Is Chavez becoming a liability?

FYI

Well, what you lack in argument you make up for in the pointless regurgitation of lame put downs.

The Corinthian wrote:

That they oppose the ‘popular’ view is a reason to damn them? WTF?

Looks like you led yourself to that conclusion. I see it as being a fact that contradicts everything you've offered as 'argument'.

The Corinthian

FYI wrote:

Well, what you lack in argument you make up for in the pointless regurgitation of lame put downs.

Like the lame put down you've just come up with here in lieu of a response?

Looks like you led yourself to that conclusion. I see it as being a fact that contradicts everything you've offered as 'argument'.

That's not any kind of fact - it's censoring others because you don't like their views, plain and simple.

Let's recap, shall we? You contend that the media company in question was representing an unpopular view and thus it was justified to decimate its ability to broadcast.

There's not much I or anyone else can say to someone who think that makes sense, TBH.

FYI

The Corinthian wrote:

Let's recap, shall we? You contend that the media company in question was representing an unpopular view and thus it was justified to decimate its ability to broadcast.

An unpopular coup - I think you meant to write.

And yes, if you can't make a coherant argument theres no point.

The Corinthian

FYI wrote:

An unpopular coup - I think you meant to write.

Rubbish. As has been repeatedly pointed out if you have a coup you punish the individuals involved. If ITV supported a coup again Gordon Brown then at the very least there would follow resignations and perhaps even arrests (if they broke the law), but shutting down or otherwise censoring the station would not happen.

And all this moral outrage over an 'unpopular' coup from an apologist for Chavez's own 'popular' coup. It's laughable.

And yes, if you can't make a coherant argument theres no point.

No, I was simply saying there's little point in arguing with a fanatic.

Free press is allowing dissenting voices even if you don't like them or they are 'unpopular'. Otherwise you don't have free press - you have a censored and controlled one where only 'acceptable' voices are heard. This is what the effective censorship of RCTV has moved towards, whether you like it or not.

I trust that is coherent enough for you, although I doubt you can grasp it anyway given your belief that allowing only 'popular' speech is bizarrely 'free'.

FYI

The Corinthian wrote:

And all this moral outrage over an 'unpopular' coup from an apologist for Chavez's own 'popular' coup. It's laughable.

Free press is allowing dissenting voices even if you don't like them or they are 'unpopular'. Otherwise you don't have free press - you have a censored and controlled one where only 'acceptable' voices are heard. This is what the effective censorship of RCTV has moved towards, whether you like it or not.

I trust that is coherent enough for you, although I doubt you can grasp it anyway given your belief that allowing only 'popular' speech is bizarrely 'free'.

Well that was a long yawn.

I made no suggestion that only popular speech is free speech, that is an absurd straw man you've created to make it look like you have an argument. My point was that the majority of media organisations in Venezuela are anti-Chavez, mainly down to the fact they represent the wealthy - who happen to be the minority. I mention this, not because I 'hate' free speech, but because its a fact.

There is a difference, though you would not care to admit it, between the two attempted coups.

DadaKopf

The Corinthian wrote:

Rubbish. As has been repeatedly pointed out if you have a coup you punish the individuals involved. If ITV supported a coup again Gordon Brown then at the very least there would follow resignations and perhaps even arrests (if they broke the law), but shutting down or otherwise censoring the station would not happen.

And all this moral outrage over an 'unpopular' coup from an apologist for Chavez's own 'popular' coup. It's laughable.

I have to say I'm in agreement with Corinthian here, as I've said before on this thread.

Firstly: a coup is a coup, and I think there is always a dangerous logic in coups which, while some of their motives may be considered justifiable, usually spiral out of control quickly. So I don't support violent coups, or revolutions - they're ultimately counter-productivde. That said, the enormous inequality created largely by Venezuela's powerful minority elite and middle-class must be tackled. Corinthian shouldn't forget that Chávez' coup was a failure; this former military officer gained power constitutionally. The counter-coup also failed. But remember: the first coup was motivated by a desire for social justice; the second coup was motivated by a desire for social injustice. It's actually good news that both coups failed. The logic didn't get a chance to unfold, luckily.

Secondly: leading on from this, it was wrong for Chávez to shut down the station. True, Venezuela's rich dominate the media-space and spout dangerous lies daily - as, I'm sure, do the pro-Chávez channels. Rather than using state power to ban a free media (which is essential for democracy), the administration should have used its power to impost strong anti-libel legislation and to enforce it. If, after ratification, TV and radio channels continued to broadcast muck, they would be censured, and if they persisted, shut down. That would have brought genuinely positive legal-rationalism to the issue.

FYI

DadaKopf wrote:

Secondly: leading on from this, it was wrong for Chávez to shut down the station. True, Venezuela's rich dominate the media-space and spout dangerous lies daily - as, I'm sure, do the pro-Chávez channels. Rather than using state power to ban a free media (which is essential for democracy), the administration should have used its power to impost strong anti-libel legislation and to enforce it. If, after ratification, TV and radio channels continued to broadcast muck, they would be censured, and if they persisted, shut down. That would have brought genuinely positive legal-rationalism to the issue.

Well that is a more reasonable approach to the issue. But you have still relayed some myths about the story. The station was not 'shut down' it is still running!!, it's licence was not renewed - as is the authority of the licence provider. Licences are not renewed all over the world for numerous reasons - the reason it is so contentious in this instance is that the station was a 'dissenter' or anti-Chavez (an understatement).

I would agree with you, Chavez should have put it to a vote.

The Corinthian

FYI wrote:

Well that was a long yawn.

You have a very short attention span.

I made no suggestion that only popular speech is free speech, that is an absurd straw man you've created to make it look like you have an argument. My point was that the majority of media organisations in Venezuela are anti-Chavez, mainly down to the fact they represent the wealthy - who happen to be the minority. I mention this, not because I 'hate' free speech, but because its a fact.

The problem with your 'fact' is that it is irrelevant unless you believe that, due to who these media outlets allegedly represent, this makes them undesirable and thus it is justifiable to silence them.

But I don't think you 'hate' free speech, I just think you don't actually understand what it is.

There is a difference, though you would not care to admit it, between the two attempted coups.

There are plenty of differences, but a coup is still a coup. Now unless you want to justify it on the basis of the end justifies the means, there's not much you can say to defend it, especially in light of the democratic process not having collapsed there.

DadaKopf

Well that is a more reasonable approach to the issue. But you have still relayed some myths about the story. The station was not 'shut down' it is still running!!, it's licence was not renewed - as is the authority of the licence provider. Licences are not renewed all over the world for numerous reasons - the reason it is so contentious in this instance is that the station was a 'dissenter' or anti-Chavez (an understatement).

I would agree with you, Chavez should have put it to a vote.

Where did I say the matter should be put to a vote? I said anti-libel and media standards legislation to prevent the media abuse should be enacted and enforced, and that this should be the course of the current government.

You're right about my inaccuracy: the station wasn't shut down, its licence was revoked, and it is still broadcasting, which reveals the action by the government as largely symbolic. However, it is also counter-productive.

Since Chavez has been 'reforming' the judicial system (positive and negative developments here), it should be legitimate enough to make a ruling on the matter by imposing sanctions on the station. However, there ought be instances where media organs guilty of flagrant media abuse should be shut down.

FYI

DadaKopf wrote:

Where did I say the matter should be put to a vote?However, there ought be instances where media organs guilty of flagrant media abuse should be shut down.

You suggested a 'legislative' solution - but I doubt they could enact such laws without some sort of democratic process - hence a vote of some sort.

DadaKopf

Putting something 'to a vote' sounded more like a referendum to me, which is what I thought you meant, rather than creating legislation.

FYI

DadaKopf wrote:

Putting something 'to a vote' sounded more like a referendum to me, which is what I thought you meant, rather than creating legislation.

It is my understanding that the Venezuelan people have a much greater influence on their government. For instance a law has recently been, or will soon be, enacted which will allow them to remove officials mid-term through due process. It is much closer to proportional representation that what we understand as democracy - i.e. restricted to every 4-5 years. So in essense there is just much more 'voting'.

DadaKopf

FYI wrote:

It is my understanding that the Venezuelan people have a much greater influence on their government. For instance a law has recently been, or will soon be, enacted which will allow them to remove officials mid-term through due process. It is much closer to proportional representation that what we understand as democracy - i.e. restricted to every 4-5 years. So in essense there is just much more 'voting'.

Yes, indeed. I just thought you meant something else by it.

Hogmeister B

It seems to me quite fair that RCTV was shut down. Surely any TV station that supported and encouraged a coup attempt should be shut down; in most western countries there would be arrests and criminal charges brought. The revocation of license was lenient compared to what would have occurred in Ireland, Britain or France.

The fact that Chavez was involved in a coup prior to being elected leader is entirely irrelevant to the RCTV revocation. One would expect that any TV station that had acted like RCTV during the 1992 coup would also lose its license.

Arguments about free speech are not really relevant either: there is hardly a country in the world where free speech includes the right of TV stations to call for people to join a military coup against democracy.

FYI

Hogmeister B wrote:

The fact that Chavez was involved in a coup prior to being elected leader is entirely irrelevant to the RCTV revocation. One would expect that any TV station that had acted like RCTV during the 1992 coup would also lose its license.

Not to mention the fact he served time under judicial law for the attempt.

Hogmeister B

FYI wrote:

Not to mention the fact he served time under judicial law for the attempt.

What?

Wompa1

True Democracy would be to leave the station on and allow the people to have the freedom to choose whether or not they watch it, the only way it might be dangerous is if its actually forcing people or manipulating people into a coup...a reason Chavez might not of went after the channel for libel because it would have to be proved that it was false info being supplied

Sand

In another move designed to protect free speech El Presidente has vowed to expel any foreigner who criticises him or his government and its polices. But especially him.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6911246.stm

Clearly some of his supporters here have been planning ahead to ensure they can freely visit Chavez' socialist paradise.

This is great stuff though - Chavez is moving steadily towards dictatorship and still there are people going....Oh but El Presidente is doing it for the good of the people yayadada. People learn absolutely nothing from history. Chavez is playing the same trick that so many dictators before him have played. And the same people buy it, every time. People never learn that liberal democracy is the culmination of thousands of years of political failure bitterly and harshly learnt from and "populists" who seek to tear down and destroy liberal democracy to create some promised utopia do so on to remove restrictions on their own power.

The Corinthian

Sand wrote:

People never learn that liberal democracy is the culmination of thousands of years of political failure bitterly and harshly learnt from and "populists" who seek to tear down and destroy liberal democracy to create some promised utopia do so on to remove restrictions on their own power.

Well, he's not going to manage thousands of years, but neither is he going to set himself limits either:

http://www.presstv.ir/Detail.aspx?id=17249&sectionid=3510207

democrates

Changing president is insurance against being stuck with the wrong policies for too long, no doubt every president believes they are right, but it's a bit of a stretch to set it up so you can continue to retain final say.

Surely there are plenty of like-minded people in his party ready willing and able to take the reigns and continue on while he takes on a policy advisor role or what not? Does he really believe he's the only one who can do it?

At best he has little faith in his most loyal supporters.

Jackie laughlin

See the previous current issues of New Statesman.

Hogmeister B

Sand wrote:

This is great stuff though - Chavez is moving steadily towards dictatorship and still there are people going....Oh but El Presidente is doing it for the good of the people yayadada. People learn absolutely nothing from history. Chavez is playing the same trick that so many dictators before him have played. And the same people buy it, every time.

steadily toward dictatorship? ensuring you can contest more elections hardly counts in that regard, surely. As for closing down a Tv station, it has already been pointed out that the station in question was involved in an attempt to install dictatorship. Can you tell us what measures are being taken to set up a dictatorship exactly?

Extrajudicial detention, illegal phonetapping, fostering a constant state of fear and assisting coups in or invading foreign countries perhaps? although of course Venezuela's neighbours to the north get away with all these things without accusations of dictatorship.

The Corinthian

Hogmeister B wrote:

As for closing down a Tv station, it has already been pointed out that the station in question was involved in an attempt to install dictatorship.

To assume that such a coup would have resulted in a dictatorship is assumptive at best. Would Chavez's own coup have resulted in dictatorship, for example?

Can you tell us what measures are being taken to set up a dictatorship exactly?

Closing down all domestic (and foreign) desenting media voices, introducing rule by decree, removing all previously existing presidential term limits... let's face it you would at this stage have to be either be a moron or a fanatic to ignore the warning signs. Maybe both.

Extrajudicial detention, illegal phonetapping, fostering a constant state of fear and assisting coups in or invading foreign countries perhaps? although of course Venezuela's neighbours to the north get away with all these things without accusations of dictatorship.

What relevance does what is going on in the US have with Chavez?

sovtek

The Corinthian wrote:

Closing down all domestic (and foreign) desenting media voices,

When did this happen?

introducing rule by decree,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_by_decree

"
Some democratic leaders, such as the presidents of Mexico have the constitutional authority to issue emergency decrees, as well. The President of France may rule by decree in national emergencies, subject to constitutional and other legal limitations, but this power has been used only once.

Other modern political concepts, such as the French decrees, Orders in Council in the British Commonwealth and American executive orders are partially based on this notion of decrees, although far more limited in scope, and generally subject to judicial review.

Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez has been granted power by the National Assembly to rule by decree for 18 months in early 2007. He intends to nationalize Venezuela's telecommunications and power industries and end foreign ownership of oil refineries as part of his Bolivarian Revolution."

removing all previously existing presidential term limits.

What term limits does Bertie have? Blair/Brown?

let's face it you would at this stage have to be either be a moron or a fanatic to ignore the warning signs. Maybe both.

It takes a moron and fanatic to ignore it happening in his own backyard whilst decrying it abroad.

The Corinthian

sovtek wrote:

When did this happen?

No, this is happening. Look at the title of the thread, the question is not if Chavez is but that he is becoming a dictator. We can't know for certain if he is, but his actions are increasingly pointing in that direction.

Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez has been granted power by the National Assembly to rule by decree for 18 months in early 2007. He intends to nationalize Venezuela's telecommunications and power industries and end foreign ownership of oil refineries as part of his Bolivarian Revolution.

Which is not a national emergency last time I checked.

Indeed, Saparmyrat Niyazov extended his term as president of Turkmenistan in 1994 so he could oversee a 10-year development plan, so there's always an excuse to extend your grip on power if you really want to.

What term limits does Bertie have? Blair/Brown?

Term limits are specifically designed to stop leaders becoming de facto dictators. What history of coup d'état's or dictatorship have either Britain or Ireland in the last fifty years? None. And Venezuela? Three attempts, one successful.

Of course, perhaps Venezuela does not need any such check or balance against potential dictatorship. Alexander Lukashenko felt that Belarus didn't when he abolished his own term limits in 2004.

It takes a moron and fanatic to ignore it happening in his own backyard whilst decrying it abroad.

You don't need to ignore what isn't happening. If you think it is, please make a competent case for it.

sovtek

The Corinthian wrote:

No, this is happening. Look at the title of the thread, the question is not if Chavez is but that he is becoming a dictator. We can't know for certain if he is, but his actions are increasingly pointing in that direction.

You said that Chavez is "Closing down all domestic (and foreign) desenting media voices,"
I asked when this happened...

Term limits are specifically designed to stop leaders becoming de facto dictators. What history of coup d'état's or dictatorship have either Britain or Ireland in the last fifty years? None. And Venezuela? Three attempts, one successful.

So it's ok for Ireland and Britain to not have term limits but not Venezuela...because we all know there isn't a worry about that happening here...ever!.

You don't need to ignore what isn't happening. If you think it is, please make a competent case for it.

You are the one trying to make a case that Chavez is becoming a dictator not I. If he is, as you say, then there is as much or more worry about it happening in Europe or here based on your assertions about his actions. Actually I would expect Chavez to be more ruthless in a quest for power being that he is under a low level attack from the world's superpower.

The Corinthian

sovtek wrote:

You said that Chavez has "Closing down all domestic (and foreign) desenting media voices,"
I asked when this happened...

Indeed. You'll notice that I said "closing down", not "closed down". For the second or third time, let me repeat; I have not claimed that it has already occurred only that it is presently occurring.

So it's ok for Ireland and Britain to not have term limits but not Venezuela...because we all know there isn't a worry about that happening here...ever!.

It's not a question of it 'ever' happening, but it is pretty bloody unlikely, while in South America coups and dictatorships are not at all uncommon historically.

Perhaps we should ban all revolutionary socialist groups on the chance that they may stage a successful revolution... ever! Or maybe not on the basis that it's not bloody likely to happen.

You are the one trying to make a case that Chavez is becoming a dictator not I. If he is, as you say, then there is as much or more worry about it happening in Europe or here based on your assertions about his actions.

I've made that case, you're now trying to distract attention to it by claiming that what is occurring here is "as much or more worry about". So either you back up what you're bringing to the discussion or leave us to dismiss it as a paranoid fantasy.

Actually I would expect Chavez to be more ruthless in a quest for power being that he is under a low level attack from the world's superpower.

Why would you expect that? He presently does not need to act in a brutal fashion as he has sufficient popular support. To neuter opposition he hardly needs to send round the death squads when all he needs to do is chip away at the system until he has an unassailable advantage in any remaining vestige of the democratic process.

democrates

Is the Bush administration worse than the Chavez administration? Of course the Bush admin. is a nest of murderous vipers of a sick money-grabbing selfish elitist characther hitherto unseen in that region, but that's a separate issue to the general question of what is right and wrong. "There's worse out there" is no defense for wrong even when true.

What gets me about Chavez is that I like a lot of the ideas in his rhetoric, but his actions fail to live up to the ideals. Lot's of local democracy great, but when the balance of power between local, parliament, and president were altered the greatest power transfer was from the parliament to the president, not from the parliament to the people. On balance that's the opposite direction of the road to decent direct democracy.

Chavez has sought personal power through decree and other measures, the very opposite principle and practice to direct democracy. And we have this push to 'unite' parties with Hugo Chavez as leader, is full democracy too inconvenient? Is everything to be sacrificed on the alter of your executive expediency?

Careful there Hugo, be very careful, about handing the Bush administration the justification for your ousting. You are just one man, it's the work and all it's beneficiaries that you jeopardise in your grasping for the uninterrupted exercise of power.

RedPlanet

The people of Venezuela have spoken.

in the 1998 presidential elections, one of Chávez's electoral promises was to organise a referendum asking the people if they wanted to convene a National Constituent Assembly. His very first decree as president was thus to order such a referendum, which took place on 19 April. The electorate were asked two questions – whether a constituent assembly should be convened, and whether it should follow the mechanisms proposed by the president. The "yes" vote in response to these two question totalled 92% and 86%, respectively.

This new 1999 constitution was presented to the national electorate in 15 December 1999 and approved with a CNE-audited 71.78% "yes" vote. The new constitution then legally came into full effect the following 20 December.

I think people here would gladly dismiss the 1999 Venezuelan Constitution, despite it's clear and unambiguous support from the people of Venezuela.

This whole thread is just a partisan rant for people who don't like lefty politicians.

Isn't it odd, you've got AmeriKa financially and militarily proping up a dictator like Musharraf in Pakistan and folks here are complaining that Chavez said such and such during weekly radio address.

Sand

Isn't it odd, you've got AmeriKa financially and militarily proping up a dictator like Musharraf in Pakistan and folks here are complaining that Chavez said such and such during weekly radio address.

Im not going to get into a discussion about Musharraf [for the record hes a dictator and needs to be removed from power and replaced by a liberal democracy - see, now you try]. Ill make one point though - Iftikhar Chaudhry was suspended as chief justice of Pakistan by Musharraf sparking a widespread confrontation between Musharraf and the media, legal professions and middle classes.

Iftikhar Chaudhry has recently been reinstated to his position by the Pakistan Supreme Court.

Chaudhry would never be able to regain his position in Venezeula of Chavez. If Chavez wants a person gone - theyre gone. Theres no independant judiciary in Venezeula. He has packed every institution with his supporters and sycophants and has attacked and reduced any threat to his power - witness the attacks on the media recently, which has had the desired effect of intimidating the surivors.

But dont worry - I'm sure it'll all turn out fine Comrade. For us anyway.