NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7059309.stm
Students clash with Chavez police

Thousands of students have clashed with police and government supporters in the Venezuelan capital, Caracas, in protest at constitutional changes.

Police fired tear gas at students angry at plans to let President Hugo Chavez stand for indefinite re-election as bottles and stones were thrown.

Mr Chavez would also be allowed to bypass legal controls on the executive during a state of emergency.

Parliament, composed of Chavez allies, is now debating the changes.

They will be subjected to a popular referendum later this year.

'Unfair restrictions'

Students had chanted "Reform, no - democracy, yes" as they tried to reach parliament.

Scuffles began when they tried to push through police lines.

Student leader Stalin Gonzalez said at least five demonstrators had suffered minor injuries, the Associated Press reports.

"There is... a part of this country that rejects these reforms and we want to be heard," Mr Gonzalez told a local television station.

Protesters complained that police had stopped their march from reaching the National Assembly while the authorities frequently allow Chavez supporters to stage street demonstrations without restrictions.

"It's clear proof of political discrimination," said Mr Gonzalez.

Among the students' concerns about the erosion of civil liberties is the fear that the authorities will be allowed to detain citizens without charge during a state of emergency.

Mr Chavez has dismissed criticism of the constitutional changes saying they are needed to accelerate Venezuela's transition to socialism.

I'm wondering why it has to be Chavez who gets reelected, rather than someone from his party. Even that model of a democrat, Vladimir Putin, seems to respect the constitution too much to just rewrite it and get rid of term limits.

EDIT: And it should of course be "curricula".

Honestly though, who couldn't see this coming?

Sigh. Disappointed as a I am in Chavez, I certainly saw this coming.

Sounds like something Shrubya will try.

in before the Chávez apologists

Honestly though, who couldn't see this coming?



ahem.....

######### Ocean Drive ############

Venezuela has the distinction of not only having the highest inflation rate in Latin America, but also the biggest drop in currency value. Not only that, but their oil sector is actually contracting above and beyond normal depletion rates despite the huge run-up in oil prices over the past few years.

You're doing a heckuva job, Hugo...now just time to get that pesky democracy out of the way and you'll be a full fledged dictator of a banana republic.

Sounds like something Shrubya will try.

Didn't take long for Bush to get mentioned on here. However he would never get that even if he pushed for it.

Didn't take long for Bush to get mentioned on here. However he never get that even if he pushed for it.

Oh back in 03 he was talking about "delaying" elections in event of a terrorist attack. To preserve democracy of course.

Oh back in 03 he was talking about "delaying" elections in event of a terrorist attack. To preserve democracy of course.

and yet....that didn't happen.

Also, who didn't see this coming a mile away?

I'm disappointed with my comrades on the left who continue to support Chavez inspite of his asshattery. Saw this one coming a mile a way.

and yet....that didn't happen.

Also, who didn't see this coming a mile away?

You'd of screamed yourself purple if Slick Willy even suggested such a thing.

Oh back in 03 he was talking about "delaying" elections in event of a terrorist attack. To preserve democracy of course.

Not quite. Some bonehead from the elections assistance commission wrote a letter asking for clarification about procedures to delay elections in the event of a terrorist attack (as had happened in NY after 9/11). It was a nothing event.

No one ever even considered changing the constitution to allow bush a third term.

Not that has anything to do with Chavez and his impending Idi Amin like behaviour in any way.

Detaining people without charge during a state of national emergency? Hey, give the guy a chance, Hugo's clearly catching on to western democratic standards of freedom!

ahem.....

######### Ocean Drive ############You sure, you really want me to enter this party?
Because it sure looks like an official invitation :cool:

BTW interesting way to summon me :D :D

Because it sure looks like an official invitation :D
Hey, you're most definitely invited, though I would have thought Kilobugya and perhaps AP (who was deleted recently, my condolences go out to him) were more likely candidates.

You might just flood the thread with "well, the Americans do it too"-type stuff, which is irrelevant and boring.

Hey, you're most definitely invited..Nice sportsmanship mate :)http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7059309.stm


I'm wondering why it has to be Chavez who gets reelected..Why? Because the one who gets the most votes.. gets to sit in that chair.
Thats how Democracy works.

Thats how it works in Germany and thats how it works in Venezuela.

and get rid of term limits.2 words

Democracy Germany

You might just flood the thread with "well, the Americans do it too"-type stuff...dont worry I will.. I just need to cook this for a few more pages :D
I will bring the German Example first.. To honor the thread creator of course ;)

Why? Because the one who gets the most votes.. gets to sit in that chair.
Except if you've reached your term limit, in which case someone else will be standing for election. Like someone of Chávez' party. His policies should be popular enough to secure that person a victory.

Thats how it works in Germany and thats how it works in Venezuela.
See, my point is not about the merits of term limits. My point is about what Chávez motive is for getting rid of them, when the writers of this constitution (unlike those of Germany) clearly felt that their inclusion was worthwhile and necessary? Moreso because the writers were afterall writing a document committed to Bolivarianism, which didn't seem to the include the potential for Presidents-for-life.

So is Chávez now violating the principles of Bolivarianism? Or are there no such principles, and it's just whatever he happens to say on the day?

And is his motive really Bolivarianism, or is it the rather more base, yet all too common wish to stay in power and enjoy its perks?

Why? Because the one who gets the most votes.. gets to sit in that chair.
Thats how Democracy works.

Thats how it works in Germany and thats how it works in Venezuela.Except if you've reached your term limit...That is how democracy Works in Germany?

I dont think so.

And is his motive really Bolivarianism, or is it the rather more base, yet all too common wish to stay in power and enjoy its perks?Good question.. they have NO term Limits in Germany.. Is it because the Germans are power hungry?
And is Germany still a Democracy without the term limits?

So is Chávez now violating the principles of Bolivarianism? Or are there no such principles, and it's just whatever he happens to say on the day?

And is his motive really Bolivarianism, or is it the rather more base, yet all too common wish to stay in power and enjoy its perks?
Of course Chávez wishes to stay in power - that much should be clear to anyone, even his supporters. But then again, all politicians wish to stay in power. Chávez is not particularly special.

The question is, is that necessarily a bad thing, as long as he continues to hold free and fair elections? If a German or British political leader kept running for election over and over again and winning fairly, would anyone question the democratic nature of Germany or Britain?

I can certainly see ways in which Chávez is becoming more authoritarian, but removing term limits is not one of them.

Good question.. they have NO term Limits in Germany.. Is it because the Germans are power hungry?
And is Germany still a Democracy without the term limits?
No, I would say it is because the Chancellor is elected by parliament and by necessity directly answering to it. Furthermore, the President, the Upper House and the Constitutional Court all have the power to stop the Chancellor's policies, and have done so.

Venezuela however has only one chamber of parliament, the head of government and head of state are one and the same person and Chávez has been granted the power to rule by decree, without having to consult the parliament at all.

And the Supreme Court is appointed by parliament, and every judge on it can be replaced by its vote (which Chávez controls at the moment, allowing him to remove judges who displease him).

So Venezuela's democracy is on shaky grounds as it is. Unlike Germany, the protections and balance of power is just not there.

And if you really wanted, you could throw in a comment about Germany's specific history and its special sensitivity to dangers to the democratic system, but that might neither be 100% true, nor relevant, so I'll leave it be.

But then again, all politicians wish to stay in power. Chávez is not particularly special.
Of course. Other politicians leave the constitution well alone though, and stick to the general framework for politics in the country. And if they reach their term limit, the democrats tend to step down and leave it be, alá Reagan and Clinton. Hell, even Bush Junior.

The question is, is that necessarily a bad thing, as long as he continues to hold free and fair elections?
As far as only the question of term limits in general is concerned, that depends on his character and policies. Chávez isn't exactly shining in either.

If a German or British political leader kept running for election over and over again and winning fairly, would anyone question the democratic nature of Germany or Britain?
No.

But if the Chancellor or PM decided to use his popularity to change the constitution to benefit him, people would.

It's that fact which I'm concerned with, not the question of whether term limits are absolutely necessary for a democracy to work.

There is a basic dichotomy here: one is a constitutional state, in which the constitution is accepted as the overall ground rules for political interaction and discourse and is held above all else. The other is a police state, in which the only rule for political discourse is that the current boss decides what goes and what doesn't.

Methinks Chávez is travelling in the latter direction, and whether or not he enjoys popular support at the moment is of no concern.

I keenly await AP's hilariously biased reply.

Lack of term limits is not inherently undemocratic. There are no term limits here in France either. Chirac would have been entitled to stand for a third term in office; the reason he didn't was because opinion polls predicted he'd fare catastrophically.

Removing term limits in Venezuela simply means the situation there is now the same as in France, the UK, Germany and elsewhere. Unless I'm mistaken, there are no term limits in Australia either, are they? Would John Howard's re-election be undemocratic? I think not. Depressing, but not undemocratic.

Everyone is harping on about the removal of term limits in Venezuela as if that somehow turned Chavez into a dictator. What they neglect to mention is that he will still have to be re-elected via the democratic process if he wants oto stay in office. And if he's re-elected, then obviously he's popular with a majority of voters. The day he ceases to be popular, he won't be re-elected. That's how democracy works.

Chavez is far from perfect, but Chavez-bashers need to take a long, hard look at their own double standards and hypocrisy.

Of course. Other politicians leave the constitution well alone though, and stick to the general framework for politics in the country. And if they reach their term limit, the democrats tend to step down and leave it be, alá Reagan and Clinton. Hell, even Bush Junior.

But if the Chancellor or PM decided to use his popularity to change the constitution to benefit him, people would.

There is a basic dichotomy here: one is a constitutional state, in which the constitution is accepted as the overall ground rules for political interaction and discourse and is held above all else. The other is a police state, in which the only rule for political discourse is that the current boss decides what goes and what doesn't.


Constitution need to still be open to change though, everything needs to be updated at times. There's nothing inherently undemocratic about a constitution being altered, it depend on how democratic the process by which it is changed is.

Detaining people without charge during a state of national emergency? Hey, give the guy a chance, Hugo's clearly catching on to western democratic standards of freedom!

Oh, no worries. I'm absolutely certain that Hugo Chavez has spent an awful lot of time following closely GWB's mistakes and successes, and has used what he's learned to his own benefit. In a lot of ways, he's been following in GWB's footsteps, it's just recently that he's begun to blaze his own trail of awfulness.

2 words

Democracy Germany

Non-comparable.

In Germany we're talking about a Parliamentary system with a phenomenally weak President, and a Kanzler who is tied to the Bundestag, with a competitive and vibrant party system. So, while there are no term limits, the dangers posed by a lack of term limits in Venezuela are fundamentally more dangerous than they are in the BRD.

In Venezuela the President has become phenomenally powerful through previous "reforms" that Chavez has instituted. He's been empowered with rule by decree, his opponent parties are weak because they keep boycotting elections, and he's no bound to the legislature.

The BRD-Venezuela comparison is god-awful.

I mean, dude, you're comparing apples to the Planet Jupiter.

Non-comparable.

In Germany we're talking about a Parliamentary system with a phenomenally weak President

All right, then, how about comparing with France? We have a strong president, and Sarkozy wants to strengthen his powers further. He has a huge majority in Parliament, and now parliamentary elections are held the same year as presidential ones, almost guaranteeing that the president will have a parliament and cabinet on his side. He can run for re-election as many times as he wishes.

Also, you can't fault Chavez for his opponents boycotting elections, just because they know they'll lose. That was their own stupid decision. Chavez obtained such powers because a) the voters gave them to him, democratically, and b) the Opposition surrendered without a fight.

No one ever even considered changing the constitution to allow bush a third term.
They didn't??

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the 22nd amendment to the Constitution. (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=hj109-24)

How it's being done must count for something. It's not a matter of one nation having a term limit and another not. It's a leader in a nation with a term limit wanting to remove that limit for his direct benefit.

On a smaller scale, look at Rudy Giuliani in NYC. In the middle of his second (and thus final) term as mayor, he floated the idea of having the term limit for mayor removed. He was lambasted by the public and in the press, and this was a man with a titanic approval rating, who was making this suggestion after the 9/11 attacks. If any mayor was going to get away with it, it was him. Needless to say, he dropped the idea almost immediately, backed away from it, and claimed it was just a random thought.

People get antsy when someone in power moves to remove the checks on their power. That's what's happening with Chavez. When you add in all the other things he's done (especially his ability to now rule by fiat), it's pretty reasonable for people to be nervous.

Or, to put it another way, imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth if Bush was to start pressing to have the 22nd Amendment repealed.

They didn't??

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the 22nd amendment to the Constitution. (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=hj109-24)

Amusingly enough, all but one of those guys is a Democrat...

Amusingly enough, all but one of those guys is a Democrat...
For a reason?

Bush would have been able to run for a third term, but then again Bill Clinton could have run against him? Just thinking.

All right, then, how about comparing with France? We have a strong president, and Sarkozy wants to strengthen his powers further. He has a huge majority in Parliament, and now parliamentary elections are held the same year as presidential ones, almost guaranteeing that the president will have a parliament and cabinet on his side. He can run for re-election as many times as he wishes.

But it's still a semi-presidential system - the President's powers are balanced by the Prime Minister, who although appointed by the President with the support of parliament cannot be removed by the President. Venezuela is a fully Presidential system, concentrating a great amount of power into the hands of one man. An appropriate comparison would be the United States, Mexico or Brazil.

All right, then, how about comparing with France? We have a strong president, and Sarkozy wants to strengthen his powers further. He has a huge majority in Parliament, and now parliamentary elections are held the same year as presidential ones, almost guaranteeing that the president will have a parliament and cabinet on his side. He can run for re-election as many times as he wishes.

But, he's restrained by the Constitution, by the Voters and by the contentious nature of the Parliament.

Also, you can't fault Chavez for his opponents boycotting elections, just because they know they'll lose. That was their own stupid decision. Chavez obtained such powers because a) the voters gave them to him, democratically, and b) the Opposition surrendered without a fight.

The difference being, of course, that there is jack-shit in the way of restraints on Presidential power now in Venezuela, even without at least a substantial opposition presence in Parliament.

For a reason?

Bush would have been able to run for a third term, but then again Bill Clinton could have run against him? Just thinking.

I think I recall, I do think, that if such a resolution were passed it would not legally be retroactive, it would not impact past or sitting Presidents, it would only be applicable to future Presidents. So, Hillary could be a three-termer, but not G-dub or Willy Sax. Although, G-Hub-Dub and the Thermonuclear Peanizzle would be allowed to run...because they both sucked too much to get reelected in the first place.

But it's still a semi-presidential system - the President's powers are balanced by the Prime Minister

Except that François Fillon is a non-entity, who's there to do exactly what Sarkozy tells him, and is slapped back into place whenever he dares voice an opinion of his own.

But, he's restrained by the Constitution, by the Voters and by the contentious nature of the Parliament.


By the Constitution, yes. By the voters, no - not until the next election (as in Venezuela), or unless there a large-scale protest marches and strikes. As for Parliament, Sarkozy's party has an absolute majority there, rendering the Opposition toothless.


The difference being, of course, that there is jack-shit in the way of restraints on Presidential power now in Venezuela, even without at least a substantial opposition presence in Parliament.

Which isn't Chavez's fault. He made the most of it, but it was because of the Opposition. Come the next election, if the Opposition wants to do its job properly, it will take part, and the decision will be up to the voters.

Again, the fundamental fact is that Venezuela remains a democracy. Chavez will need to be re-elected in order to stay in power. The voters will decide. That's fully democratic.

Eugh. What a gimp... I still can't believe some of my more leftist 'friends' say that he's the best thing to happen to South America for x years.

Nope, he's just another junta-leader to be... back yonder, he used to be at least vaguely more sound than now. But no, he had to kill it all.

Sounds like something Shrubya will try.

No.

Except that François Fillon is a non-entity, who's there to do exactly what Sarkozy tells him, and is slapped back into place whenever he dares voice an opinion of his own.

But he doesn't have to do what Sarkozy tells him - thats the point. Indeed, he's already shown some conflict with the president, including his eagerness to raise taxes and dismantle the special pension regimes, publicly embarrasing Sarkozy twice.

The power of the president is also countered by the power of the parliament, who he cannot veto if they pass legislation that he disagrees with.

I’m disappointed with my comrades on the left who continue to support Chavez inspite of his asshattery.

Nope, he’s just another junta-leader to be... back yonder, he used to be at least vaguely more sound than now. But no, he had to kill it all.
Quite why anyone would win a popular election with massive support for himself and his party, then squander any legitimacy he had with authoritarian measures is beyond me.

What a twat.

...AP (who was deleted recently, my condolences go out to him)
Deleted eh?

Anyone know if he’s back under a different moniker, or was it a ban?

I should check Moderation more often...

AP deation was just that. He can come back.

As to Venezuala...Chavez is a dictator and its high time people recognize it.

But he doesn't have to do what Sarkozy tells him - thats the point. Indeed, he's already shown some conflict with the president, including his eagerness to raise taxes and dismantle the special pension regimes, publicly embarrasing Sarkozy twice.

The power of the president is also countered by the power of the parliament, who he cannot veto if they pass legislation that he disagrees with.

Fair enough point, although Sarkozy has a majority in Parliament, and so far they've shown no inclination to want to disagree with him.

None of this alters the essential fact, though: the Venezuelan people remain free to vote Chavez out of office if they want to.


Chavez is a dictator and its high time people
recognize it.

A "dictator" who can be voted out of office through democratic elections. Hmmm... Not many of those around.

A "dictator" who can be voted out of office through democratic elections. Hmmm... Not many of those around.

Belarus has presidential elections too, y'know. So has Zimbabwe. Yes, technically, Chavez is just as much a dictator as Lukashenka or Mugabe.

Stalin Gonzalez? You couldn't make this stuff up.

Belarus has presidential elections too, y'know. So has Zimbabwe. Yes, technically, Chavez is just as much a dictator as Lukashenka or Mugabe.

Nope. Elections in Belarus and Zimbabwe are widely regarded as a massive farce. Elections in Venezuela are recognised by the international community as free and fair.

That's like saying that because China and the UK both have elections, but the latter are genuine and the former are not, the UK must be a dictatorship.

Stalin Gonzalez? You couldn't make this stuff up.

I do believe I have a name for that evil twin that we keep locked up in the basement :)

Nope. Elections in Belarus and Zimbabwe are widely regarded as a massive farce. Elections in Venezuela are recognised by the international community as free and fair.
Call me a pessimist... no, I have a better idea! :) Wanna bet a lot of money that the moment Chavez is not happy with poll results, the elections will become yet another heavily rigged farce? This is the whole point of this setup - to ensure that when people finally recognize they are screwed, they won't be able to do anything about it!

Nope. Elections in Belarus and Zimbabwe are widely regarded as a massive farce. Elections in Venezuela are recognised by the international community as free and fair.

Can you really call an election free and fair when the government practices press restriction, arrests opposition leaders and employs goon squads to intimidate rivals? Remember, there's more to democracy than just having elections.

Call me a pessimist... no, I have a better idea! :) Wanna bet a lot of money that the moment Chavez is not happy with poll results, the elections will become yet another heavily rigged farce? This is the whole point of this setup - to ensure that when people finally recognize they are screwed, they won't be able to do anything about it!

Quite.

Hugo Chavez is a man with a history of anti-democratic actions, both in his military service and in his time as President of Venezuela. Ranging from his failed coup d'etat attempt in the nineteen-nineties, to his continued consolidation of power in the person of himself, as well as his penchant for using government resources to fund his political campaigns. I often wonder whether his is little more than a walking manifestation of Mussolini's viewpoint that we are all what we are politically due to the circumstances of the times in which we live.

Stalin Gonzalez? You couldn't make this stuff up.

That could make great headlines. "Stalin leads the fight against socialism!"; "Stalin says he fears for the future of democracy"... :D

Call me a pessimist... no, I have a better idea! :) Wanna bet a lot of money that the moment Chavez is not happy with poll results, the elections will become yet another heavily rigged farce? This is the whole point of this setup - to ensure that when people finally recognize they are screwed, they won't be able to do anything about it!

We'll see. I don't think it'll happen. At most, I think Chavez will want to lay constitutional bases for socialism that his political opponents will find it difficult to repeal once they get back into power.

Of course, I may be wrong.

So far, Chavez has retained his popularity, anyway. And the context in much of Latin America is a swing to the left: Brazil, Venezuela, Chile, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Bolivia...

That could make great headlines. "Stalin leads the fight against socialism!"; "Stalin says he fears for the future of democracy"... :D

Mo' def.



We'll see. I don't think it'll happen. At most, I think Chavez will want to lay constitutional bases for socialism that his political opponents will find it difficult to repeal once they get back into power.

With the powers that have been delegated to the Presidency under Chavez, effecting those sorts of changes ought to be a snap.





So far, Chavez has retained his popularity, anyway. And the context in much of Latin America is a swing to the left: Brazil, Venezuela, Chile, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Bolivia...

I would argue that there is a very, very stark difference between Lula/Morales/Kirchener leftism and Chavez leftism.

Can you really call an election free and fair when the government practices press restriction, arrests opposition leaders and employs goon squads to intimidate rivals?

Source?

As for press restrictions, that was contestable, but the channel that was closed down had advocated and supported an illicit coup against a democratically-elected government (why does no-one ever mention this)?

Chavez-bashers conveniently ignore the fact that his opponents have shown their contempt for democracy by trying to have him removed from power by force.

It's perfectly legitimate to criticise some of what Chavez does. But a lot of people just seem to pick any silly excuse to bash him, and deny any good that he does.

The only Venezuelan on NSG is Aelosia, who strongly opposes Chavez, and even she has said that calling him a dictator is ridiculous.

Mo' def.


Huh?


With the powers that have been delegated to the Presidency under Chavez, effecting those sorts of changes ought to be a snap.


Indeed. I don't think anyone can dispute that. The Opposition has foolishly shot itself in the foot.


I would argue that there is a very, very stark difference between Lula/Morales/Kirchener leftism and Chavez leftism.

Yes. Lula and Bachelet's approach to left-wing politics definitely isn't Chavez's. As for others... Correa, Morales and Ortega are mostly supportive of him.

Oh, and don't even get me started on the god-awful cronyism that has run rampant under Chavez. The rise of a new ruling elite, in the form of the Boligarchs, in Venezuela, the appointment of incompetents to positions of notable importance and special favors to friends have all been the hallmarks of the government of Hugo Chavez.

Huh?

Phonetic English slang, more properly "Most definitely."

Yes. Lula and Bachelet's approach to left-wing politics definitely isn't Chavez's. As for others... Correa, Morales and Ortega are mostly supportive of him.

But, even if there are ideological similarities the actions of, say Morales and Ortega have been much more liberal than Chavez. They've been pragmatic in working with opposition groups, and demographics that traditionally would not be seen to lean leftwards. Morales, for instance, draws a very large amount of support from the Bolivian middle class because of what he has promised (and has done, I might add) to confront corruption. Ortega, too, is less uncompromising than Chavez.

I don't oppose leftists in Latin America, in fact, I rather think that they can be an important element in the process of getting out of the undemocratic Cold War misery that existed in the region when the US and USSR tried to play each individual state as a pawn in their geopolitical game. It's just that, I don't want these countries sliding back into that time period, and I feel that Chavez is risky, and potentially putting Venezuela on the brink.

But, even if there are ideological similarities the actions of, say Morales and Ortega have been much more liberal than Chavez. They've been pragmatic in working with opposition groups, and demographics that traditionally would not be seen to lean leftwards. Morales, for instance, draws a very large amount of support from the Bolivian middle class because of what he has promised (and has done, I might add) to confront corruption. Ortega, too, is less uncompromising than Chavez.


True enough, that.

Source?

As for press restrictions, that was contestable, but the channel that was closed down had advocated and supported an illicit coup against a democratically-elected government (why does no-one ever mention this)?

Chavez-bashers conveniently ignore the fact that his opponents have shown their contempt for democracy by trying to have him removed from power by force.

It seems to be in style in Venezuela to have little respect for democracy, don't you think?

Source?

Miguel Diaz's report to the US Senate (http://www.senate.gov/~foreign/testimony/2004/DiazTestimony040624.pdf)

Amnesty International's report (http://web.amnesty.org/report2006/ven-summary-eng)

Human Rights Watch (http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/07/08/venezu11299.htm)

I'm told that COFAVIC and PROVEA also regularly report such abuses, but I lack English sources.

As for press restrictions, that was contestable, but the channel that was closed down had advocated and supported an illicit coup against a democratically-elected government (why does no-one ever mention this)?

Its not just the channel - various reporters have experienced intimidation for opposing Chavez.

Reporters sans frontiers Venezuela report (http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=13221)

Chavez-bashers conveniently ignore the fact that his opponents have shown their contempt for democracy by trying to have him removed from power by force.

I don't ignore this fact, I just don't consider the anti-democratic activities of the opposition as justification for similar anti-democratic measures to be taken by the government.

It's perfectly legitimate to criticise some of what Chavez does. But a lot of people just seem to pick any silly excuse to bash him, and deny any good that he does.

I have so far only criticised his anti-democratic measures. If I wanted to criticise his economic policies I would say that basing his countries economic growth on the continued high price of oil is an extremely risky endeavour which could leave his country poorer than it was when he was elected. I culd also say that his administration has overseen a crime explosion of ludicrous proportions.

The only Venezuelan on NSG is Aelosia, who strongly opposes Chavez, and even she has said that calling him a dictator is ridiculous.

I have never called Chavez a dictator - my only concern is that he is paving the way to become one.

Oh, and don't even get me started on the god-awful cronyism that ...do get started...
Because after 5 pages.. the only real complain -the Chavez haters- have brought to the table is "term Limits".. and that is not going to do it. Because most Democracies I know do not have Term Limits.

do get started...
Because after 5 pages.. the only concrete the Chavez haters have put on the table is "term Limits".. and that is not going to do it.

Then you've obviously skipped reading the thread.

Because, honestly, I can't be arsed to rehash the copious criticisms of Hugo's governmental actions, of his consolidation of power and of his past history. It's been done in the past, here and in other threads, and you seem to conveniently forget the evidence that's been provided.

Then you've obviously skipped reading the thread.I have read the thread.. all of it.. All the blah-blah he is a dictator.. blah-blah mugabe.. blah-blah. Parliaments Blah-Blah-Blah

If a Parliaments/Congress are such a great checks and Balances.. Why did they miserably Failed to Stop their President/PM to go to War with Iraq??. at the UK? Spain? Australia? Italy? Norway? Portugal? S.Korea? New Zealand? Philippines? etc etc etc

in all these Countries, most of their Population did NOT want to get involved in the Bushite War.

Yet their congress/Parliaments failed them miserably.

There only one check-and-balance I trust.. and that is: elections every 4/5 years. Its when the People decides to keep-or-fire the President and the Parliament/congressmen

If you want we can always debate how the Republican Congress has been such a great check-and-balance for the Bush presidency :D :D.. And we can discuss the Democrat Congress failed attempts..

checks and balances my ass

-snip-

So, in other words, you got jack-shit besides bitching about Iraq?

So, in other words, you got jack-shit besides bitching about Iraq?

For OD? Pretty much.

So, in other words, you got jack-shit besides bitching about Iraq?I got jack-shit against Venezuela Democracy.. and -so far- I can say the same for you... all of you.

I have read the thread.. all of it.. All the blah-blah he is a dictator.. blah-blah mugabe.. blah-blah. Parliaments Blah-Blah-Blah

If a Parliaments/Congress are such a great checks and Balances.. Why did they miserably Failed to Stop their President/PM to go to War with Iraq??. at the UK? Spain? Australia? Italy? Norway? Portugal? S.Korea? New Zealand? Philippines? etc etc etc

in all these Countries, most of their Population did NOT want to get involved in the Bushite War.

Yet their congress/Parliaments failed them miserably.

There only one check-and-balance I trust.. and that is: elections every 4/5 years. Its when the People decides to keep-or-fire the President and the Parliament/congressmen

If you want we can always debate how the Republican Congress has been such a great check-and-balance for the Bush presidency.. And we can discuss the Democrat Congress attempts to stop the "surge".. :D :D

checks and balances my ass
Ermm...

Did you just argue against yourself?

I have read the thread.. all of it.. All the blah-blah he is a dictator.. blah-blah mugabe.. blah-blah. Parliaments Blah-Blah-Blah

If a Parliaments/Congress are such a great checks and Balances.. Why did they miserably Failed to Stop their President/PM to go to War with Iraq??. at the UK? Spain? Australia? Italy? Norway? Portugal? S.Korea? New Zealand? Philippines? etc etc etc

in all these Countries, most of their Population did NOT want to get involved in the Bushite War.

Yet their congress/Parliaments failed them miserably.

Spain and Italy both had their pro-Iraq invasion governments defeated in elections following the war. In the UK and South Korea the main opposition parties supported the war. In Australia, despite widespread opposition to the war, other issues are at the heart of the elections scheduled for next month.

The Phillipines, Norway and New Zealand provided humanitarian rather than strictly miltary support such as engineers and mine clearers. Portugese involvement was strictly limited to the training of Iraqi policemen, not military objectives. Do you seriously believe that the deployment of two dozen soldiers to rebuild Iraq is going to influence elections in these countries more so than the myriad of other issues being debated?

Ermm...

Did you just argue against yourself?some times I do.. these days, I am my own check-and-balance..
My "Parliament" its 67% from my party.. :D

but If you get enough votes, you can be my Check and balance. It is a tough Job.

In the UK and South Korea the main opposition parties supported the war. When I say "most of UK/Korea/etc did NOT want to get involved in the Bushite War"..

I a talking about most of the People.. not most of the politicians.

Do you seriously believe that the deployment of..No.

I am just providing an example of Checks and Balances.. and example that is simple and Universal. One of the most important functions of a check-and-balances Congress/parliament is to avoid unnecessary involvement in Wars..

But If you want a in-depth debate of the worthiness of your.. or my Parliament/Congress we can absolutely do it.. bring it on.

My "Parliament" is the US Congress.. what is yours?

I got jack-shit against Venezuela Democracy.. and -so far- I can say the same for you... all of you.

Then you're a simpleton, whose understanding of governance, the value of democratic institutions and the value of democratic mechanisms, such as the decentralization of power, term limits, separation of powers and the rest operate. Either that, or your merely a Chavez apologist, blinded from reality by your built in bias.

You've got nothing on this discussion, so why don't you haul your lame butt out of it.

When I say "most of UK/Korea/etc did NOT want to get involved in the Bushite War"..

I a talking about most of the People.. not most of the politicians.

And you claim that because these governments still went to war proves that checks and balances don't work. However, checks and balances are meant to ensure that the government follows decisions made by the majority of elected representatives rather than the popular opinion of the time. In no situation did a leader in any of the nations you mentioned go to war without the approval of the parliament - in fact, Tony Blair was opposed by a large number of his own party. The checks and balances worked - no individual section of government forced the war against the wishes of the other sections of government.

No.

I am just providing an example of Checks and Balances.. and example that is simple and Universal. One of the most important functions of a check-and-balances Congress/parliament is to avoid unnecessary involvement in Wars..

That's a tertiary function of providing a restraint on the executive, not the primary function, or even a secondary function.

It's important that these checks be in place, and that Chavez is removing these checks is fundamentally dangerous to the future health of Venezuelan democracy.

...the value of democratic institutions and the value of democratic mechanisms, such as the decentralization of power, separation of powers and the rest operate. Like All said

all Your democratic institutions, All your valued democratic mechanisms, All the supposed decentralization, All your separation of powers..
they all miserably Failed to Stop their President/PM to go to War with Iraq, they Failed the peoples of UK, Spain, Australia, Italy, Norway, Portugal, S.Korea, and many others.

I am NOT saying they have stopped being Democracies I am saying all the so called Checks-and-Balances Parliaments can be as good a Check-and-Balance a Republican Congress under a Bush Presidency.

Your Democracy is not holier-than-thou (not better than Venezuela) Deal with it.
You still got jack-shit on Venezuela Democracy.

That's a tertiary function of providing a restraint on the executive, not the primary function, or even a secondary function.Blah blah blah..

the final score is the same.

Your Democracy is not holier-than-thou (not better than Venezuela).
You still got jack-shit on Venezuela Democracy.

Blah blah blah..

the final score is the same.

Your Democracy is not holier-than-thou (not better than Venezuela).
You still got jack-shit on Venezuela Democracy.

So you think Venezuela has a better democracy?

No.

I am just providing an example of Checks and Balances.. and example that is simple and Universal. One of the most important functions of a check-and-balances Congress/parliament is to avoid unnecessary involvement in Wars..

The only purpose of separation of powers is the prevention of tyranny by allowing unrestricted power to one section of government, wether its a president or parliament. Not to ensure that the views of the people are represented by decisions made in those houses.

But If you want a in-depth debate of the worthiness of your.. or my Parliament/Congress we can absolutely do it.. bring it on.

My "Parliament" is the US Congress.. what is yours?

The Scottish Parliament.

Like All said

all Your democratic institutions, All your valued democratic mechanisms, All the supposed decentralization, All your separation of powers..
they all miserably Failed to Stop their President/PM to go to War with Iraq, they Failed the peoples of UK, Spain, Australia, Italy, Norway, Portugal, S.Korea, and many others.

I am NOT saying they have stopped being Democracies I am saying all the so called Checks-and-Balances Parliaments can be as good a Check-and-Balance a Republican Congress under a Bush Presidency.

Your Democracy is not holier-than-thou (not better than Venezuela) Deal with it.
You still got jack-shit on Venezuela Democracy.

Iraq has absolutely nothing to do with the damage Hugo Chavez is doing to the future of Venezuelan democracy. Was there a mistake made? Yes. Is it a mistake that was fundamentally damaging to the democratic institutions of those countries? Absolutely not. What Hugo Chavez is doing in Venezuela is damaging to the institutions of Venezuelan democracy, and there's no way around that simple fact.

You have repeatedly attempted to invalidate the key institutions of liberal democracy by pointing to their failure, in some countries, to impede the march to the war in Iraq. You have launched written assaults on the importance academia, division of powers, federalism, and liberalism in general. What you have against these pillars of society I can only begin to suspect, but whatever your motivations, you are just plain wrong.


Not every new car is going to work perfectly, just like liberal democratic institutions and mechanisms aren't going to give perfect results every time, but by and large they're going to do a whole hell of a lot better than a system without them.

And yes, my democracy is better than the system as it currently exists in Venezuela, Iran, Russia or any of these other shitty petro-states you constantly defend. My democracy is backed by hundreds of years of strong institutions and tradition. The military is weak compared to the civil government, and my President, while he is a douchebag, will be gone soon, and an opposition party candidate will almost certainly replace him. I can't say that for any of those folks.

So you think Venezuela has a better democracy?No.

I am not going to say holier-than-thou either way.. Its not my style.

No.

I am not going to say holier-than-thou either way.. Its not my style.

That's pure BS.

No.

I am not going to say holier-than-thou either way.. Its not my style.

Then your style sucks.

There are options that are better, and options and decisions that are worse, and to hell with post-modernism.

...they're going to do a whole hell of a lot better than a system without them.not from where I am standing.

Iraq War, Patriot act, Guantanamo, Multinational Hijackings, torture , wiretapping, etc etc etc..

not from where I am standing.

Iraq War, Patriot act, Guantanamo, Multinational Hijackings, torture franchising, wiretapping, etc etc etc..

Iraq War: Approved by Congress
Patriot Act: Approved by Congress
Guantanamo: Has been there along time
Wiretapping: Approved by Congress

All of them can be fixed through additional acts of Congress.

Torture Franchising? That's the best you got?

And what do you mean by multinational hijacking?

not from where I am standing.

Iraq War, Patriot act, Guantanamo, Multinational Hijackings, torture franchising, wiretapping, etc etc etc..

All problems and issues that our system allows to be corrected, what Chavez is doing to the Venezuelan system is making it increasingly difficult to correct for these sorts of poorly designed policies.

And what do you mean by multinational hijacking?There is a new movie about it.. check it out.

Iraq War: Approved by Congress
Patriot Act: Approved by Congress
Guantanamo: Has been there along time
Wiretapping: Approved by Congress
Thank you for making my point..
Its almost like if I control your keyboard..

with enemies like you, who needs friends :D

All problems and issues that our system allows to be corrected...the score is still the same.. the result is still there.

..can be fixed through additional acts of Congress.
Can be fixed.. shoulda been fixed.. woulda been fixed, etc etc

the score is still the same.. Call me back when your so called checks-and-balances Congress manages to show they are not a just doormat.

There is a new movie about it.. check it out.

What multinational hijackings are you talking about?

Thank you for making my point..
Its almost like if I control your keyboard..

with enemies like you, who needs friends :D

No I proved that Congress can enact and retract laws at leisure. In Venezuela, that is going by the wayside.

What multinational hijackings are you talking about?

No I proved that Congress can enact and retract laws at leisure. In Venezuela, that is going by the wayside.I have to go.. see you guys tonite or tomorrow..

I have to go.. see you guys tonite or tomorrow..

HAHA! You can't back it up.

This forum requires that you wait 30 seconds between posts. Please try again in 21 seconds.

For OD? Pretty much.

You completely forget his Israel bashing. Naughty!

the score is still the same.. the result is still there.

Can be fixed.. shoulda been fixed.. woulda been fixed, etc etc



First off, you're committing yet another tu quoque fallacy, which seems to be your specialty. Second, there is no score, but if there was, the liberal democracies would come out massively ahead of your shitty little petrostates.

I'm wondering why it has to be Chavez who gets reelected, rather than someone from his party. Even that model of a democrat, Vladimir Putin, seems to respect the constitution too much to just rewrite it and get rid of term limits.


You should have seen what the king of Brunei did to his country's constitution. He rewrote it to say he could never do wrong as a person and as a ruler. Literally.

They didn't??

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the 22nd amendment to the Constitution. (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=hj109-24)

:rolleyes:

It never even got out of committee.

:rolleyes:

It never even got out of committee.

he was just pointing out that it was proposed. Much like the Impeachment of Cheney that is going nowhere. It was proposed but is not going to happen.

You completely forget his Israel bashing. Naughty!

What OD does is not Israel bashing. What Nodinia does is Israel bashing. What OD does is Jew bashing.

-snip-

Good on the students.

This is all I really care about:


They will be subjected to a popular referendum later this year.

Whatever the result is, I hope it's honoured.

Everyone is harping on about the removal of term limits in Venezuela as if that somehow turned Chavez into a dictator. What they neglect to mention is that he will still have to be re-elected via the democratic process if he wants oto stay in office.

And the constitutional change itself has to be approved by referendum. That is to say, the people of Venezuela get to choose for themselves whether or not the "dictator" is allowed to run again for democratic re-election. How authoritarian.

:rolleyes:

And the constitutional change itself has to be approved by referendum. That is to say, the people of Venezuela get to choose for themselves whether or not the "dictator" is allowed to run again for democratic re-election. How authoritarian.

:rolleyes:
You're attacking a strawman. The point here is:

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

vs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_state#Enlightened_absolutism

The point here is:

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

vs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_state#Enlightened_absolutism

So are you against all constitutional amendments?

I wouldn't vote for this one... but I fail to see how it violates the rule of law.

So are you against all constitutional amendments?

I wouldn't vote for this one... but I fail to see how it violates the rule of law.

On it's own, it's not overly disturbing, but as a part of a trend, it's disturbing. Things like the consolidation of power, restrictions on press freedom (specifically, I'm referencing the Reporters Without Borders report), removal of term limits, rule by decree and other elements are seen as weakening the strength of the rule of law in Venezuela: A most unfortunate scenario.

..are seen as weakening the strength of the rule of law in Venezuela.They are enforcing the current rule of law.. If the Constitution is amended, they will enforce the new Law.

BTW It is not Illegal to amend the constitution if the people votes to amend it.

What OD does is not Israel bashing. What Nodinia does is Israel bashing. What OD does is Jew bashing.

True.

You completely forget his Israel bashing. Naughty!Nasty,Bad,Naughty_Boy :D :D :p :D

Nasty,Bad,Naughty_Boy :D :D :p :D

Just showed up and am surprised OD hasn't been killed yet in this thread. So is Chavez still your hero Ocean Drive or have you dropped him and moved on?

So is Chavez still your hero Ocean Drive or have you dropped him and moved on?What makes you think Chavez is my hero?

Just showed up and am surprised OD hasn't been killed yet in this thread.As far as Chavez is concerned, They do not have good enough weapons(arguments).. so thats why they have fallen back to their usual OD-is-Anti-Semite-Nazi Godwhinning.. thats when a smile of satisfaction appears because I know they have ran out of ammunition.

What makes you think Chavez is my hero?

Lol, are you serious? Same way I think that you believe Bush is the devil. Anyway when you make post after post for the last couple years defending the guy it makes one believe that you idolize the guy.

As far as Chavez is concerned, They do not have enough weapons(arguments).. so thats why they have fallen back to their usual OD is an Anti-Semite repetitive chorus of puppets.. that when I have a smile of satisfaction because I know they have ran out of ammunition.

Yes, you in a thread is always good for it's entertainment value. Wouldn't have it any other way.

Lol, are you serious? Same way I think that you believe Bush is the devil. Anyway when you make post after post for the last couple years defending the guy it makes one believe that you idolize the guy.A couple of times I have defended that moron we have as Presidents.. because I felt he was being un-fairly accused of something (I dont remember what it was)
Hell.. Yesterday I defended Corneliu (of all peoples) because I felt he was being bitchslapped for no good reason.(dont remember either)
I can assure you, neither Corneliu or Bush are my Heroes.

Everytime someone suggest Chavez is a dictator.. I am going to bring my 2 cents.
Because its unfair.. its a flat out lie.

Yes, you in a thread is always good for it's entertainment value. Wouldn't have it any other way.

Well with AP gone, we need a new court jester. OD can fill that role well.

Yes, you in a thread is always good for it's entertainment value. Wouldn't have it any other way.whatever rocks your world ;)

The Tequila is on me.

So are you against all constitutional amendments?
If we had a constitution that limits the state to its proper functions? Yes.

Unfortunately, most constitutions are not set up to be real constitutions, in the sense that they form the inviolable law of the country, within which politicians are allowed to operate, public agreement permitting. They are designed to look like they provide legitimacy, but contain loopholes and provisions to change them, so aren't intended to be inviolable at all. The bigger those provisions, the more worthless the constitution. And if they're big and the government (or in this case, one guy with a questionable record) frequently uses them, that should have a few alarm bells ringing.

So are you against all constitutional amendments?If we had a constitution that limits the state to its proper functions? Yes.That looks like a "Yes".
Is that a "YES" ???

Yes, If we had a constitution that limits the state to its proper functions....

dude.. now it looks more like a Yes/No/Maybe. :rolleyes:

If we had a constitution that limits the state to its proper functions? Yes.

Unfortunately, most constitutions are not set up to be real constitutions, in the sense that they form the inviolable law of the country, within which politicians are allowed to operate, public agreement permitting. They are designed to look like they provide legitimacy, but contain loopholes and provisions to change them, so aren't intended to be inviolable at all. The bigger those provisions, the more worthless the constitution. And if they're big and the government (or in this case, one guy with a questionable record) frequently uses them, that should have a few alarm bells ringing.


But at the end of the day isn't this public agreement permitting the most important point? If people decide to change the constitution, and there is a 50%+1 majority - that's the democratic process at work.

You don't ...hate.... democracy, do you Leo? ;)

They are designed to look like they provide legitimacy, but contain loopholes and provisions to change them, so aren't intended to be inviolable at all.

Or maybe they just don't pretend they're the eternal word of God, perfect and valid forever.

The bigger those provisions, the more worthless the constitution.

What in particular about the amendment process here bothers you?

And if they're big and the government (or in this case, one guy with a questionable record) frequently uses them, that should have a few alarm bells ringing.

Only if the amendment process is too easy. Otherwise, it doesn't matter how often the process is used, because the sort of public will that can justify such changes is behind it.

Thanks to his coalition's democratically-caused dominance of the parliament and his strong level of popular support, Chávez is likely to succeed... but as long as his success is dependent on his high levels of support, that hardly matters.

dude.. now it looks more like a Yes/No/Maybe. :rolleyes:
That's because not everything that is called a constitution actually is one.

A real constitution is limited to the most basic, but most absolute rules of politics. It is based on the rights, not those made up by society - if those existed, people would follow them anyways - but those that are needed to protect people (actual, observable people) from this monster some call society. And such a constitution (or such parts of it) cannot be subject to society's whims.

If you want to change the national anthem, or abolish military service or whatever, fine. Change the constitution.

If you want to make it legal for the police to kill people for disagreeing or for being a different race etc, then I am against constitutional amendments.

It's a yes, based on a condition.

What in particular about the amendment process here bothers you?
Mainly that I'm rapidly losing faith in democracy as a system. The idea that people can, by no other qualification than having been born, vote on the destruction of other people's lives*, without knowing, caring or even being aware of the effects on those people...it's starting to bother me quite a bit.

A constitution, inviolable and sacred, seems to me to be the only thing that can save my support for democracy. It's the only thing standing between civilisation and mob rule - which in this case is especially bad because the mob is a product of Chávez and not the other way around. It's getting to be about as close to a "dictatorship of the majority" as is feasible without declaring the terms completely meaningless.

*This is a more general point. While I don't doubt Chávez will continue to destroy the lives of those who oppose him while feeding the dwindling oil output into those who have no other goal than to be mediocre (thus destroying more lives in the long run), this is of course not directly a vote on that.

"An economic system that produces and tolerates starvation in the first place, making the welfare state necessary, is what's insulting to human dignity." - The Loyal Opposition


Ah, someone is reading my posts. I was wondering if an anti-government socialist who want to abolish the welfare state was too much for some people to handle.

[/completely off topic distraction]

Mainly that I'm rapidly losing faith in democracy as a system. The idea that people can, by no other qualification than having been born, vote on the destruction of other people's lives*, without knowing, caring or even being aware of the effects on those people...it's starting to bother me quite a bit.


But that's not democracy to begin with. In the case of Venezuela, it's a highly unstable political system rapidly on its way to dictatorship. But most other stable democracies (North America, Europe, etc) institute significant limits on government and the democratic process in order to prevent exactly what you describe. Thus, in most cases, a totally "inviolable and sacred" constitution isn't necessary.

And, at any rate, talk of an "involable and sacred" anything seems to me to swing too close to the concept of a Hobbesian sovereign, which isn't much democratic either.


It's the only thing standing between civilisation and mob rule


Is there really anything of substance to these concepts of "civilization" and "mob rule," or is this just colorful rhetoric employed by those who happen to find themselves on the losing side of a particular vote?

They are enforcing the current rule of law.. If the Constitution is amended, they will enforce the new Law.

If, they enforce that law, true. But the changes that the Chavez government has carried out has made it easier for the sitting government, especially in the person of the President, to undo the rule of law if he wished, whether it is Chavez, or a successor to Chavez.

Subverting the rule of law through provided Constitutional mechanisms is not unheard of. Not to create a Godwin, but the obvious example is Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_48_(Weimar_Constitution)), which was the mechanism by which Adolph Hitler centralized power within himself.

BTW It is not Illegal to amend the constitution if the people votes to amend it.

Legality and wisdom are not always totally in line.

Legality and wisdom are not always totally in line.


Now, if we could just find a universal standard or measure for "wisdom" we'd be set.

But most other stable democracies (North America, Europe, etc) institute significant limits on government and the democratic process in order to prevent exactly what you describe.
Of course, they still treat people as means to their ends. So their constitutions obviously don't go far enough.

We're just lucky that unlike in Venezuela at the moment, there isn't one movement that has seized all the positions in power and is willing to use that fact. It's more difficult in the US for example, but that too is due to the constitution and the fact that people see it as more than just a piece of paper.

Thus, in most cases, a totally "inviolable and sacred" constitution isn't necessary.
It's the only thing that can protect my ideal vision of a state without completely sacrificing democracy.

And, at any rate, talk of an "involable and sacred" anything seems to me to swing too close to the concept of a Hobbesian sovereign, which isn't much democratic either.
That's the point: a constitution is not meant to be subject to democracy. It's meant to be the framework within which a democracy can operate.

And by the way, I quite like the idea of a citizenship ceremony whereby one actually puts one's signature beneith the constitution. A social contract, but this time a real one.

Is there really anything of substance to these concepts of "civilization" and "mob rule," or is this just colorful rhetoric employed by those who happen to find themselves on the losing side of a particular vote?
Well, personally I'd like to think that civilisation is a human community where initiating force against others for one's gain (or "everybody's" gain) is not allowed. Basically something that is peaceful.

Of course Chávez wishes to stay in power - that much should be clear to anyone, even his supporters. But then again, all politicians wish to stay in power. Chávez is not particularly special.

The question is, is that necessarily a bad thing, as long as he continues to hold free and fair elections? If a German or British political leader kept running for election over and over again and winning fairly, would anyone question the democratic nature of Germany or Britain?

I can certainly see ways in which Chávez is becoming more authoritarian, but removing term limits is not one of them.

yeah, until Chavez bans elections or makes Venezuela a one-party state, IMO no one should jump to conclusions...

It's more difficult in the US for example, but that too is due to the constitution and the fact that people see it as more than just a piece of paper.


Actually, I'm not entirely sure that's true.


It's the only thing that can protect my ideal vision of a state without completely sacrificing democracy.


Yep, see, there's yer problem, right there. Read on...


Well, personally I'd like to think that civilisation is a human community where initiating force against others for one's gain (or "everybody's" gain) is not allowed. Basically something that is peaceful.


The problem is that we live in a world of scarcity, where there will be more than one person who has an idea of what to do with only one X. As long as this is true, "peace," as you have defined it, will likely never exist. This is the problem with the "ideal." Do not mistake what I am saying with some amoral nihilism. We should strive for the ideal, but we shouldn't be surprised when we fail to get there.

And, at any rate, terms like "civilization" or "mob" are too emotionally overloaded and obtuse. It's far, far too easy to, motovated by plain self-interest from whatever motovation, to reserve the former for one's self and the latter for others.


That's the point: a constitution is not meant to be subject to democracy. It's meant to be the framework within which a democracy can operate.


How can the internal framework that holds up the building be separated from, or otherwise not "subject to," that building? If the constitution is not subject to the democracy, is not that constitution undemocratic and thus a rather poor framework for a democracy?


And by the way, I quite like the idea of a citizenship ceremony whereby one actually puts one's signature beneith the constitution. A social contract, but this time a real one.


This may be taking a metaphor a little bit too literally.

The problem is that we live in a world of scarcity, where there will be more than one person who has an idea of what to do with only one X. As long as this is true, "peace," as you have defined it, will likely never exist.
Why? It happens millions or billions of times every single day in a free market, but no one starts shooting anyone.

This is the problem with the "ideal." Do not mistake what I am saying with some amoral nihilism. We should strive for the ideal, but we shouldn't be surprised when we fail to get there.
Then our striving is pointless before it's even started.

If the constitution is not subject to the democracy, is not that constitution undemocratic and thus a rather poor framework for a democracy?
The former yes, the latter no.

A pure democracy won't stay democratic for long. Nor will it guarantee or recognise any rights whatsoever (maybe with the exception of a right to vote). It'll be a free-for-all, with the way towards success being the gathering of the least questioning voters you can find to pull together temporary majorities and get your wishes imposed on others.

That may well be true in our democracies at the moment too. But we have a few rules and institutions not open to a public vote, which stem the tide at least a little bit. That is what Chávez is destroying, systematically and with a clear goal in mind. He knows perfectly well that the poor and uneducated won't stop voting for him as long as he keeps giving them money and rants on about how their problems were caused by others. As long as the oil money lasts, he is the absolute ruler of the country by virtue of having created and being in control of this majority. And once it stops lasting, he'll have in place any provisions he needs to keep going without it.

This may be taking a metaphor a little bit too literally.
It would finally make one of the arguments for taxation seem at least a tiny bit valid.

I am seriously loling at the right-wing moral 'outrage' that 'how dare the Venezuelans elect a socialist' on this thread. I know that behind all the pseudo-intellectual critiques of his 'authoritarianism' and self-styled 'expert' opinions is a deep-seated and fervently irrational hatred of all things leftist, it is a disease that tend to infect those on the right, until they eventually end up like deformed Fox-style pundit trolls - aka Coulter.