the fraudulent propaganda RCTV was engaging in.

BTW- I have watched the entire broadcast for myself, with my fiance' as translator- it is quite clear to me that RCTV clearly was advocating assasination of Hugo. Could have Park Avenue helping with the production- it is like watching one of those TV commercials where they never mention the product by name, but it is QUITE clear what they are advertising.

Amlord- you can squirm all you want on this one- but RCTV made thier own bed here, and there is no way any network in the US would survive what RCTV pulled in Venezuela.

Also- QH brings up an interesting point- anyone can access the airways- very much more free than the US.

I realize we've been getting a bit sidetracked into media and freedom of expression in Venezuela. The original questions for this thread were:

1) Have the elections and recall referendums been free and fair.

2) IF you concede they are fair, do you consider him to be an expression of the will of the majority, or another tin pot dictator- what would make him the latter?

3) Is it the will of the poeple of Venezuela to oppose US policies, in other words, is Chavez merely expressing the voters will through his policies, or is his policies merely buying him votes?

1. Yes, they have. International election monitors and analyses after the fact have found no evidence of fraud.

2. Chavez certainly faces the danger of becoming the sole expression of the revolution, but at least so far, the steps his government have taken work directly against that fear. The government has become much more participatory. The traditional ruling class in Venezuela is still given a free voice, but they are no longer in power. Gone with them are the previous harsh censorship of the press and the complete ignoring of the countries struggling working class. At every turn, Chavez has given the people of Venezuela a greater voice in the governance of their own country.

3. Of course it is the will of the people. US policies in Latin America have historically been very anti-democratic. It has long been US policy to support the ruling elite in the South, because those few have always been willing to give American industry their way in their own nations, usually at the expense of the poor and indigenous people. It should come as no surprise to anyone who studies history that the reaction against US neoliberal policies now making itself felt through the region was made inevitable by those policies.

Anyone who bemoans the rise of Bolivarian revolution in Latin America needs to look closely at history. If the US had truly supported democracy in the South, people like Chavez would be completely redundant today. If we had supported true democratic development in the South, instead of propping up autocratic elites, this could have all been avoided. But, that would have meant respecting the democratic sovreignity of nations who probably wouldn't have let US Fruit and Standard Oil (among others) run their own profit fiefdoms in the region.

Come on y'all... don't make ol' Mr. Chavez out to be Mother Theresa. I'll