Chavez Until 2031 ?

ISAW

LiouVille wrote:

Well this claim

what claim?
that post clearly states

The initial premise of the thread, ie that Chavez seeks an election for a 25 year term, has been shown to be without any basis in truth.

i.e. the claim about chavez has not been supported. It is for those making that claim to do so. It is not for the detractors to shoulder the burden and prove a negative.

But as it happens the counter claim that he was not trying to install a dictatorship was supported. That is what the words "shown to be" mean!

was made without being backed up. Nobody bar Clown-bag seemed to pay attention,

even you ignored it so I asked if it was true, and it was pretty obviously a question even with out the "?".
[/quote]
Let us get this straight.
You asked if the claim that Chavez was intent on setting up a dictatorship was true?
That had already been answered.
Is that the claim you keep on insisting everybody ignored?

In my mind, the claim was made,

I think I understand. "In your mind" a claim was unanswered but as a matter of recorded fact it WAS answered. That was pointed out to you and you still insist that it was not answered and that people misunderstand what you meant.

yet you guys where still going on about a 25 year term, so there was still confusion over what the actual story was. Whats the big difficulty you're having with me?

You accused me of being snotty when I (in my mind humourously) pointed out to you that the question had been answered. I replied because I dont know you from madam but there is an element of people who will drag up an old claim which was already either unsupported or as in this case actually shown up to be WRONG. They think they are right but they have no support for their position. I now suspect you are not one of these types. So why not just admit the question of chaves trying to introduce a 25 year term or a life term was answered?

You came into this debate late but you claimed to know what had gone before and referred to it. Dont blame me or anyone else for pointing out that you assertion was unfounded. I have no problem with you I have a problem with your claim that questions were not answered when they WERE answered.

ISAW

Akrasia wrote:

Just to add in, On the first page, post 20, I made this point

sorry this was an oversight on my part.
I was wrong.
Clown bag was not the first one to debunk the claim. Akrasia was.
But the substansive point is this. The debunkers should not have to be on the defensive. Those making the claim have to support it!

Hobbes

Do you mind taking it to Private messages. The last page has just been full of crap of you two arguing over who said what.

Boston

I'll be honest Hobbes, I've no idea what the guys problem is. You ask a simple question, you get a page of rant. I think he read way more into my post then was there. Ah politics.

ISAW

Hobbes wrote:

Do you mind taking it to Private messages. The last page has just been full of crap of you two arguing over who said what.

If I have mis represented anything then feel free to point out what it is.
I think it is important to note that people should be clear in what they say and support their claims. This is why it is in the charter. Please pardon my pedantry.

The facts of what someone states are there to peruse. I am making a general point here and not referring to the particular case. As I see it, it has been pointed out quite clearly that it is a standard tactic by anti- Chaves debaters (if they can be called that) to re enter a claim which was already disproven. as such it should be standard practice to point out it was already dismissed and to ignore the constant reposts about it.

conclusion : please ignore this message thank you.

shotamoose

For anyone who's interested, here's a good article on trends in poverty in Venezuela: http://www.cepr.net/publications/venezuelan_poverty_rates_2006_05.pdf

Short version: poverty went up as a result of the oil strike and associated badness, and has gone way down since then, even more so if you count all the free stuff Chavez has been dishing out to the poor.

Dirk Gently

shotamoose wrote:

For anyone who's interested, here's a good article on trends in poverty in Venezuela: http://www.cepr.net/publications/venezuelan_poverty_rates_2006_05.pdf

Short version: poverty went up as a result of the oil strike and associated badness, and has gone way down since then, even more so if you count all the free stuff Chavez has been dishing out to the poor.

ahh good to see us getting back on topic again after the last few pages of OTT pedantry.

I agree with your short version assessment there. The oil strike certainly did the economy no favours but it has recovered well since. It looks like the biggest growth is infact outside the oil industry which flies in the face of people who claim Chavez is relying too much on oil money. He is simply using the oil money which would otherwise be wasted as private profits, and instead using it to fund projects designed to lessen the burden on the poor, thus lifting their standards of living.

His heavy investments in health and education are making it possible for present and future generations to play their part in the economy by helping them afford health and education which they were denied before. Lets not forget that his government wiped out illiteracy in Venezuela making it possible for people to further educate themselves and gain skills needed for new industry by offering evening courses and flexible college programmes to people who other wise hadn't got the opportunity and were left behind before. Also his recognition of people who work in the home as workers and payments made to them has lifted many out of poverty. This recognition of people who work in the home (mostly mothers looking after the family) is something that has been called for many times here in Europe but has always been denied. Again Chavez leads the way here, using the wealth of the country to benefit the people most in need.

It is interesting to note that the biggest areas of groth have been in the manufacturing industry at 9.4% increase, 21% growth in construction, and 28.1% growth in communications.

Below is an analysis by Venezuela’s Central Bank:

Caracas, Venezuela, May 17, 2006—First quarter GDP in Venezuela was 9.4% higher than the same time last year, according to numbers released yesterday by Venezuela’s Central Bank.

The growth was driven by a 10.9% increase in the non petroleum sector. According to the figures, growth was 4% in the public sector and 11% in the private sector, and oil income decreased by 0.2%.



In a release the bank said that there was across the board growth in non-oil activity, led by 9.4% growth in the manufacturing industry, 21% growth in construction, and 28.1% growth in communications. It credits the growth of these sectors to increased consumer demand and investment, which was 23.9% of GDP, partially caused by falling interest rates.



In 2002 and 2003, an attempted coup and an oil industry shut down caused the economy to shrink 8.9% and 7.7%, respectively. Since then Venezuela has seen a strong recovery, aided, in part, by strong oil prices and generous government spending. Currently, first quarter oil related GDP is seven percent less than it was in 2001, the year before the political crisis, non oil GDP is up 19%, and overall GDP is up 13%.



Particularly notable is the recovery of the mining sector, which, after shrinking by 35% in the first quarter of 2002 and 2003, has grown by 19% since 2001; general government services, which had been steadily decreasing since at l997, rose steadily even during the political crises to be 34% higher than in Q1 2001; and repair commerce and services, which rose by 33% since Q1 2001.



Venezuela’s strong growth in recent years stands in stark contrast to most of Latin America, which grew only 3% from 2000 to 2005, and only 11% in the 20 years before, as compared to 80% in the preceding 20 years, according to a paper by the DC based Center for Economic and Policy Research.

gbh

Would you rather see a Columbian model of Democracy in Venezuala, ie, Democracy in name only, and assasination of democratic opponents around election time.

Why was it that when South America was full of Right-Wing dictatorships, there was no protest from the US government, the Catholic Church who usually worked with Right Wing dictatorships, thinking of Popes visit to Pinochet dominated Chile.

For Twenty or Thirty years there was no democracy in South America and left wing opponents usually disappeared. So at least Chavez isn't that bad.

When the Right in South America are ready to actually share power with the Left such as in Columbia, when they learn what true democracy is, then they can complain about Chavez. Otherwise they only have themselves to blame for the rise to power of people like Chavez.

ISAW

For a critical link read:
http://www.vcrisis.com/

This reminds me of the holocaust denier type debate.
Where did I get this reference? http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1733

Actually I believe chaves gave a two hour speech to the confederation of British Industry last week and was warmly received and applauded. I don't subscribe to the Marxist agenda however or the conspiracy theories that the Catholic church/Pope/Mother Theresa cosy up to right wing dictators and ignore poverty and other problems in the same countries.

Anyway how is it like the holocaust deniers? While venezuelaanalysis, nizcor, michaelmoore etc. will give a link to their detractors vcrisis stormfront FOX News or bowlingfortruth wont link to their detractors.

On the balance of evidence Chavez is NOT setting up a dictatorship. Yes Amnesty has problems about Venezeuala but it also has problems with the US.

Akrasia

gbh wrote:

Would you rather see a Columbian model of Democracy in Venezuala, ie, Democracy in name only, and assasination of democratic opponents around election time.

Why was it that when South America was full of Right-Wing dictatorships, there was no protest from the US government, the Catholic Church who usually worked with Right Wing dictatorships, thinking of Popes visit to Pinochet dominated Chile.

For Twenty or Thirty years there was no democracy in South America and left wing opponents usually disappeared. So at least Chavez isn't that bad.

When the Right in South America are ready to actually share power with the Left such as in Columbia, when they learn what true democracy is, then they can complain about Chavez. Otherwise they only have themselves to blame for the rise to power of people like Chavez.

there are two reasons why America are campaigning against Chavez,
1. The threat of a good example. If Chavez' reforms are successful, then they will inspire other oppressed peoples to elect similar socialist leaders which is bad for Business and it takes away some of the U.S. hegemony that they've been working so hard to achieve.

2. Oil. Venezuela has approx 350 billion barrels of light crude (that's the easy to access and cheap to process stuff) But even more importantly, Greg Palast will reveal in his new Book, that Venezuela are believed to have up to 1.36 trillion barrels of superheavy tar oil, which is about 90% of the entire global supply of superheavy oil.

This oil is uneconomical to process when Oil Prices are low, but now that we have entered the era of 70 dollers a barrel oil and higher, all the superheavy oil suddenly becomes very profitable, and America does not want Chavez, a left wing anti capitalist leader, to be incontrol of such vast and important resources.

gbh

To make a more general point, in practically every country, less than 1% of the population dominate the government, military, etc. and also are in control of most of the wealth of the nation. Then you might have about 40 % who control most of the rest. Finally you have a large number who are not well off and struggle to survive. Now in South America the 1% have dominated since independence much like they have in Ireland. But now Chavez is representing the impovrished and those who never had a say in government and the 1% don't like it, and the 1% in the US don't like it, and that 1% needs to persuade the other 99% to do violent deeds on their behalf like they did with Iraq. Wonder will the 99% fall for it again? Probably will.

ISAW

gbh wrote:

To make a more general point, in practically every country, less than 1% of the population dominate the government, military, etc.... Chavez is representing the impovrished and those who never had a say in government and the 1% don't like it, and the 1% in the US don't like it, and that 1% needs to persuade the other 99% to do violent deeds on their behalf like they did with Iraq. Wonder will the 99% fall for it again? Probably will.

Since hes is part of the ruling governemnt Chaves is by your definition part of the 1 per cent!
This is the thing about the anarchist marxist line you seem to be peddling. You cant have it both ways. when people like chaves is not in government in a democracy they are to you a ruling elite but when chaves is in government they suddenly (NB under the same system you referred to Ireland and all democracies) become a "representative of the people". In fact in a democracy people are free to change their leaders. I will admit the media does affect this but Bertie and Enda and Pat are a far cry from billionaire ruling elite who Lord it over on the rest of the population. Nor do you have to vote for them.

Your "fool all of the people all of the time" thesis does not convince me.

The whole idea of representative democracy means that a minority (one in fifteen thousand) decide on what the law is. and the government is one in ten of them. and the taoiseach one in fifteen of them. In fact many people complain Ireland has to many TD's and we need less of a ruling elite i.e. and even more elite elite. The cynical idea that they are all there to line their own pockets does not wash with me.

Dirk Gently

ISAW wrote:

Since hes is part of the ruling governemnt Chaves is by your definition part of the 1 per cent!

I wouldn't necessarily go along with this. Chavez has evolved the Democratic process in Venezuela to include much more the role played by ordinary people. His style of Democracy is much more people friendly than here in the less democratic west.

Local councils in towns all over Venezuela made up of people from neighborhoods (like residents associations) have a lot of say in what policies and once a democratic decision has been made at a local level they relay the information back to the state and the state carries out the will of the councils. It’s not really like that here as we have top down Democracy where in reality we elected someone once every 5 years to do the thinking for us. We only have a say once in 5 years and have to accept every decision made in our name in between even if those decisions don't reflect the will of the people. It’s more of a reversal in Venezuela where democracy is a bottom-up process rather than top-down process like here. This enhanced Democratic process where ordinary people have more power is part of the reason why his government is so popular and why he keeps winning landslide elections.

A lot of people who claim he is destroying democracy are actually correct when talking about top down democracy, but they fail to mention how much more democratic the grassroots democratic system is. As far as I understand it chavez plans to increase further in future the role and power to make decisions independant of the state of these resident associations.

democrates

Spot on Clown Bag.

ISAW, no-one suggests that all the people are being fooled all of the time, but enough are, enough of the time for the rest of us to agree with CB. And turning the argument around, have you got anything against the people having a fair say and gaining a fair deal?

ISAW

democrates wrote:

Spot on Clown Bag.

ISAW, no-one suggests that all the people are being fooled all of the time, but enough are, enough of the time for the rest of us to agree with CB. And turning the argument around, have you got anything against the people having a fair say and gaining a fair deal?

I dint say chaves was destroying democracy. I stated he is part of a "one percent" which when it suits so people call a ruling elite and when it doesent it becomes a "representative democracy". I believe Ireland also has a democracy and also has local councils and a social pillar. They are not part of the government in the constitution but they do form social partners social capital etc. Ireland is not a country run by a ruling elite of whatever party which is fooling most of the people most of the time. Almost everyone will know or have spoken to at least one of four or five national representatives. If not they can go to their clinic and do so. Councillors are readily available. I was at a meeting last night for a residents association. Five councillors attended. The residents association had only been relaunched last year. the representatives regretted that they could not do some things because they did not know about them and depended on local people coming to them. Nevertheless they still had dealt with some issues. they didnt do it to score party points or to become part of a ruling elite which ignores people.

the thesis is just plainly wrong! People do not become TDs or ministers so they can then ignore their voters. If they do then look at what happens. Look at what happened to FG last time out. Look ata the independent candidates who got elected. Look at Jim Glennon who can toe the line and tell constituents what the government wants or can represent his constituents to the government. I just think (and the evidence shows) that representives are on the whole decent people who cant ignore the people and who dont think of themselves as a ruling elite. Some do and some of them get away with it but as a whole most of them care about the state of the nation abd do listen.

As for chaves. Let them deside whatever democracy they want. I think he offered the people a fair deal and he delivered on it. Having loads of committees and local councils is to me a bit anarchic and in the long run inefficient. On the other hand it prevents the centralised militarised junta and I respect that it the main reason and a good one. But it does not meant Veneseuala has a "better" constitution than Ireland.

Chaves also believes that without written law we are nothing. I happen to believe in an overarching idea of right and wrong. sometimes the law is an ass. Sometimes you get the law but not justice. People diod right and wrong before any law was written down. So while he does oppose centralised juntas Chaves system is authoritarian with lots of committees and regulations. I favour libratatianism with lots of presonal freedom and the State keeping out of your personal life and regulating as little as possible. What is the difference. Stalin was a left wing authoritarian, Ghandi a left wing libratarian.

ISAW

clown bag wrote:

It’s not really like that here as we have top down Democracy where in reality we elected someone once every 5 years to do the thinking for us. We only have a say once in 5 years and have to accept every decision made in our name in between even if those decisions don't reflect the will of the people.

This just isnt true! We dont elect people to think for us we elect them to represent us. TDs meet constituents, deputations, councillors, business representatives on a daily basis. The do not exist in a vacuum!
Also, if people realy do object to a government there are problems. The poll tax riots, the H block riots. The March against war in Iraq. All have had an effect on government policy.
It is not all top down and Bertie thinks of an idea and everyone else says "yess boss" and does it and the opposition says NO to everything Bertie says.

It’s more of a reversal in Venezuela where democracy is a bottom-up process rather than top-down process like here. This enhanced Democratic process where ordinary people have more power is part of the reason why his government is so popular and why he keeps winning landslide elections.

I beg to differ, Venezeuala has been piss poor because juntas and miltinationals have raped the economy. chaves offered a way to prevent such control. People voted for that. then he promised he would use the wealth for the people. He delivered on his promise. people voted for him after that. It will only be when their lot stops improving that people might consider an alternative. Military and industrial concerns will no doubt try do either disimprove the situation or get people to believe it is getting worse. that was what the coup was all about.

A lot of people who claim he is destroying democracy are actually correct when talking about top down democracy, but they fail to mention how much more democratic the grassroots democratic system is.

You cant have a "top down" democracy! Democracy comes from the people. In Ireland the constitution vests power in the people.

As far as I understand it chavez plans to increase further in future the role and power to make decisions independant of the state of these resident associations.

I dont think this is a good idea in the long run though it might be good in preventing juntas. REsidents associations should have a say as should farmers unions the churches sports organisations but the government should be making the decision and not residents associations! Even if we abolished ministries (i mean ministers) and just allowed TD to vote on every minesterial/department directive the whole Oireachtas would be paralised.

democrates

ISAW, many points I agree on there. It seems we have forked into an "is Venezuelan democracy better than Irelands" issue. Personally I think Venezuela doesn't have the best democracy possible, but it's going in my preferred direction faster.

Dun Laoghaire County Council invited the public to give their preference on five options for the redevelopment of Carlisle Pier. Great! The people voted, but the council ignored them and went with another option. Then they attempted the privatisation of our foreshore at 'the baths", only major street protests averted that.

As a result of the hue and cry, they have decided to publish minutes of some meetings online for greater transparency, but we all know big issues are typically discussed and decided beforehand, with the official meeting little more than a formality.

That is still insufficient transparency, and consequently accountability is reduced as we can't see who and what is influencing decision-making behind the scenes. It remains wide open to corruption, and we've seen that used repeatedly by property developers in particular. It's not good enough for me.

My preference is for swiss-style democracy. Leaving aside how much power resides with the state for now, whatever amount, the people should have a formal role in deciding its policy. I don't see how a libertarian can be for freedom and argue against my freedom to have a vote on issues both locally and nationally as appropriate. Full credit to councillors for meeting people who have an issue, but I believe official counting of our votes would be better. At the moment we have too much slipping under the radar, too many fait accomplis, too little say in how our tax contributions are administered.

As for the mimimal state, that is the kind of Cato Institute so-called libertarian dogma which is actually a call to have less power in a citizen vote, and more power with money. It is pro-capital and anti-democracy. I reject that every man for himself, dog eat dog model of society. Their whole thrust is to enable an elite ruling class parasiting off masses of working stock. You never see them arguing for workers having stock or a share of profits, it's freedom and power for the few.

I think Chavez is on the right road to a better (more just) situation where people have a stronger role in democracy, and are educated and equipped to prosper.

gbh

ISAW wrote:

Since hes is part of the ruling governemnt Chaves is by your definition part of the 1 per cent!
This is the thing about the anarchist marxist line you seem to be peddling. You cant have it both ways. when people like chaves is not in government in a democracy they are to you a ruling elite but when chaves is in government they suddenly (NB under the same system you referred to Ireland and all democracies) become a "representative of the people". In fact in a democracy people are free to change their leaders. I will admit the media does affect this but Bertie and Enda and Pat are a far cry from billionaire ruling elite who Lord it over on the rest of the population. Nor do you have to vote for them.

Your "fool all of the people all of the time" thesis does not convince me.

The whole idea of representative democracy means that a minority (one in fifteen thousand) decide on what the law is. and the government is one in ten of them. and the taoiseach one in fifteen of them. In fact many people complain Ireland has to many TD's and we need less of a ruling elite i.e. and even more elite elite. The cynical idea that they are all there to line their own pockets does not wash with me.

So you are certain that I am an 'anarchist marxist'? Well you're wrong cause I'm not. Seems that everyone who criticises corrupt and narrow focus right wing dictatorships is marxist according to you.

What I am saying is that when you have Twenty or Thirty years of non democratic right wing government with the prosperity of a few put above the prosperity of the many, then you need someone like chavez to reverse the reverses suffered by the many.

As for a billionaire ruling elite, many of them are millionaires already and many of their friends are on the verge of being billionaires from propery speculation and development.

But I think you are the sort who would say Charlie Haughey was an honest man who did an honest day's work and was entitled to money he got on the side and from dodgy property investments. Of course you would.

gbh

Tbh ISAW, I think you make a lot of generalisations such as all Irish politicians are in politics for the good of others, or that democracy comes from the grass roots and no Irish politician ever made a decision that wasn't for the good of his constituents. Part of the flaw of democracy and you have to admit that it has flaws although its about the best form of government anyone has yet come up with it, is that politicians are in a competitive arena, and sometimes you have to be ruthless to impress the electorate, and with five years between elections you have to deliver very public results in a short time sometimes without thinking about the long term implications. I think something like the Corrib gas field is like this, and also George Bush admitting that he made some mistakes in phrasing the war on terror such as bring it on. He was trying to impress an electorate and didn't really think of the longer term.

To say all politicians are honest is roughly the same as saying they are all dishonest. They are a mixture and all of them are flawed in some way, and all of them have their good points.

Dirk Gently

gbh wrote:

But I think you are the sort who would say Charlie Haughey was an honest man who did an honest day's work and was entitled to money he got on the side and from dodgy property investments. Of course you would.

chill gbh,
I don't think that’s a fair assessment of what ISAW believes. He just reckons the system we have at the moment is good democracy, while I and a few others disagree and think the Chavez model is much more democratic as it involves the people more directly in decision making. This doesn't mean that ISAW is a bourgeois scoundrel trying to keep the masses oppressed, it just means he favours having representatives of the people make decisions for them rather than more direct democracy which he sees as inefficient. I won’t go any further cos I don't want to speak for him but it’s not fair to re write what someone posted and mis represent what they said.

I personally think our system is very weak democracy. We basically elect someone to dictate policies and the only people who have a real input on policy direction is IBEC and multinationals who lay down conditions for their setting up here and the people we elected are influenced by them more so than ordinary people. Our sovereignty lies basically with the world bank and free trade laws, leaving citizens to be governed by these rules, so in my opinion it is top down with world bank, corporations and business leaders at the top making decisions and us at the bottom living with those decisions and having no real input regardless of how we vote on our one day of democracy every 5 years.

I would much rather the local democracy model, where local communities decide their own rules. We might not see so much of the maintenance companies and bin charges or the water charges which I’ve no doubt are on the way if local people actually had a democratic say.

cronin

I have to admit I’m pretty new to South American politics. I read a book recently "confessions of an economic hitman". The book itself has to be taken with a grain of salt, but it does open your eyes to way America had been trying to influence South American politics since Manifest Destiny was created in the 19th centaury and earlier. Chavez in a leader of the people elected by the people for the people. He has been elected fairly and without question in a more democratic way than Bush . (How he got to be were he is boggles the mind!) I truly believe that Chavez wants what is best for the people of his country and I admire the way he is standing up to the USA even if it is in a slightly antagonistic way. Anybody who describes this unique and charismatic leader as trying to create a totalitarian state is a supporter of Corporate USA since it is on Corporate USA’s behalf America is trying to discredit him.

ISAW

gbh wrote:

So you are certain that I am an 'anarchist marxist'?

No is stated you SEEM to be peddlind a lind of statist polit beauro type committee
rule. I don't know since you have only detailed how "residents associations" should be making laws to tax people as far as I can see.

Well you're wrong cause I'm not. Seems that everyone who criticises corrupt and narrow focus right wing dictatorships is marxist according to you.

Well not it appears it is you who are incorrect in your assumption of what "seems" to be the case. If you read some of my posts on this thread or elsewhere you might notice that I criticise right wing dictatorships and I am not a Marxist.

What I am saying is that when you have Twenty or Thirty years of non democratic right wing government with the prosperity of a few put above the prosperity of the many, then you need someone like chavez to reverse the reverses suffered by the many.

But this is actually arguing against Chaves since he is suggesting you don't need someone like him but a system of laws which disable individual personal control in favour of the collective.

As for a billionaire ruling elite, many of them are millionaires already and many of their friends are on the verge of being billionaires from propery speculation and development.

Many of them would make more money outside of politics. It is not unknown for someone who is oiin public life to have rich friends and acquaintainces. Mother Theresa was by most accounts penniless but she met many a rich man.

But I think you are the sort who would say Charlie Haughey was an honest man who did an honest day's work and was entitled to money he got on the side and from dodgy property investments. Of course you would.

Well since you put words in my mouth how can I argue with your already biased opinion. In fact Charlie broke no criminal laws. What are the "dodgy property investments" to which you refer?

ISAW

clown bag wrote:

chill gbh,
I don't think that’s a fair assessment of what ISAW believes. He just reckons the system we have at the moment is good democracy, while I and a few others disagree and think the Chavez model is much more democratic as it involves the people more directly in decision making. This doesn't mean that ISAW is a bourgeois scoundrel trying to keep the masses oppressed, it just means he favours having representatives of the people make decisions for them rather than more direct democracy which he sees as inefficient. I won’t go any further cos I don't want to speak for him but it’s not fair to re write what someone posted and mis represent what they said.

That is fair comment.

I personally think our system is very weak democracy. We basically elect someone to dictate policies and the only people who have a real input on policy direction is IBEC and multinationals who lay down conditions for their setting up here and the people we elected are influenced by them more so than ordinary people.

I disagree with this. there are social partners. Unions, CORI, INOU, NGO's etc. There are also local representatives and there are party systems of formulating policy. there is also the law and constitution which the government vcant change and are bound by.

Our sovereignty lies basically with the world bank and free trade laws, leaving citizens to be governed by these rules, so in my opinion it is top down with world bank, corporations and business leaders at the top making decisions and us at the bottom living with those decisions and having no real input regardless of how we vote on our one day of democracy every 5 years.

Our soverignty ultimately constitutionally lies with the people! There are other pillars. The court system for example. The media.

I would much rather the local democracy model, where local communities decide their own rules. We might not see so much of the maintenance companies and bin charges or the water charges which I’ve no doubt are on the way if local people actually had a democratic say.

Or we might see more of them in some areas. Take Dun Laoghaire for example. the amount of business is low compared to residential property. therefore the residents pay the highest bin charges and no doubt left to be allowed to levy any local taxes would charge for water parking and anything else. Fingal could put a tax on the Airport and hammer the business there for a few bob. If Dun Laoghaire were allowed to tax what they wanted and the grant to local government was removed and budgeting de centralised then how do you think they would pay for the councils services?

democrates

ISAW wrote:

Or we might see more of them in some areas. Take Dun Laoghaire for example. the amount of business is low compared to residential property. therefore the residents pay the highest bin charges and no doubt left to be allowed to levy any local taxes would charge for water parking and anything else. Fingal could put a tax on the Airport and hammer the business there for a few bob. If Dun Laoghaire were allowed to tax what they wanted and the grant to local government was removed and budgeting de centralised then how do you think they would pay for the councils services?

This comes to the nub of the issue. If we had a vote on local issues, do you believe people are capable of voting for what is in their best interests, or are we a fickle mob who will sacrifice our best interests to populist notions?

Dirk Gently

democrates wrote:

This comes to the nub of the issue. If we had a vote on local issues, do you believe people are capable of voting for what is in their best interests, or are we a fickle mob who will sacrifice our best interests to populist notions?

That’s pretty much the question. Are the general population not sophisticated enough to handle democracy and should they put their faith in a tiny number of people to do the decision making for us. What we call Democracy here is actually us deciding who is going to take the burden of a democratic vote away from us and who will make decisions on our behalf.

For more on the co-ops in Venezuela and their problems and successes here are two recent articles. It is worth bearing in mind that these are a new feature and the role and direction of the co-ops are still being debated, however the benefit to the communities can't be denied. The whole theme is on co-operation between co-ops and not competition between them. Hopefully when these new co-ops develop and over come teething problems they will become more indepandant and provide even more power to local people. Chavez has stated that he wants the co-ops to have more say and this s the direction he is moving in. I feel this is absolutly more democratic, with people having a direct vote on issues rather than having a vote on someone to make the decision for you.


MAY 2006

DEC 2005

ISAW

democrates wrote:

This comes to the nub of the issue. If we had a vote on local issues, do you believe people are capable of voting for what is in their best interests, or are we a fickle mob who will sacrifice our best interests to populist notions?

I believe voting along the anarchist link a la ancient Greece would not work. Abolishing the Dail and having people congregate for every issue/ or even sending different representatives for every issue would not work.

I believe people would vote on local issues and sacrifice our best national interests to personal bias. It would be ike a Dail full of independents. We couldnt run a government with a dail of Wexford hospital TDs and Dun Laoghaire baths TDs. What would happen is that they would congregate into parties on broad issues ) in this example health, planning.

People frequently are fickle and selfish which is why many independents get elested. The ones who get re elected are not single issue but represent a general point of view Blaney represents what was republican FF Fox a Rural protestant element of FF (but both FF non the less - they wont vote agains FF) Lowrey and shane Ross a FG point of view in spite of them being independents they vote for FG and against FF.

democrates

ISAW wrote:

I believe voting along the anarchist link a la ancient Greece would not work. Abolishing the Dail and having people congregate for every issue/ or even sending different representatives for every issue would not work.

I believe people would vote on local issues and sacrifice our best national interests to personal bias. It would be ike a Dail full of independents. We couldn't run a government with a dail of Wexford hospital TDs and Dun Laoghaire baths TDs. What would happen is that they would congregate into parties on broad issues ) in this example health, planning.

People frequently are fickle and selfish which is why many independents get elested. The ones who get re elected are not single issue but represent a general point of view Blaney represents what was republican FF Fox a Rural protestant element of FF (but both FF non the less - they wont vote agains FF) Lowrey and shane Ross a FG point of view in spite of them being independents they vote for FG and against FF.

I was lax in wording the question, apologies, and I agree with much of your answer.

To clarify, the Swiss system is what I'd like to see in Venezuela and Ireland, in fact accross the globe. It balances representative power with people power. For most of the time elected representatives take decisions, at local, regional, and national level. For important issues, the people can vote.

Anyone can initiate a change in law, policy, or measure, but they must garner enough signatures, this way crackpots can't waste everyones time. Also, issues of national importance are decided at national level, having a direct vote doesn't mean you get your way all the time and people understand and accept that. Even with vested interest groups involved and the other issues you've raised which any system has to deal with, they've been using it for years there and doing very well. It's not some theory which may or may not work, it's a proven successful system, and it's better than ours.

That said, it works best if people are educated. The swiss system began centuries ago to unite the warring cantons, initially it was much more basic, but it worked because it was seen as fair. Another thread would be required to theorise on what Zimbabwe might be like if direct democracy had been introduced, would the people have gone down the same road as Mugabe.

Venezuela is rolling out direct democracy, I'm glad to see residents associations, co-operatives etc coming together democratically, and the education program which has wiped out illiteracy as well as much coverage of issues in the media means people are better equipped to discuss and participate intelligently.

The pace of development there is very fast, with the advantage of oil revenues giving it a shot in the arm. Consequently every step won't be perfect, there will be slips on the way creating the opportunity for detractors to point. Still I think it's far better to have a good plan today than a perfect one sometime with people suffering as you wait. Also Chavez may not have much time, he has made powerful enemies in his quest for good.

ISAW

gbh wrote:

Tbh ISAW, I think you make a lot of generalisations such as all Irish politicians are in politics for the good of others,

I believe most of them could make more money elsewhere and do the job because they like it. Most of them in my experience are also interested in helping others.

or that democracy comes from the grass roots

constitutionally it does! well power comes form the people. But fi you have an alternative definition of democracy which does not mean from the people then please outline YOUR version since it is at odds with dictionary definition.

and no Irish politician ever made a decision that wasn't for the good of his constituents.

representing their constituents is their job. Of course Irish politicians do things for the greater good. Edmund Burke outlined this in his election speech. He pointed out that people are elected for their judgement and if constituents don't like when their representative does something which they dont want then they cant depose him but can vote for someone else next time. By the way Burke lost his seat

Part of the flaw of democracy and you have to admit that it has flaws

I dont have to admit anything! You claim the flaws then YOU provide the evidence.

...politicians are in a competitive arena, and sometimes you have to be ruthless to impress the electorate, and with five years between elections you have to deliver very public results in a short time sometimes without thinking about the long term implications. I think something like the Corrib gas field is like this, and

You have yet to convince me that a dioctator for life a monarch a pope or anyone else not forced to consider short term elections are always focused on long term implications.

also George Bush admitting that he made some mistakes in phrasing the war on terror such as bring it on. He was trying to impress an electorate and didn't really think of the longer term.

Or maybe he was looking for an excuse to get re elected. It wasnt his tough talk people disagree with it was his claiming fiction as fact on which he had secret evidence e.g. WMD or training aL Khyda in Iraq. "i phrased it badly" is the least of the problem. You remind me of the "crusade" he mentioned on 11 Sept -two days after 9/11. You also remind me of the day he met the Greek Prime minister during the olympics and how they visited the Acropolis and the ruins of Greece. I can imaginine his saying "This is unbelievable! All these ruins! But dont you worry. Whoever did this we're gonna git them"

To say all politicians are honest is roughly the same as saying they are all dishonest. They are a mixture and all of them are flawed in some way, and all of them have their good points.

i stated neither. Care to show where I did?

Dirk Gently

Looks like the U.S. public will be well conditioned for any future American attack on Venezuela. If it says so in a video game it must be true. You reckon people will see past this realistic war simulator, considering a lot of these types of games are designed to be as realistic and true to actual events as they can. That is part of their appeal. Will people distinguish between fantasy and reality or will this have an effect on the attitude of the gamers towards what I assume is a power hungry Chavez messing with the oil supply.
Damn evil Venezuelan tyrants.

"A power-hungry tyrant messes with Venezuela's oil supply, sparking an invasion that turns the country into a warzone. "

I wonder where they got that idea from.

democrates

The game will normalise the idea of Venezuela as an enemy. Most gamers are young, but once they've grown up on this diet it will be easier to get some of them to sign up for the military and/or support politicians with an anti-Venezuela policy.

Hollywood's been at it this subtle propaganda for years. It's owned by corporations who favour material that supports the corporate agenda. There are notable exceptions of course, the insider, erin brockovic et al.

Most of what the networks trowel out is dross for the masses. The result, too many homers doing a days work then larding out in front of the tv getting dumbed down. Not enough time is spent on things that matter.

Same thing is happening here in Ireland. Witness the rise of tabloids and the obsession with soaps and sport. I'm not suggesting a ban on recreation, but it seems to me there's too much opting for the quick fix of sensation or mirth, and the path of least resistance generally leads downward. You get out of your mind what you put into it. Would be nice to see more people making better use of their intelligence.

Venezuela is improving on that front. People are becoming better educated and better informed. When it comes to understanding their entitlement to direct democracy and social justice, they're ahead of many Irish.