Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Anti Chavez protests get
Options
Comments
-
-
chavez live on radio venezuela now ...........
No vote = 50.7
YES vote = 49.29
Chavez is thanking those who voted and thanks those who voted against him too.
90% of votes counted, Chavez decides to concede rather than prolong the tension in the country or risk doubt about dragging out the process over a few days.
He's going on a bit now, telling stories (as he tends to do) but basically he has accepted the no vote and decided he didn't want to win by a percentage of a percent so will not be asking for a re-count.
He congratulates the opposition........
still waffling on about chickens and the old days, keeps joking that he's going to stop talking and go to bed (but doesn't
)
He asks his supporters not to protest the dirty tricks and negative propaganda put out about the issues by certain opposition groups and asks his supporters instead to concentrate on winning people with their own message.
man he talks alot...........
says hello to castro.........
accepts vote and thanks those who voted against him again......
This is turning into another one of his epic speeches, meh.
vows to continue towards socialism within the constraints of the 1999 constitution........
says the vote is not a loss, but a victory for the strength of democracy and that he preferes to conceed rathar than win by a very slight margin........
reflects on the fact that his 3 million less votes this time didn't go to the opposition but instead 3 million less people voted for him without switching to the opposition. He vows to win them back.
He hopes this will put opposition leaders at ease and has a go at those who said he would rig the vote or not accept the results.....
he calls for an end to altercations and polarisation within society and asks the opposition to compete democratically without the need for calls to voilance.
going on about 1826 and simon bolivar now.........
says he hears the voice of the people and vows to uphold the 1999 constitution and thanks the opposition once again,
wishes everyone a happy xmas and merry new year,
finally concludes and asks people to go home and get some sleep......
NO vote wins.0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Nice spin on my comments. With the attention Chavez attracts from opposition and people like yourself who like to demonise and portray him as the problem I think a change of leader will do a lot to shift the focus onto politics and away from "Chavez is teh evil overlord who will eat your babies" type critics, *cough*.Oh my - A breakthrough! A recognition that term limits are a good thing for the health of any democracy - a recognition that no one, no matter how personally popular can be allowed to maintain a grip on power if democracy is to be maintained.
In theory, I see no problem with a leader who wishes to stand in free and fair elections each term. Venezuela having higher than average voting standards and practicing their right to vote more often than any other country in the world, including re-call elections on any elected representative at any time once 15% of the population want it. (Imagine, we could get rid of our own Bertie, or any representative we no longer trust, if we had such a system here)
You’re going to laugh (laugh more) at my next bit, brace yourself......
The reason why I think Chavez leaving office is not a bad thing is actually because Chavez is a victim of his own openness and lack of an authority streak. <Insert your rofl here>
Because of the free reign he gives opposition media, a free reign which would not be allowed in the "free world", the media are allowed print and televise lies, mislead the public, incite violence and call for coups (and participate in them
), and they are allowed do this because Chavez has to be seen as whiter than white, because any arrest or censor or action of any kind against the people who incite violence and out right lie will be seen as "teh evil overlord stamping out democracy".
Both you and I know the real reason why Venezuela is under the spotlight is because of the shift to socialism and away from neoliberalism. Despite greater participation, greater dialogue and more votes more often the excuse of "eroding democracy" is used as pretence for what is really eroding extreme capitalism.
Chavez has become the vocal point of the media onslaught and international capitals assault on Venezuela, citing democracy as their real concern (tell a lie a thousand times and all that...). With Chavez out of the way they will have to make up some other excuse for their onslaught. It is a pity that Chavez had to accept the results at only 87% of votes counted for fear of civil strife should the opposition not win and it's a shame that the 66 amendments were simplified by the media into a vote Chavez for life, under which regime your children and your car will become property of the state. It's a pity Chavez has allowed such crimes against the state to go unpunished but I suppose that’s the price he must pay to avoid violent action from an undemocratic opposition.
I will agree with you on a point though, and that is decrees. A fairly standard mechanism in a lot of your type of democracies around the world but not something I approve of and not something I think Chavez should have (even if he did ask the people to give him the power of decree). Sure a decree is efficient but not something I think anyone should have the power to do, even if in the right hands or for a limited time. I'll even agree with you on another point, and that is that Chavez does need to tone done his outbursts a bit. Threatening to cancel trade relations with Spain and Colombia over what he seen as snubs was a bit cringe worthy. Despite that I do however think he has a good grasp on geopolitics and he has been clever enough to court the Russians, the Chinese and fellow OPEC nations, opening up trade and social projects with them. In Latin America itself he has built ties with most countries in the region, buying debt, trading and exchanging social services with many nations. I support him in his efforts to banish the IMF from the region and replace it with the social orientated "bank of the south".
One more thing, the “student opposition" you speak of represents 20% of the political student activists in Venezuela. If 20% of the politically active students support the opposition I wonder who 80% of the students support and turn out in huge numbers to support? Perhaps these 80% of students don't get the same column inches in the financial times as the "student opposition" defending democracy (by attacking other students). You also forgot to mention that the reason Chavez supporters control parliament is because the opposition refused to run, precisely for the reason that it can point to the fact that they are not represented, something which people like you are happy to spout out all the time.
Just one question sand, (you can lol at the rest of my post)
Would you defend a nations right to democratically move in the direction of socialism? Even though you oppose the social model, would you support a peoples right to self determination if they followed a democratic path? Would you condemn any nation or group who attempted to subvert that nations free and democratic process through sabotage, threats of violence and propaganda? (Just a hypothetical question, obviously not talking about Venezuela with teh evil overlord in charge)0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
Good to see you make genuine post sand.
I'm not sure if you understand the 15% re-call mechanism or if you are misleading again. The tone of your somewhat more sober post this time would suggest you misunderstood what I was saying rather than spinning it so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
I don't understand how it could be compared to unaccountable pressure groups dictating policy in the same way that the anti Castro groups or the corporate boardrooms do in certain other countries. 15% is the magic number which then puts into motion the debate and follow up universal vote on the subject. 15% of the population cannot re-call an elected official, they cannot amend the constitution and they cannot dictate policy. If however 15% of the population wish there to be changes to the constitution or re-call a representative mid term then an election may be called where by the whole population vote on the question. The re-call mechanism has already been used a few times, most famously on Chavez himself. In this case the opposition gathered enough signatures (a lot suspected to be forgeries) and then a referendum was voted on to remove Chavez from power mid term. It was defeated by the popular nation wide vote. So as you see, 15% is the number required to initiate a national vote, not 15% dictating to anyone else.
Chavez himself is not allowed propose another set of constitutional reforms in the same term so only those reforms allowed under the constitution will be pursued by Chavez. The only people who can now propose changes to the constitution are the people of Venezuela themselves, again by submitting proposals and amendments, gathering 15% support and then going to the country for a national vote.
While we're in this sober mood a couple of linkehs taking a goo at the situation. FIRST ONE looks at the results of the recent vote and discusses the good the bad and the ugly about what happened and talks about the different views of democracy both camps have.
SECOND LINKEH is a report from one of the international observers on the democratic voting process itself in Venezuela. I didn't explore either site too much so I'm open to the oul biased sources retort (one of the sites has red in the title so they must be commie bar stewards) but again I thought the two texts were sober and accurate.
I recognise and agree that centralised power is a dangerous thing however I think you refuse to give Venezuela the credit it deserves for combating this with communal councils (democratic neighbourhood groupings with varying degrees of autonomy on how state funds are allocated locally). Everything is discussed, studied, debated and voted on at local level, sending instructions to the state on how best to distribute state aid.
Again your post seems to indicate that all liberal democracies have term limits and Chavez is doing something out of the ordinary seeking to stand for election a third time. This is obviously not the case *points at Tony Blair, Bertie Ahern and John Howard*.
Why would a person go out of their way to stand again in elections though if a limit was already in place? Well there's no need really in a state which remains constant, means of production and wealth distribution all guided by the invisible hand of neo-liberalism. A figure head need only sit in power and hand over the baton to the next guy, secure in the knowledge that leadership is something only required in a national emergency, but not necessarily in the day to day running of the state.
A state in transformation however is a different story, a state which recognises poverty, housing, health care and education as a national emergency and which formulates policy based on these issues needs constant leadership as well as constant debate discussion and democratic participation. Venezuela is reorganising the state itself, a reorganization which Chavez and others begun and convinced others to join, eventually convincing the majority of the people to support. Issues like housing, poverty, health and so on are not like the same issues here in Ireland. When you're poor you're on the street (not meaning unable to afford a flat screen TV), when your housing quality is substandard it means you live in a tin shack on the side of a hill ( it doesn't mean you can't get broadband in your half a million apartment in Smithfield), when health services are not present it means just that (it doesn't mean you had to wait 8 hours in A&E), it means there is no access to health care period.
In this context such issues are national emergencies and these are the areas Chavez’s government have improved at an astonishing rate, literally teaching the whole population to read and write, using the constitution as a reader for those learning. (Better than reading Ann and Barry went to the shop to buy some jam for mammy).
I happen to think that Chavez standing down and someone else taking over is not a bad thing but I appreciate why he feels he wants to stand again. He kick started a movement which is now well established and wants to see it through but I feel the movement is strong and established enough to allow new leadership, new ideas and new direction.
So much of what the Government has helped achieve, participatory democracy, better living standards, educating through teaching to read and giving access to further education, promoting critical thinking and encouraging debate through 1000’s of forums at local level is in stark contrast to someone intent on centralising power and excluding the people from decision making.
What is your concern when you talk about 51% of the people voting to gas 49%. Have you seen cases where the minority are denied the same rights and protection as the majority? You seem to have no worries about 10% of the population controlling the wealth and keeping the vast majority living in tin shacks with no access to health care, work or basic public services. Sure in your democracy people have supreme freedom, freedom to not have a house, freedom to not have a job, freedom to have little employment rights, freedom to have no access to education, freedom to have no access to public services. Then there is the ultimite freedom of the exploiter to exploit. Are these the freedoms you feel are being denied?
I mean what exactly has the government done except for collect a tax from the oil companies similar to what they pay in other countries but previously didn’t have to pay in Venezuela. The middle classes in Venezuela appear to be doing quiet well despite the media / Washington scare campaign to win back the free reign the multinationals once had. Like our friend Akrasia says, the C.I.A. aren’t a looney lefty fantasy or Lizard people, they’re a real organization who specialize in destabilizing democracies to achieve suitable conditions for corporations to operate in while achieving maximum profit and minimising the contribution to the host state. Only those far off on the loony right would deny there is a campaign spear headed by them to discredit the Venezuelan government in the domestic and international media. Their history and current exposed tactics are well documented.
Regarding your suggestion that I and others form our own commune, I had an experience once before which I don't much want to repeat. A few years ago I moved into a house in Waterford where 5 women were already living. As you do when sharing a house basic rules were made and tasks assigned such as cooking, cleaning and so on. Eventually the tyranny of the majority conspired to gas the minority (me)
. The wimmins took control of the TV (wouldn't even let me watch Buffy the vampire slayer on a Friday night :eek: ). I gradually became sub servant, doing more than my share, doing all the work about the house, they even had me painting their toe nails and giving them back massages. I eventually started a counter revolution and cast off my domestic chains. Cans of cider and shepards pies filled the fridge and freezer and the bottles of wine and weight watchers portians were exciled to the few places the wimmins could find which lacked my man products taking up shelf space. Fearful of turning into a metro sexual I took control of the TV., left a mess everywhere and refused to get the spiders out of the bathroom when they screamed. Not a light bulb was changed in the house for months due to my work to rule and I refused to mediate and pacify their emotional and illogical arguments with each other. By the time I left there was only two girlies left. They all turned on each other in the end and I got to upgrade bedrooms on each departure. I eventually moved back to Dublin determined never to live with a group of strangers again.
Moral of the story is that socialism doesn't work err... I mean, the Wimmins are mad. Perhaps yourself and spaced out could join forces and start a neo-liberal house, exploiting each other and raiding each others piggy banks.
I didn't notice in the thread you asking me to condemn dictatorships but you suggest I refused to answer? For the record I do condemn dictatorships, Castro included. I also condemn weak representative democracies which happen to be unaccountable and riddled with private vested interests dictating and influencing policy. A condemnation of Castro’s regime does not however mean I support a return to rampant exploitation, rather a free and fair democratic process, replacing the one party state.
Your criticism of Venezuela is ill informed and biased. I realise you were only having a bit of fun, winding up the usual suspects with your remarks earlier in the thread but still I feel your ideology and reliance on obviously biased media (I don't know what's more pitiful, creationists or main stream media "reporting") is somewhat blinding you. Criticism is both welcome and warranted, but the utopian standards of which you hold the government to account are not in context with lesser standards and greatly less democratic mechanisms in the majority of other countries of which not a word is muttered. Of course that's not a good bench mark on which to criticise but it does give a flavour as to why Venezuela is under such a spotlight and why there is such a campaign against it when its standards are recognised as better than the region and indeed most of the democratic world in a lot of areas.
Let’s look at it in the context of those criticising Venezuela. Apart from lefty bloggers and tree huggers, it seems to be mainstream international media and political elites condemning the Venezuelan process. This would suggest that the Venezuelan process is considerably less accountable than the regimes which condemn Venezuela. Is this really the case or do those who condemn Venezuela have something else in common, an economic model based on neo-liberalism and a less accountable form of government perhaps?
Edit: Forgot your remarks on revoking media liciences. I thought this had been done to death but you still wish to ignore all that has been discussed and talk again of teh evil one closing down media stations. What happened was, a participant in a coup which over threw the state and formed a brief dictatorship got it's public licience revoked, which meant it now transmits via private broadcasting as opposed to the state licience. There is such a thing as broadcasting standards, we're not talking bad language before the 9pm watershed, we're talking about an organisation which was the main tool in a briefly successful coup. Unlike Chavez, who was kidnapped and flown to an island where he was to be killed, those involved in the coup were allowed to continue as before without restriction for the period of their licience upon which time their licience was not renewed. (but we've been down this particular "teh evil one killed the tv" debate before haven't we).
I agree with you about the latino pop star bloke, although if he was a ricky martin wannabe maybe he done the people a favour. It smacks of disney not allowing unchristian bands playing gigs at their venues, a poor decision but one they are entitled to make as disney is a private company. The states facilities on the other hand are for the use of the whole population, not only those who agree with the government and the state should not have interfered. It is a double standard to go to countries and critise their leaders but then force someone else doing the same thing in Venezuela to use a private venue rathar than a state venue. You see what you done there sand, you made a valid criticism. Touché0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement