Chavez has been much less democratic politically than his predecessors, the quote above is likely using 'democracy' in the sense of "social democracy" (redistribution of weath) rather than political freedom.
Remember ,social democracy has nothing to do with Communism.If the majority of a country's poppulation feel's that the Country's wealth should be devided more equally ,then it's a democratic move for a president to follow those wishes ,and it would be un-democratic to not to.
If the majority of a country believes the minority should be put to work as slave laborers it would be democratic too. Not good policy, but democratic.
I think you want to make a sarcastic note with this ,though it carries few weith since in about every country slave labor is prevented by law ,including in Venezuela ,and in this comparison the same would be possible in the U.S.A to.
My point was that if the only standard of democratic law you use is majority support, slaves could (and SHOULD) be legal if the majority supported it.That is why there are some laws which are outside the democratic realm... majority opinion doesn't matter, the law won't budge.
You make the comparison to slave labor ,but the original point that i was trying to make is that persuing more economical equality among the venezuelan poppulation wouldn't nessecarily mean that the rich population would be enslaved.Afcourse slavery is un-lawfull ,and It's not slavery that Chavez is persuing.Chavez is not really taking the rich class their freedom away ,he's only taking step's to get the social and economical difference's smaller in a country that has been under influence so long of an small Oliearchy.Theat can for ex. mean higher taxes for big capital.And although that indeed take's away some potential of a minority class ,it isn't nessecarily un-democratic.I feel that if most of a country's people support a leader that want's more social equality, then it's democraticly justified by that leader to take action's wich not nessecarily violate the law.
Youre comparison to slave labor is just way of the context.
Clearly ,"social democracy" isn't really a part of how America think's Democracy should be.Though there are lot's of European country's that really see "social democracy" as the true form of democracy ,just like the Canadian's for ex. .In America "democracy" tend's more to be regarded as the freedom to get extremely rich against any consideration's like social equality ,preservation of ecoligy ,etc.
this may be due to the American fear of "communism" ,and how they think socialism having many connection's to communism.
I wouldn't have condemned it either. Since its an internal issue, I'd prefer for the dust to settle before I decide...
Though, honestly, the man is anti-American, why would you expect us to shed any tears about his domestic political squabbles? His claim for authority of the majority is dubious, and his attempts to curtail the future democratic method of the country questions his credentials.
He may not be a perfect man ,there is really no better alternative than him ,surely not Carmona.And do you know much leader's in this world that have really a clean sheet? You could state that berlusconi ,the Italian PM is also a threat to the democratic principle's of Italy ,yet would America ,a country that is otherwise so proud to say that it was the first democracy on this world ,and who claim's to want to see democracy in all country's in the world (see cold war) ,not condemm a communist revolution for example in Italy???
America is argumenting that ,in iraq ,it want's to bring Democracy to a country ruled by a dictator ,but it wouldn condemm a Millitary regime ousting a democraticly elected president.
People believe what they want to believe.
Damned i agree ,this is the fourth time i'm saying that there isn't 100% certainty about CIA involved in the Venezuelan coup.But i see these acusation's coming from about every country in the world except from America.One would have to conclude that it's just the whole world that is against this o so really un-imperialistc America.
One could say,
Where there is smoke ,their is fire
They're all editorials, not articles.
Who cares ,their independant oppinion's.
And why should it amaze any of us that people with an anti-Bush agenda should agree across national borders that spreading rumors to his disfavor is in their interest
You tell me where the New -Zealand interests lay in this matter for one ,or the dutch one's?
And now i still have to make my remarks to Antonia ,please wait i can't type for hours ,but a reply will eventually folow.
