Is Chavez becoming a liability?

Sand

First up he hasn't actually gotten it yet.

Secondly this is nothing new. He was approved "Rule by decree" before back in 2001.

Im pretty sure I said expand tbh. Anyway, what are you saying here? That he hasnt got it yet? Or that he already has it?

And how do you reconcile Chavez's popularity and democratic mandate with his desire for rule by decree? You might be sympathetic to left wing economic idealogy but doesnt it bother you in the slightest that hes basically trampling all over the concept of diffuse power which has served Europe & the US relatively well? Are we really back to the hero worship of enlightened tyrants?

Why does he need to rule by decree if his democratic mandate is such that passing legislation would be routine? Why risk discrediting and undermining democratic norms in Veneuzela? Would you like to see rule by decree introduced into Ireland? Do you think it would be good or bad for the democratic process here?

It always has to be approved by congress and then for a set time frame.

Like the Enabling Act then?

the only people who have a problem with chavez are american big business

Or anyone who values the concept of checks and balances and individual liberties.

If this practice spreads to other significant profit bases a lot of foreign wealth concentators will be more gung-ho than ever to get Chavez out, and they're not just dominant in America they have puppet politicians over the FDI barrel accross the globe.

The vast majority of oil fields and companies are state owned. Despite the image "big oil" is very much the exception, not the rule.

His rhetoric about Marx, Lenin, and Trotsky may just be branding to make it look like ideology is the prime motivator rather than power play. Wish I could mind-read.

The oil funds his programs so either way - power or idealogy, he is best served by holding the reins himself. If oil continues it decline in value [full credit to Bush and his team for their work on reducing the price of oil, we gave them stick when they forced it to rise, but credit where its due....] he may get into a wee bit of bother and start having to print money to fund the revolution. He has been making noises about the independance of the central bank with this in mind Id think.

Voipjunkie

Sand wrote:

Personally I'm hoping Bertie will introduce similar powers for himself in Ireland so he can skip the whole Dail sideshow and get down to sorting Ireland out. Those TDs are just a bloody distraction with their questions and voting against his policies.

I wonder does Chavez turn up for Questions on a Thursday

The Dail is largely irrelevant in this country it offers no oversight and is absolutely useless at holding people to account.

As Enda and Pat demonstrated when Bertie stayed on despite admitting trousering large ammounts of money from businessmen.


What makes me laugh is that people look suspiciously at Chavez and never a thought to our own pretence at democracy.

Hundreds of thousands on the electoral register who are either registered more than once or dead.
Business men giving large amounts of money to the leader and being rewarded with positions in state companies.
State controlled television
A lame duck parliament.
Multiple Radio stations controlled by a man who has left the country so he does not pay tax.
Majority of newspapers controlled by one company.
Corrupt police force.
A judiciary that makes judgments based on a radio phone in program.
People left lying on trollies in dirty hospitals


No not in south America right here welcome to Ireland

Hobbes

Orizio wrote:

Yes and you don't hear a whole lot about the rising crime rates in the country, the crippling corruption and his distinctly illiberal juidical reforms.

Maybe the 'press' is just incompetent?

Well hows about filling us in on the details then?

I wonder does Chavez turn up for Questions on a Thursday

Afair he has a tv show where people ring in. Not sure if he still does it.

Im pretty sure I said expand tbh. Anyway, what are you saying here? That he hasnt got it yet? Or that he already has it?

From the news reports I read he is only going to congress to get a rule of decree on 13th. There has been no update as to if he got it or not that I can see. Do you know?

And how do you reconcile Chavez's popularity and democratic mandate with his desire for rule by decree?

Democracy and "rule by decree" are not mutually exclusive. There are a number of other democracies that have similar or same laws with similar limitations. France, USA, Mexico spring to mind.

Do you think it would be good or bad for the democratic process here?

Comparing apples to oranges tbh.

The Corinthian

Hobbes wrote:

Democracy and "rule by decree" are not mutually exclusive.

LOL. People’s capacity for self-deception is hilarious.

Chavez was always prone to become a full-fledged dictator. That’s not to say he will, but given his pre-presidential history, the cult of personality he’s fostered and his increasingly authoritarian attitudes, make if far, far more likely than not.

The problem here is that he’s also become a Socialist hero. He’s given hope to a new generation of ideologists who have been moping around depressed ever since 1989, when the wall came down in Berlin and it turned out that Socialism wasn’t such a brilliant system after all.

So if he does go down the road of dictator for life – which frankly is more than likely – what we’re going to increasingly see is the following process in discussions here over time:

1. Denial. He’s not a dictator. The media is biased. They’re all lies, lies, lies!
   
2. Avoidance. Would people stop concentrating on his faults and look at what he’s done for the poor in Venezuela? At least he’s standing up against the US!
   
3. Justification. He had to suspend democratic rights to save the country from right-wing death squads. He only imprisoned/tortured/killed bad people!

lostexpectation

her's one... the 'opposition' would be worse

DadaKopf

Democracy and "rule by decree" are not mutually exclusive.

Ah, come on now. Rule by decree is simply dictatorship by one entity or another. But we'd be all fooling ourselves if we thought we all lived in ideal democracies. I can't see how a democrat could ever justify someone making decisions on behalf of others with no, or very little, accountability to citizens. If Chavez is over-stepping the mark, he's overstepping the mark.

The Corinthian wrote:

The problem here is that he’s also become a Socialist hero. He’s given hope to a new generation of ideologists who have been moping around depressed ever since 1989, when the wall came down in Berlin and it turned out that Socialism wasn’t such a brilliant system after all.

Let's not confuse the moral argument for socialism, or socialisms, with failed practise. In my opinion, redistribution and the creation of a more equal society is just. Soviet communism was a decrepit web of corruption and exploitation. But in a Western liberal economic context, socialism has done very well to save capitalism from itself, as J. K. Galbraith said. There is a very strong connection between stable economic and social development and higher levels of equality in a society. The economic argument goes: the more unequal, and hence, poor a society is, the less space there is for further growth, and so on. The only difference today is that equality hasn't been embraced, capitalist's inherent problem with this has simply been outsourced.

In terms of Chavez and Venezuela, though, I've always said that he will have a tough time avoiding the mistakes of past Latin American populism. And there it goes, the problem in Venezuela isn't Chavez' declared attempt to fuse capitalism and socialism (social democracy), but rather the political forces that undermine it. Presumably Venezuela would develop very nicely if 80% of the population earned more, could spend more and have a stake in the country's fortunes. Venezuela's political power structures are to blame here, and Chavez may well be falling in the same traps as before.

Ninners

Personally speaking I have great respect for Chavez what with the reforms he has made to the public health-care system and the social welfare system in Venezula.

But i certainly think not renewing the licence of an opposition tv-station is a bad political move in terms of th respect and support he has from EU poloticians and people. I think he is playing right into the hands of the American administration by doing this. Now they will be able to say that Chavez is censoring the media and therefore a threat to democracy and American security!

The Corinthian

DadaKopf wrote:

Let's not confuse the moral argument for socialism, or socialisms, with failed practise.

Neither should you confuse a simplistic principle with a moral argument.

But in a Western liberal economic context, socialism has done very well to save capitalism from itself, as J. K. Galbraith said.

No argument there. However, that simply serves to demonstrate that Socialism is useful as a moderator to Liberal Capitalism, not as an economic system in itself.

There is a very strong connection between stable economic and social development and higher levels of equality in a society.

Since when? The US, for example, has vast inequalities, yet has the largest and most developed economy in the World, while the USSR and much of the Warsaw pact countries had a good degree of equality and disastrous economies.

In terms of Chavez and Venezuela, though, I've always said that he will have a tough time avoiding the mistakes of past Latin American populism. And there it goes, the problem in Venezuela isn't Chavez' declared attempt to fuse capitalism and socialism (social democracy), but rather the political forces that undermine it. Presumably Venezuela would develop very nicely if 80% of the population earned more, could spend more and have a stake in the country's fortunes. Venezuela's political power structures are to blame here, and Chavez may well be falling in the same traps as before.

Didn’t take you long to get to the justification stage.

DadaKopf

Justification? I don't know about that. But given that the Venezuelan government is improving things in some circumstances, and disimproving things in others, and admitting that I don't know the full picture, I'm making a point of exercising extreme caution in my judgements about Chavez and the Venezuelan government.

But, as I went through the poverty reduction figures ages ago in another thread, the indicators actually look good. On the other hand, there are concerns about the country falling into populism once again, a terribly tragic political phenomenon.

Neither should you confuse a simplistic principle with a moral argument.

Can the principle of egalitarianism ever be detached from a moral argument? You just split the to for the sake of making a rhetorical point. Which is meaningless. My morality and my principles go hand in hand. Don't yours?

The Corinthian

DadaKopf wrote:

Justification? I don't know about that. But given that the Venezuelan government is improving things in some circumstances, and disimproving things in others, and admitting that I don't know the full picture, I'm making a point of exercising extreme caution in my judgements about Chavez and the Venezuelan government.

I’ve no doubt they’re improving things in some circumstances, the question however is whether those circumstances justify (or whether anything should justify) those things that are not improving or even disimproving. After all, otherwise you’re really just giving us another version of the “at least he made the trains run on time” justification.

But, as I went through the poverty reduction figures ages ago in another thread, the indicators actually look good.

Source?

Can the principle of egalitarianism ever be detached from a moral argument?

I never suggested that is should be detached, only that it is simplistic. Egalitarianism is a noble goal in itself, but its single-minded pursuit (or imposition) can cause more misery than good. The problem arises that egalitarianism and the pursuit of happiness can of often be at odds with each other, something that Socialism tends to reject and so no implementation, given this, would ever solve this.

Probably an off topic point, though.

Orizio

Hobbes wrote:

Well hows about filling us in on the details then?

Naturally...

Venezuela is 141 out of 163, behind the likes of Ethiopia and Iran below.

Corruption(Click the TI Corruption Perceptions Index 2006 media pack, its in PDF)

Venezuela, a country of 26 million, has recorded an average of nearly 10,000 homicides a year since Chavez took office. The homicide rate, 37 deaths per 100,000 people, is more than double what it was in the 1990s.

Crime Rates 1.

Caracas has become South America's most violent capital. Worse, the police are themselves suspects in many of the killings. The public prosecutor's office says it is investigating over 6,000 alleged “extra-judicial executions” by police. The brothers were kidnapped by men in police uniform, as was a businessman kidnapped and murdered last month. Two dozen policemen are currently awaiting trial for killing three students, and wounding three others, who failed to stop at a roadblock.

The vast majority of murders take place in the anonymity of the slums, and never come to public attention. According to some accounts, gang-members have been recruited into the police to enforce political control rather than fight crime.

Crime Rates 2.

Asked which country in South America has the worst track record for murder, most observers would probably respond Colombia. However, Venezuela now appears to have snatched the grisly title of homicide record-breaker.

The country has been gripped by an outpouring of public anger in the past week over a spate of execution-style murders that have underscored a view among locals that President Hugo Chávez has lost control over spiralling crime.

Similar crimes committed with the apparent complicity of police officers have become increasingly common in recent months, while the frequency of murders is rising. Police figures show that there were 11,900 homicides during 2003, equal to 46.5 per 100,000, the last figures available since the government ordered the police to stop releasing weekly crime statistics.

The homicide rate was about 20 per 100,000 in the 1990s but began to soar in 2000. Crime experts believe the annual homicide rate has remained the same since it officially peaked in 2003, or may have risen. (When did Chavez come to power again?)

Venezuela’s fatal crime rate exceeds that of Colombia, where there were 17,726 murders last year, equivalent to 40.8 homicides per 100,000. Colombia’s population is about 43.4m, that of Venezuela about 25.6m.

Crime Rates 3.

The Venezuelan government is undermining the independence of the country’s judiciary ahead of a presidential recall referendum that may ultimately be decided in the courts, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today. President Chávez’s governing coalition has begun implementing a new court-packing law that will strip the Supreme Court of its autonomy.

Juidical Reform.

DadaKopf

I never suggested that is should be detached, only that it is simplistic. Egalitarianism is a noble goal in itself, but its single-minded pursuit (or imposition) can cause more misery than good. The problem arises that egalitarianism and the pursuit of happiness can of often be at odds with each other, something that Socialism tends to reject and so no implementation, given this, would ever solve this.

Blah, blah, blah. :rolleyes:

Source?

Search yourself. The most recent other discussion on Venezuela.

The Corinthian

DadaKopf wrote:

Blah, blah, blah. :rolleyes:

Well, you asked. If you don't like hearing it don't do so in future.

Search yourself. The most recent other discussion on Venezuela.

Of course. I'll take your word for it too.

mike65

Chaves continues his drive to take total control of the state

Mike.

purple'n'gold

Mr. Chavez is living on borrowed time, the Americans will not put up with his shenanigans much longer.

bobbyjoe

purplengold wrote:

Mr. Chavez is living on borrowed time, the Americans will not put up with his shenanigans mush longer.

Whats it to them what Chavez does?
All he's harming is perhaps the multinationals who operate in South America and they don't run the US do they?

purple'n'gold

bobbyjoe wrote:

Whats it to them what Chavez does?
All he's harming is perhaps the multinationals who operate in South America and they don't run the US do they?

The Americans don’t like pseudo communists operating in their back yard. And they regard Venezuela as their back yard. Also, Venezuela has lots of oil, and just look at what the USA done to Iraq to secure the oil there.

nacho libre

The CIA are probably working on a way to assassinate him that makes it appear he died from natural causes. They'll show the Russians how it is done.;)

bobbyjoe

purplengold wrote:

The Americans don’t like pseudo communists operating in their back yard. And they regard Venezuela as their back yard. Also, Venezuela has lots of oil, and just look at what the USA done to Iraq to secure the oil there.

Doubt they care much about the welfare of "freedom" of the people there its always about oil and mony. They had no problem with all the right wing compliant dictators.

purple'n'gold

The USA could not care less about freedom or democracy in other countries. To see Bush making speeches about it is stomach churning. Their only criteria are how it affects America. They are concerned big time about oil supplies, hence the rape of Iraq. And they will not hesitate to overthrow Chavez, they won’t do it overtly of course, but the CIA has ways and means. And plenty of practise.

democrates

purplengold wrote:

The Americans don’t like pseudo communists operating in their back yard. And they regard Venezuela as their back yard. Also, Venezuela has lots of oil, and just look at what the USA done to Iraq to secure the oil there.

The Democrats control both houses so extreme hawks can do little, Iraq is Vietnam II and Americans are sick of it, even if they pull out most of their forces Afghanistan will to some extent take it's place as the top destination for travelling extremists, Iran edges closer to the capacity to develop nuclear weapons, North Korea keep provoking the enemy to keep them at the gate, world trade talks are about to restart, the twin deficits loom ever larger, and there's an election coming up. I don't see any realistic possibility of US military action against Venezuela any time soon.

Sun Tzu - The Art of War, 500BC:

When you engage in actual fighting, if victory is long in coming, then men's weapons will grow dull and their ardor will be damped. If you lay siege to a town, you will exhaust your strength.

Again, if the campaign is protracted, the resources of the State will not be equal to the strain.

Now, when your weapons are dulled, your ardor damped, your strength exhausted and your treasure spent, other chieftains will spring up to take advantage of your extremity. Then no man, however wise, will be able to avert the consequences that must ensue.

Thus, though we have heard of stupid haste in war, cleverness has never been seen associated with long delays. There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare.

The USA under Bush have been quick to invade that which they cannot hold, and the unilateral mentality means their taxpayers foot most of the bill. The failure of the 20,000 extra trooops to 'solve' Iraq will nail that point home and it should be a long time before another glorious quest is embarked upon, even if Venezuela deprives a few capitalists of some extra excess wealth.

Edit: But you're right, the CIA could intervene by funding internal enemies with a mind to assasination or another coup.

wasper

democrates wrote:

BBC reports that Hugo Chavez intends to shut down RCTV by not renewing it's licence which he says expires in March 07, a date he seems to have picked out of thin air. The reasons given are that the station supported the coup against him in 2002, but also according to the article "The move could help silence some of his critics in the media who have been a thorn in his side for several years, he says."

In the past myself and many others have strongly supported the policies his administration has been introducing under what he calls the Bolivarian Revolution, but for me this is a step too far, he's crossed a line. Does this new policy of attempting to silence dissent make Hugo Chavez a liability to both the Bolivarian Revolution and internationally to social justice movements?

But if people advocating taking power by force, & disrespecting the will of the people. Those right wing beauties are financed by the US adminsitration & other right wing minded organisations in the USA.

The Corinthian

wasper wrote:

But if people advocating taking power by force, & disrespecting the will of the people. Those right wing beauties are financed by the US adminsitration & other right wing minded organisations in the USA.

Yes, I understand now. He's only moving towards dictatorship because he's one of the good guys and sometimes you have to bend the rules for the greater good.

It's all right everyone, he's only going to imprison bad people.

Orizio

purplengold wrote:

The Americans don’t like pseudo communists operating in their back yard. And they regard Venezuela as their back yard. Also, Venezuela has lots of oil, and just look at what the USA done to Iraq to secure the oil there.

Dear god the old oil argument popping up again.Han't that been put to bed enough times yet?

The US is buying oil from Venezuela, and will continue to.That won't change regardless.

Orizio

wasper wrote:

But if people advocating taking power by force, & disrespecting the will of the people. Those right wing beauties are financed by the US adminsitration & other right wing minded organisations in the USA.

You say right wing as if its some kind of dirty word.:rolleyes:

sovtek

Orizio wrote:

Dear god the old oil argument popping up again.Han't that been put to bed enough times yet?

The US is buying oil from Venezuela, and will continue to.That won't change regardless.

But who profits the most from it can and has changed significantly under Chavez. He has put oil revenues to use for who it should benefit, the people of the country. The US government doesn't like that, more importantly the oil companies that lobby the US government don't like it.

purple'n'gold

Orizio wrote:

Dear god the old oil argument popping up again.Han't that been put to bed enough times yet?

The US is buying oil from Venezuela, and will continue to.That won't change regardless.

The USA likes its oil suppliers to be compliant, friendly and well disposed to the USA. Venezuela is none of these things; it all makes for the USA to feel very uneasy. They are like that!

wasper

purplengold wrote:

The USA likes its oil suppliers to be compliant, friendly and well disposed to the USA. Venezuela is none of these things; it all makes for the USA to feel very uneasy. They are like that!

Plus Chavez also announced his intentions to trade in Euros instead of Dollars.
Saddam Hussain in 1999 or in 2000 commented that in future he would like to trade oil in euros. Iran declared it's intentions to the same.

The Corinthian

sovtek wrote:

He has put oil revenues to use for who it should benefit, the people of the country.

Has he? From what I can see the majority of his reforms have been aimed at wresting control of various industries from private ownership and replacing one bunch of cronies with his own or for the consolidation of his own power base. So far the benefits to the people of the country have been largely based on little more than rhetoric.

wasper wrote:

Plus Chavez also announced his intentions to trade in Euros instead of Dollars.
Saddam Hussain in 1999 or in 2000 commented that in future he would like to trade oil in euros. Iran declared it's intentions to the same.

Actually a move to the Euro, especially a gradual one, could benefit the US economy as it would devalue the Dollar and make US exports far more competitive. I do think this particular conspiracy theory has been a little overblown.

Orizio

sovtek wrote:

But who profits the most from it can and has changed significantly under Chavez. He has put oil revenues to use for who it should benefit, the people of the country. The US government doesn't like that, more importantly the oil companies that lobby the US government don't like it.

I wouldn't believe this when my local politician says this, so why should I believe it when Chavez says it?Why do people take Chavez's words as golden?Why the naivety?The guy is both a populist and distinctly illiberal, and according to the links I showed above incompetent.

Basically I don't take politicians at their word.Call me crazy...;)

The USA likes its oil suppliers to be compliant, friendly and well disposed to the USA. Venezuela is none of these things; it all makes for the USA to feel very uneasy. They are like that!

Good to see you have dropped the old 'blood for oil' argument.I don't doubt the US admin dislikes Chavez-so what?

The US needs a supplier,Chavez needs a seller.Thats not going to change.