Chavez Until 2031 ?

Pazaz 21

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has announced that he will ask the people if they want him to remain in power for the next 25 years if the opposition bycotts the elections that are to be held in December.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060507/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/venezuela_referendum;_ylt=Aou8EwuIbDXFGM8dNTG.AsRvaA8F;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA-

He just seems to be getting more totalitarian and authoritarian by the day !! I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, but it dosen't look good !

What do people think he is up to, because if it ain't the obvious (creating a totalitarian and authoritarian state with him as dictator/leader) then what the hell is he doing ? I know he may think he is the best man for the job, thus wanting to stay in power, but going about it this way is a bit on the dodgy side !

mike65

Looks dodgy on the face of it, in fact it looks classicly Latin American!

Not a surprise to find that Chavez and the Bolivian president are getting pally and comparing notes as the latter seizes control of the gas and oil industry.

Mike.

Sand

Sorry, is this supposed to be shocking? Its been blatantly obvious for a long time that hes been preparing the ground for this. Why do you think he has invested so much time and energy in gutting the institutions of state and building a party militia?

Hobbes

Sand wrote:

Sorry, is this supposed to be shocking? Its been blatantly obvious for a long time that hes been preparing the ground for this.

You mean like the bit where he put the whole terms and restrictions in to begin with?

At least it is going to referendum and it is based on the fact that the opposition are refusing to run against him. Would be intresting to see the outcome.

Personally I think its too much posturing of trying to remove him which is pushing him in this direction. Probably finds it hard to believe he can find someone to run the country the same way.

Either that or intentionally trying to rile the opposition so they will actually run.

Sponge Bob

Sand wrote:

Sorry, is this supposed to be shocking? Its been blatantly obvious for a long time that hes been preparing the ground for this. Why do you think he has invested so much time and energy in gutting the institutions of state and building a party militia?

you are right Sand, its just like Paisley in the 1960s

Dirk Gently

The situation in Venezuela at the moment is one where the opposition is refusing to take part in the general election later this year. All opinion polls both inside Venezuela and outside Venezuela carried out by anti-Chavez supporters show the likely hood of beating Chavez in the general election is very slim so they are boycotting the elections in an attempt to discredit democracy in Venezuela.

To call Venezuela undemocratic is so wide of the mark it’s frankly shocking that people still attempt to do it. Chavez was elected and re elected 3 times in landslide national elections verified by international observers and disputed by no one. Contrary to becoming more undemocratic and authoritarian he has delegated power to local people with them making the decisions that affect their communities and not the state.
See here

The opposition is refusing to take part in the democratic process under pressure from the United States who has been active in discouraging opposition leaders from running. If they want Chavez out of power why can't they just run for the presidency in the December elections? Everyone knows Chavez will win that election easily and the people of Venezuela consider Venezuelan democracy the strongest in the Americas.

Chavez has won so many elections and referendums, including the one where the opposition signed enough signatures to force an election to remove him from power. He has shown that he is more than willing to participate in elections, winning all of them fairly with huge majorities. The problem is the opposition knows they can’t remove him democratically, as the people of Venezuela always support Chavez, so they are attempting to undermine democracy by not taking part in the elections.

Chavez for 25 more years? I really hope so. This will only happen as long as the people want him in power. As he has already shown he will contest elections at anytime the opposition call for one. For the sake of the people of Latin America I really hope they get the chance to reap the rewards of his alternative vision to right wing free market economics which have kept the people of Latin America in poverty for so long. Chavez is building alliances with other countries in the region, including Bolivia, Argentina and Brazil and together I hope they can show the world that there is a free and democratic alternative to rampant capitalism.

Parsley

Pazaz 21 wrote:

He just seems to be getting more totalitarian and authoritarian by the day !! I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, but it dosen't look good !

What do people think he is up to, because if it ain't the obvious (creating a totalitarian and authoritarian state with him as dictator/leader) then what the hell is he doing ? I know he may think he is the best man for the job, thus wanting to stay in power, but going about it this way is a bit on the dodgy side !

Where'd you pull this more totalitarian by the day bull out of? This is the only totalitarian thing i've heard about him except for mindless rants by bush and blair and even then it looks like a stunt to get the opposition to participate in democracy- assuming this is even true.

In any case, Chavez is considerably more democratic than Bush or Blair- he won several elections and his people rescued him from a US supported coup in 2002. Meanwhile, Blair got the votes of less than one-fifth of the registered voters, while bush won by a few thousand votes in one of the most blatantly undemocratic democracies in the world.

Viscosity

clown bag wrote:

The situation in Venezuela at the moment is one where the opposition is refusing to take part in the general election later this year. All opinion polls both inside Venezuela and outside Venezuela carried out by anti-Chavez supporters show the likely hood of beating Chavez in the general election is very slim so they are boycotting the elections in an attempt to discredit democracy in Venezuela.

To call Venezuela undemocratic is so wide of the mark it’s frankly shocking that people still attempt to do it. Chavez was elected and re elected 3 times in landslide national elections verified by international observers and disputed by no one. Contrary to becoming more undemocratic and authoritarian he has delegated power to local people with them making the decisions that affect their communities and not the state.
See here

The opposition is refusing to take part in the democratic process under pressure from the United States who has been active in discouraging opposition leaders from running. If they want Chavez out of power why can't they just run for the presidency in the December elections? Everyone knows Chavez will win that election easily and the people of Venezuela consider Venezuelan democracy the strongest in the Americas.

Chavez has won so many elections and referendums, including the one where the opposition signed enough signatures to force an election to remove him from power. He has shown that he is more than willing to participate in elections, winning all of them fairly with huge majorities. The problem is the opposition knows they can’t remove him democratically, as the people of Venezuela always support Chavez, so they are attempting to undermine democracy by not taking part in the elections.

Chavez for 25 more years? I really hope so. This will only happen as long as the people want him in power. As he has already shown he will contest elections at anytime the opposition call for one. For the sake of the people of Latin America I really hope they get the chance to reap the rewards of his alternative vision to right wing free market economics which have kept the people of Latin America in poverty for so long. Chavez is building alliances with other countries in the region, including Bolivia, Argentina and Brazil and together I hope they can show the world that there is a free and democratic alternative to rampant capitalism.

Haven't they tried that ? In case you hadn't noticed its failed miserably every time.

Chavez is up against Mugabe in the race to see who becomes the Idi Amin for the 21st century. The only thing giving him any level of influence are the oil reserves without which, Venezuela would be a basketcase.

His policies seem to be primarily aimed at eradicating the middle and upper classes. While someone with your belief in collective misery might see this as beneficial, they run the businesses, provide the jobs and drive consumer demand; Without them their economy will end up falling on its face, its a well worn track for alternatives to capitalism.

Adam Smith rules, OK!

w66w66

from what I gather, he's seeking in indefinite re-election, meaning he can stand for re-election again and again. The USA had indefinite re-election up until 1951, so I'd hardly call it undemocratic.

Is their a cap on how many elections you can stand for prime minister in Ireland and Britain?

Akrasia

Viscosity wrote:

Haven't they tried that ? In case you hadn't noticed its failed miserably every time.

You say that as if there is only one possible way humans can order their society, and of course, it has to be our way

Adam Smith rules, OK!

He did indeed, and even adam smith admitted that the Invisible Hand of capitalism would lead to gross injustices and that some aspects of human life are too important to be left up to free markets.

Akrasia

w66w66 wrote:

from what I gather, he's seeking in indefinite re-election, meaning he can stand for re-election again and again. The USA had indefinite re-election up until 1951, so I'd hardly call it undemocratic.

Is their a cap on how many elections you can stand for prime minister in Ireland and Britain?

nope, so obviously, we're undemocratic totalitarian regimes.

democrates

Akrasia wrote:

You say that as if there is only one possible way humans can order their society, and of course, it has to be our way

Precisely. And extra congratulations for not resorting to oversimplifying terminology. It's not black and white, either capitalism or communism, the key is the distribution of wealth and thereby much freedom of choice.

Akrasia wrote:

He did indeed, and even adam smith admitted that the Invisible Hand of capitalism would lead to gross injustices and that some aspects of human life are too important to be left up to free markets.

A key fact so carefully ignored by so called libertarians who endlessly talk about freedom and rights, of the few.

Hobbes

Viscosity wrote:

Chavez is up against Mugabe in the race to see who becomes the Idi Amin for the 21st century.

This has to be the best tripe I have heard so far.

Please try to back up your rants with facts. Better yet go read up on Idi Amin/Mugabe and please list out the comparisons with Chavez. kthxbye.

Viscosity

Admittedly Amin is out on his own but what all three seem to have in common is a desire to send the middle and upper classes into exile. With Amin it was mainly because they were of Lebonese origin, the white farmers of Zimbabwe and a similar situation appears to be progressing in Venezuela.

Parsley

Viscosity wrote:

Admittedly Amin is out on his own but what all three seem to have in common is a desire to send the middle and upper classes into exile.

Since when has chavez being trying to exile his middle class exactly?

Hobbes

Viscosity wrote:

Admittedly Amin is out on his own but what all three seem to have in common is a desire to send the middle and upper classes into exile.

Thats the best you can do? False of course, unless you know something the rest of the world doesn't.

Heres some information for you, if you find something to back up your claim please post it.

http://hdr.undp.org/statistics/data/countries.cfm?c=VEN
http://www.ine.gov.ve/indicadoressociales/idh.pdf

The introduction of a 25 year presidential term is not amenable with a healthy representative democracy.

ISAW

Viscosity wrote:

Haven't they tried that ? [i.e. an alternative to Rampant Capatalism] In case you hadn't noticed its failed miserably every time.

No it hasn't! The Vatican state for example is not a rampant capitalist state. Nor is it a democracy!

Chavez is up against Mugabe in the race to see who becomes the Idi Amin for the 21st century.

this is a very stupid comment! Where is there any evidence to back up the suggestion that chaves has an army of thugs which are wiping out the population?

The only thing giving him any level of influence are the oil reserves without which, Venezuela would be a basketcase.

A worthless point. If the Us had no oil gas uranium, other resources, military, and international investments then they would also have no large influence on the world? Do you really think that it is only the US system of government that makes them such a big influence?

His policies seem to be primarily aimed at eradicating the middle and upper classes.

And you evidence for this is? do you think that the rich or corporations should not pay tax and that only the poor should pay it?

While someone with your belief in collective misery might see this as beneficial, they run the businesses, provide the jobs and drive consumer demand; Without them their economy will end up falling on its face, its a well worn track for alternatives to capitalism.

Please explain your "collective misery" economy? Would this be similar to the US in 1929 or the dust bowl? How about the rationing in post war England? there was no rationing in Ireland.

Adam Smith rules, OK!

Do you really think everything Smith wrote is correct? You sound like a Marxist.

Hobbes

Deleted User wrote:

The introduction of a 25 year presidential term is not amenable with a healthy representative democracy.

Indeed, although he hasn't done that yet. He is putting it up to vote to the people and only if the opposition refuses to run against him beforehand.

Akrasia

plus, it is unclear whether he means it's a 25 year term per election, or if he just wants to remove the limit on how many terms an individual president can hold.

But even if it was a 25 year term, there are constitutional methods by which recall elections can be held, and chavez has already demonstrated that he is willing to submit himself to as many votes as are necessary in order to maintain confidence in his leadership.

Contrast that with America and Ireland, where there is no way of recalling a government until a fixed term is up

Hogmeister B

Akrasia wrote:

Contrast that with America and Ireland, where there is no way of recalling a government until a fixed term is up

Ie America and Ireland aren't democracies at all. You get to choose your dictator from a list of two and can't decide what he then does for the next several years. Democracy is rule by the people; this farcical system is just rule by people.

Just because we're not police states doesn't mean we're democracies!

Good old Hugo and Evo, it's about time oil and gas money was used to help dirt poor people rather than boost the already obscene profits of Shell, BP et al.
Let's hope Nigeria, Iraq, South Africa, the US, Saudi Arabia, Russia etc realise that and start to deal with their poverty, which is severe.

Hogmeister B

Hogmeister B wrote:

Ie America and Ireland aren't democracies at all. You get to choose your dictator from a list of two and can't decide what he then does for the next several years. Democracy is rule by the people; this farcical system is just rule by people.

Just because we're not police states doesn't mean we're democracies!

Good old Hugo and Evo, it's about time oil and gas money was used to help dirt poor people rather than boost the already obscene profits of Shell, BP et al.
Let's hope Nigeria, Iraq, South Africa, the US, Saudi Arabia, Russia etc realise that and start to deal with their poverty, which is severe.

There are many different types of "democracy". Direct Democracy & Western liberal representative democracy are obviously not the same. Rule by the people is imho not sufficient for a form of government to be the best. In many other important criteria for a good form of government such as protection of minorities & individuals and the quality of policy. I think the value most people see in democracy is an instrumental not an intrinsic one. Democracy, ultimately is valued for what it brings not what it is. Western liberal representative democracy is superior to athenian style direct democracy in that it brings more of what people desire from a form of government.

Viscosity

Hobbes, love the links. The HDI analysis on Venezuela and and more information from the Chavez government is a waste of a paste. And besides I'm sure all the countrys social problems will be cured by ensuring that the horse on the national flag is moving to the left.

Venezuelan middle class flees Chávez rule of hate
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/03/05/wvenez05.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/03/05/ixworld.html

My favourite piece was the account of Marcial Rivera who is moving to Colombia in search of stability.

And while searching for the article required I also found this.
'Sandalistas' flock for first-hand view of the Chavez revolution
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/03/26/wchav26.xml



Lads don't get me wrong. Ensuring the fair distribution of wealth from countrys natural resources is something no-one can argue against. The only trouble is that once the oil and gas are gone (or more likely less valuable), the economy will have nothing to rely on. As with most oil rich countries, they could be better off if they hadn't got the oil and gas in the first place.

Hobbes

Viscosity wrote:

Hobbes, love the links. The HDI analysis on Venezuela and and more information from the Chavez government is a waste of a paste.

Strange because the anti-chavez sites actually cite those two sites as reliable information. Please explain in detail why it is a waste of paste? Are you saying they are false? What proof to you have to back up those accusations?

And your links to "Sophie Arie" stories. :rolleyes: Try finding another reporter reporting the incident that isn't a direct link to her story. Good luck with that.

You might also find a running theme to her stories, which are somewhat lacking in facts and spun up.

Lads don't get me wrong. Ensuring the fair distribution of wealth from countrys natural resources is something no-one can argue against. The only trouble is that once the oil and gas are gone (or more likely less valuable), the economy will have nothing to rely on. As with most oil rich countries, they could be better off if they hadn't got the oil and gas in the first place.

Which if you bothered to read the links instead of dismissing them you would find that Chavez is implemented a large number of programs to ensure that when the Oil does run dry the country isn't fuk'ed like it would of been 5-6 years ago.

Viscosity

Hobbes wrote:

Strange because the anti-chavez sites actually cite those two sites as reliable information. Please explain in detail why it is a waste of paste? Are you saying they are false? What proof to you have to back up those accusations?

And your links to "Sophie Arie" stories. :rolleyes: Try finding another reporter reporting the incident that isn't a direct link to her story. Good luck with that.

You might also find a running theme to her stories, which are somewhat lacking in facts and spun up.



Which if you bothered to read the links instead of dismissing them you would find that Chavez is implemented a large number of programs to ensure that when the Oil does run dry the country isn't fuk'ed like it would of been 5-6 years ago.

Hobbes, if throwing up a link to a bunch of statistics is meant to prove something, you should at least direct out attention to what you think it proves. I only questioned the INE Venezuela material, what anti-chavez sites feel about it is their own business.

You're entitled to question the Telegraph but its hard to find pieces on Venezuela that aren't from polarised Anti/pro Chavez outlets, not that you'd be interested. I suppose you can wait until the Venezuelan media provides you with more information. Don't hold your breath.

As for your assertion that Chavez has somehow masterminded a soft-landing for an economy becoming increasingly dependent on the price of oil and gas, don't be so naive. A certain Mary Harney has (allegedly) implemented a large number of programs to improve the health service but not everyone is dumb enough to believe that these will be a success.

Your political views don't really bother me, whats disturbing is that you can't see any faults with an authoritarian militarist.

Viscosity

250px-ChavezMugabe.jpg

Hobbes

Viscosity wrote:

Hobbes, if throwing up a link to a bunch of statistics is meant to prove something, you should at least direct out attention to what you think it proves.

Actually it was to help you prove something. Read the forum charter. You make accusations your meant to back them up.

You're entitled to question the Telegraph but its hard to find pieces on Venezuela that aren't from polarised Anti/pro Chavez outlets, not that you'd be interested.

You don't know me very well. I read pro/anti sites. Generally if there is a story posted I try to find as many variations of it. If you get one story from one reporter repeated many times and no other details then it seriously brings the report into question.

Like I said, please feel free to post links to prove your point.

As for your assertion that Chavez has somehow masterminded a soft-landing for an economy becoming increasingly dependent on the price of oil and gas, don't be so naive.

There is already a huge 10 page thread on Chavez in this forum that goes into more detail with sources, links etc. You can go on and on but all your doing is spouting air without sources to back it up.

His countries programs are detailed in that thread afair.

Your political views don't really bother me, whats disturbing is that you can't see any faults with an authoritarian militarist.

If he was authoritarian then why bother with a referendum? There is no signs to show he is militarist. He has started up a militia, replaced weapons for the military because they were so old. The amount spent so far it tiny in comparison to countries that claim not to be militant.

When you have something a bit more concrete feel free to let us know.

Hobbes

Viscosity wrote:

250px-ChavezMugabe.jpg

Yawn. Really that is the best you can do? Only get your point across with innuendo?

Here let me try.

Bush.
http://www.voccoquan.com/images/mugabe%20bush.JPG

Blair
http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39880000/jpg/_39880489_blair1997pa300.jpg

Chirac
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38851000/jpg/_38851755_chirac_mugabe_afp203body.jpg


Or how about something a bit more recent, Jack Straw.
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40118000/jpg/_40118568_handshake203.jpg

He also showed up at the Popes funeral to pay his respects. My god! The vatican is going the way of Mugabe. :rolleyes:

Please come up with something better.

Viscosity

Unfortunately for Venezuela, the loss of its middle class can only be confirmed by anecdotal evidence. The real proof will arise when their economy is in the gutter.

When you mention previous forums,

Hobbes wrote:

Hitler also suspended any further elections (something which Chavez has not).

Now seeing as Chavez is considering suspending elections for 25 years....that would make you appear a tad confused, since you are currently defending the previously indefensible. The fact that its going to a referendum doesn't justify anyone holding power for what probably will be the rest of his life.

As for the pictures, I don't think you can classify either Bush or Blair as supporters of Mugabe and Big Phil isn't exactly a power broker. The fact that Mugabe has doorsteped Jack Straw and Prince Charles was met with widespread condemnation despite the fact that it was on Mugabes initiation. The picture of Mugabe and Chavez is a little different, don't you think ?

Hobbes

Viscosity wrote:

Now seeing as Chavez is considering suspending elections for 25 years....that would make you appear a tad confused,

And when exactly did I make that post? At what time? I mean come on is that the best you can do? misquote me on an much older post and claim that it is related to this one? (over 6 months old tbif).

Also where has he said he is suspending elections for the next 25 years? In fact your completly incorrect.

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1723
No, such a referendum would not be about "whether he should govern the country for the next 25 years." A referendum would be about whether Chavez would be permitted to run every six years and --in the event that he were to continue winning elections-- serve multiple presidential terms

Further rummaging this appears to be the case. (Feel free to dismiss the link, but should give you a jump start to find the actual facts).

Here let me even dig a link from the basition of all that is right wing.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,194519,00.html
Chavez, giving a speech in the central state of Lara, said he would ask the nation "if I can or cannot continue presenting my name" in subsequent elections.

The picture of Mugabe and Chavez is a little different, don't you think ?

No its not. Context is everything, especially in relation to still shots. Because it is very easy to get a shot of someone and then play it totally out of context. A good example is Jack Straw shaking hands with Mugabe. In that instance Jack Straw had no clue who he was, yet the press had a field day with that picture in much the same way you are trying to with the current picture.

Do you know why Chavez is congratulating Mugabe in that picture? I do and it has nothing to do with agreeing with how Mugabe runs his country or wanting to be like Mugabe. I'll leave it to you to find out why.

[edit]

Unfortunately for Venezuela, the loss of its middle class can only be confirmed by anecdotal evidence.

Not really. If there was a huge influx of people to other countries it would be recorded. Certainly the previous statistics links seem to show this is not the case, unless this middle class are all illegally entering the other countries?

ISAW

Viscosity wrote:

250px-ChavezMugabe.jpg

http://la.indymedia.org/uploads/2003/02/rumsfeld-saddam.jpgpf8qfo.jpg



What does that prove?

And what about Mobutu?
http://www.minesandcommunities.org/Company/kabila1.htm

American Mineral Fields (AMFI), a consortium based originally in Hope, Ark.--yes, Bill Clinton's hometown--is a big player in exploiting Congo's mineral wealth. In 1997, just a month before Mobutu fell, it signed contracts with the Kabila-Rwanda-Uganda alliance forces for almost a billion dollars investment in copper, cobalt and zinc mines and processing plants in Kolwezi and Kipushi.

http://www.dkrenton.co.uk/interventions.html

The background to the war lies in the forty-year rule of Africa’s most infamous tyrant, General Mobutu. Appointed by American and Belgian agents to bloc the existing, democratically-elected President, Patrice Lumumba, Mobutu presided over decades of corruption. Oppositionists were murdered, while Mobutu acquired a huge fortune. Palaces were built for the ruling family, while every week Mobutu insisted on flying out his own personal hair stylist from Manhattan.

As Mobutu's regime began to fall apart, a number of bordering countries began to take an interest in the vast potential wealth of the Congo. Zimbabwe, Angola, Rwanda and Uganda all sent troops to support various local proxies. The most significant intervention was the one pushed by Rwanda and Uganda.

With their backing, a former leftist guerilla Laurent Kabila was able to capture state power. Kabila briefly enjoyed popular support, and appointed a number of prominent democrats to positions of authority. Within months, however, his insurrection tapered out - to be replaced by a more familiar style of family and ethnic privilege. Kabila then turned on his own former supporters, including the Rwandan armies, sparking in this way a second wave of fighting, which continues.

The war in the Congo is usually presented in the west as a uniquely barbarous and African affair. Yet all through the past period, different blocs of Western interests have sought to prosper from the fighting. Such public quoted companies as American Mineral Fields, Anglo-American, Georges Forrest International and Rio Tinto all have interests in the Congo. France provided mercenaries for Mobutu, while America endorsed Kabila’s war