Hugo Chavez going on a Nationalization Tear

[Pasi Nurminen]

took power

Ie. won free and fair elections.

 

[innonimatu]

Oh, I like Vargas Llosa's writing. Just read The Feast of the Goat last week - but I haven't gotten around to that one yet. He's a bit too bitter about South America, but I can understand that coming from someone who lost to Fujimori and had to see him wreck Peru...

I think he's (and you!) wrong in his assessment of the current changes. The most pressing problem of South America is the immobility of its entrenched power structures.
Take Brazil for example: it wasn't Lula who created the terrible divide in Brazilian society between the rich and the poor, mind you. Solving that problem requires changing the power structure first (something that Lula is failing to do, by the way).

 

[luiz]

Ie. won free and fair elections.

Yes, won free and fair elections and then teared down the Constitutions they vowed to defend. They took power away from Congress and the Judiciary, destroying the one most important principle of a Republic. In Venezuela the Congress has no more power than the Queen has in England, it has merely a figurative role.

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

Yes, won free and fair elections and then teared down the Constitutions they vowed to defend.

Ie. put forth a public referendum on the issue of whether or not to create a new constitution. Nobody's ever done that before, everybody knows that when 72% of the population votes for a new constitution, it's absolutely evil and despicable to do so, because clearly 72% of the population voting for it means that they don't want it.

 

[luiz]

Oh, I like Vargas Llosa's writing. Just read The Feast of the Goat last week - but I haven't gotten around to that one yet. He's a bit too bitter about South America, but I can understand that coming from someone who lost to Fujimori and had to see him wreck Peru...

I think he's (and you!) wrong in his assessment of the current changes. The most pressing problem of South America is the immobility of its entrenched power structures.
Take Brazil for example: it wasn't Lula who created the terrible divide in Brazilian society between the rich and the poor, mind you. Solving that problem requires changing the power structure first (something that Lula is failing to do, by the way).

The thing is, caudillos like Chávez have no interest at all in ending poverty and ignorance. Educated people hate him, so what's the sense of educating the masses?

Chávez is not an idealist socialist. He does not want to give power to the masses, he wants to obtain power through the masses. His programs are merely paliative, real socialists hate Chávez with a vengeance.

As for the huge divide between rich and poor in LA, it can be in large part explained exactly by the caudillismo that keeps the poor in a perpetual cicle of dependency on government charity. As for Lula, his government is a failure in every sense of the word. The only parts of it that work are the parts that were copied from the previous administration (and thankfully those are the most important ones). All of his orginal ideals were such failures that he doesn't even mention them anymore (Fome Zero anyone?).

Bottom line is, the caudillos want the people to be fed enough to fight for them, but not educated enough to fight them. It's a fact that the more educated the people, the less they vote for Chávez, Morales, Correa, etc. It's not in their interest to educate anyone.

 

[luiz]

Ie. put forth a public referendum on the issue of whether or not to create a new constitution. Nobody's ever done that before, everybody knows that when 72% of the population votes for a new constitution, it's absolutely evil and despicable to do so, because clearly 72% of the population voting for it means that they don't want it.

Ruling with referendums is a typical sign of a tyrant.

If you have a referendum stating: "do you want the president to have absolute power?" and the result is YES, it still makes the president a dictator. That's pretty much the case of Chávez, the "Habilitating Laws" of the new venezuelan constitution allow him to rule without the Congress. This what dictators do.

That's what Hitler did, to use a known case. Got power within the democratic framwork and than, with support of the people, concentrated all power in his hands (I know that some imbecile geek with the IQ of a mouse will say "Godwyn" or something along those lines, but I tend to ignore internet geeks with the IQ of a mouse. The exemple is perfect).

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

Ruling with referendums is a typical sign of a tyrant.

If you have a referendum stating: "do you want the president to have absolute power?" and the result is YES, it still makes the president a dictator. That's pretty much the case of Chávez, the "Habilitating Laws" of the new venezuelan constitution allow him to rule without the Congress. This what dictators do.

Sure it would, but Chavez did not do that. Countries amend or replace their constitutions all the time. Canada did it in 1982.

The Assembly can still vote down Chavez's "decrees" if they wish to. They may at any point revoke his powers, or they make work for each individual decree. It is essentially the same thing as the "fast track" legislative permission that the United States president has, as well as the Argentinian president, but for some reason I don't see you pissing and moaning about Argentina and America being dictatorships.

 

[luiz]

Sure it would, but Chavez did not do that. Countries amend or replace their constitutions all the time. Canada did it in 1982.

The Assembly can still vote down Chavez's "decrees" if they wish to. They may at any point revoke his powers, or they make work for each individual decree. It is essentially the same thing as the "fast track" legislative permission that the United States president has, as well as the Argentinian president, but for some reason I don't see you pissing and moaning about Argentina and America being dictatorships.

It's far more complicated than that. First because the procedings in Venezuela to vote down one decree are very complicated and time consuming. By the time they did that, there would already be an "accomplished fact" and action would be useless.

Secondly because Chávez shuts down dissent in a way that Bush or Kirchner do not. He has just cancelled the permit of a TV station that criticised him. He is ruling entirely by decree; point to a single congressional veto ever since he cracked down on the opposition after the attempted coup.
His party gets public funding but the others do not, what in practice means the his party always elects more people.

A democrat does not attempt a coup against a democratic regime, does not shut down TV stations and does not publically state their objective of staying in power untill 2030.

BTW, one of his very first referendums was exactly on removing the presidential term limit of the constitution. How adorable.

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

It's far more complicated than that. First because the procedings in Venezuela to vote down one decree are very complicated and time consuming. By the time they did that, there would already be an "accomplished fact" and action would be useless.

That doesn't make sense. It would take an equal amount of time for a decree to become law and be enforced. That is just the nature of bureaucracy everywhere.

Secondly because Chávez shuts down dissent in a way that Bush or Kirchner do not. He has just cancelled the permit of a TV station that criticised him. He is ruling entirely by decree; point to a single congressional veto ever since he cracked down on the opposition after the attempted coup.
His party gets public funding but the others do not, what in practice means the his party always elects more people.

Do you think that if, in America, a radio station (not TV) broadcast programming encouraging people to take violent action against a democratically elected government, they would be allowed to stay on the air? When they are taken down, would you decry it as fascism?

That's what happened. The radio station in question was broadcasting content endorsing a violent destruction of the government in Venezuela, not merely criticizing Chavez or his administration. And he didn't "cancel the permit," they just simply stated that they would not renew it when it expired. No one went to jail.

That is not fascism.

Facts > you.

And I don't like term limits anyways. In Canada there are no term limits on the Prime Minister, is that fascism?

 

[luiz]

That doesn't make sense. It would take an equal amount of time for a decree to become law and be enforced. That is just the nature of bureaucracy everywhere.

Yes it does. In Brazil for exemple (which is no shining exemple of democracy but will do) if the president wants to, say, spend 1 billion dollars buying russian jet fighters, Congress will have to authorize hum first (in fact they would have to have already authorised it in the begining of the fiscal year when they do the Defense Budget). In Venezuela, Chávez can decide overnight to spend that billion dollars to buy those jets. By the time all the procedures were ready to vote his decree, the jets would already be in Venezuelan soil for a long time.

Do you think that if, in America, a radio station (not TV) broadcast programming encouraging people to take violent action against a democratically elected government, they would be allowed to stay on the air? When they are taken down, would you decry it as fascism?

Can't they do it in the US? I thought they could. If they can't it's regretable, but anyways, the case is not at all the same, because:

That's what happened. The radio station in question was broadcasting content endorsing a violent destruction of the government in Venezuela, not merely criticizing Chavez or his administration. And he didn't "cancel the permit," they just simply stated that they would not renew it when it expired. No one went to jail.

That is not fascism.

Facts > you.

And I don't like term limits anyways. In Canada there are no term limits on the Prime Minister, is that fascism?

The TV in question never advocated violence. Show me where they did. They advocated overthrowing Chávez within the democratic framwork, precisely for all the illegal acts he has commited.

Finally, the nature of parlamentarism is different from that of presidencialism. Your PM is much weaker than a president. That's why all civilised presidentialist nations have term limits.

 

[ParkCungHee]

The thing is, caudillos like Chávez have no interest at all in ending poverty and ignorance...caudillismo...the caudillos

Isn't using that term for the likes of Chavez insulting to El Caudillo?

 

[nivi]

Ie. put forth a public referendum on the issue of whether or not to create a new constitution. Nobody's ever done that before, everybody knows that when 72% of the population votes for a new constitution, it's absolutely evil and despicable to do so, because clearly 72% of the population voting for it means that they don't want it.

So, if america or britian did a similiar referendum, you'd be perfectly okay with that?

 

[CCA]

So, if america or britian did a similiar referendum, you'd be perfectly okay with that?

If it's the people's will yes.

Provided that the turn out is actually decent levels

 

[ParkCungHee]

If it's the people's will yes.

Provided that the turn out is actually decent levels

So your totally down with say, the 1938 German Referendum?

 

[CCA]

So your totally down with say, the 1938 German Referendum?

People get the leaders they deserve....

 

[ParkCungHee]

People get the leaders they deserve....

Good thing to know that you think that Anne Frank got what she deserved.

 

[CCA]

Good thing to know that you think that Anne Frank got what she deserved.

Are you being obtuse on purpose?

 

[ParkCungHee]

Are you being obtuse on purpose?

It might incourage you to think harder before you say something like that.

 

[Insane_Panda]

You'd think people would learn, after such great examples as the USSR, that this doesn't really work.

The Chinese sure did!

 

[Che Guava]

Finally, the nature of parlamentarism is different from that of presidencialism. Your PM is much weaker than a president. That's why all civilised presidentialist nations have term limits.

A little off-topic, but I had to take issue with this statement. While in Canada (or any parliamentary system), the office of prime minister is not as strong the corresponding role in a presidential system, I would argue that a PM is indeed more powerful, as he controls both the executive and (as long as he keeps people in line) the legislative. A PM can act a lot more unilaterally than a president.

But that's just an aside in the argument.

ANother little note Luiz: Your friend Álvaro Vargas-Llosa wrote a piece in this month issue of Foreign Policy titled "Return of the Idiots". If you haven't seen it already, I think you'll enjoy it