Is Chavez becoming a liability?

democrates

BBC reports that Hugo Chavez intends to shut down RCTV by not renewing it's licence which he says expires in March 07, a date he seems to have picked out of thin air. The reasons given are that the station supported the coup against him in 2002, but also according to the article "The move could help silence some of his critics in the media who have been a thorn in his side for several years, he says."

In the past myself and many others have strongly supported the policies his administration has been introducing under what he calls the Bolivarian Revolution, but for me this is a step too far, he's crossed a line. Does this new policy of attempting to silence dissent make Hugo Chavez a liability to both the Bolivarian Revolution and internationally to social justice movements?

Dirk Gently

Definitely a bad idea imo. This is by no means a surprise as he has been hinting at doing this for years but I was hoping he would be content to let his policies do the speaking rather than taking this route. I am in full agreement that the opposition media did play a major role in the attempted coup and is responsible for a lot of mis information but that's just something that should be taken on the chin and defeated through debate and promotion of his own ideas rather than pulling the plug.

Not only is this going to create a huge boost to the opposition of the Bolivarian revolution, but worse than that, opponents of social movements actually have something true to complain about this time, rather than the usual hot air and innuendo.

A very disappointing thumbs down from me. Chavez needs to be whiter than white if he is to survive all the black propaganda that gets thrown at him and this move looks like a step in the wrong direction after so much good work so far. I would even go so far as to call this move anti-chavez as it flys in the face of of all he has done to promote dialogue and build democracy from the ground up.

constitutionus

dont agree with it as freedom of speech is vital, even when its the biased propaganda that station put out. but im not surprised, its not a million miles away from what macdowel did to the Centre For Public Inquiry. govs dont like people bad mouthing em

silverharp

the guy is a liability, from what I've heard about the oil industry there he has his cronies running it into the ground.

Orizio

You're all wrong.He won an election.That means that the increased crime and corruption rates during his terms,the human rights abuses and the breakdown of the once strong democratic tradition in the country are all irrelevent.He was voted in by people and nothing else matters.:)

Dirk Gently

Greetings Mr. Orizo, been a long time. I've missed our little exchanges.
Feeling sufficiently vindicated to launch another hit and hope campaign on the subject?

Happy new year to you young man.

Orizio

clown bag wrote:

Greetings Mr. Orizo, been a long time. I've missed our little exchanges.
Feeling sufficiently vindicated to launch another hit and hope campaign on the subject?

Happy new year to you young man.

Happy new year to you to.I just about remember debating you once before.Didn't you believe the US would invade Venezuela?I'm still waiting.;)

Dirk Gently

They've been a bit busy else where haven't they. Still though there is the small matter of funding of the opposition, smuggling of arms into the country through diplomatic convoys (for personal protection of the diplomats no doubt) endless campaigns to destabilise Venezuela, the bully tactics used to "convince" countries not to give Venezuela a seat on the UN security council, the increasing of spies and other "operatives" working inside Venezuela and the good old CIA document which includes Venezuela in the Cuba after Castro programme (which we are told is entirely peaceful). Hardly keeping their nose out of internal Venezuelan affairs now are they.

I think a combination of Chavez’s profile worldwide keeping the spot light on Venezuela and the military commitments of the US forces have more to do with Venezuela being relatively US military free up to this point (not including the odd band of mercenaries) rather than any unwillingness on the part of Washington to intervene.

In other words, I believe if they could, they would. So far they've neither had an excuse sellable enough to the American public to intervine nor the military capability due to other commitments. Heres hoping Chavez doesn't hand them a good excuse by doing silly things like pulling the plug on private TV stations leaving the door open for Uncle Sam to save the day.

EDIT:

I've done a quick search of our last exchange just to refresh myself as to what my position was back then.

clownbag back in the day wrote:

I’m ‘prophesising’ some kind of military action by the U.S., whether it be small covert operations or a few years down the line a larger overt military operation.

Yes a few years down the line bush will be gone, but in fairness a lot of the same advisers on policy stay with whatever administration are in power down through the years. I would like to see the republicans out of power, at least the democrats are a bit more diplomatic, and not so gun hoe (although still not my best buddies in the world) There could be some hope of avoiding military action. A lot will depend on the actual citizens of the U.S. and their opposition or lack there of to a war with Venezuela.

my position hasn't changed.

DadaKopf

I wouldn't entirely trust a BBC News report on the issue. And without knowing the particulars, I'm not rushing to judgement on the issue.

But, generally, I'd be against shutting down media outlets period. However, the 'opposition' stations are widely known for not only producing highly biased media reports, but also telling outright lies. By contrast, I haven't actually heard or read of the 'government' channels broadcasting lies, though they are clearly biased.

The solution here, which the Chavez government should take if they're not already, would be to enact good anti-libel laws and pursue liars through the courts. Sure, the Venezuelan courts themselves are mostly held by elitists, but this is changing. Otherwise, other, cross-partisan instruments, e.g. commissions, could be established.

Most important thing for Venezuela, and Chavez's mission, is to establish rule of law that protects all Venezuelans equally.

Is this happening? Well, I'm reading up on it.

A Primal Nut

Giving the history of "social justice/communist" movements, it's not a surprise. All leaders try to do it inevitably, regardless of ideology. The good thing about democracy is that it limits the lengths to which they can.

Orizio

I wouldn't entirely trust a BBC News report on the issue. And without knowing the particulars, I'm not rushing to judgement on the issue.

But, generally, I'd be against shutting down media outlets period. However, the 'opposition' stations are widely known for not only producing highly biased media reports, but also telling outright lies. By contrast, I haven't actually heard or read of the 'government' channels broadcasting lies, though they are clearly biased.

The solution here, which the Chavez government should take if they're not already, would be to enact good anti-libel laws and pursue liars through the courts. Sure, the Venezuelan courts themselves are mostly held by elitists, but this is changing. Otherwise, other, cross-partisan instruments, e.g. commissions, could be established.

Most important thing for Venezuela, and Chavez's mission, is to establish rule of law that protects all Venezuelans equally.

Is this happening? Well, I'm reading up on it.

This is an excellent point,although I would say the Chavistas are in fact gaining juidical power.The Venezuelan elite are certainly exercising their power over the Venezuelan court system.:(

The Venezuelan government is undermining the independence of the country’s judiciary ahead of a presidential recall referendum that may ultimately be decided in the courts, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today. President Chávez’s governing coalition has begun implementing a new court-packing law that will strip the Supreme Court of its autonomy.

The new law, which President Chávez signed last month, expands the Supreme Court from 20 to 32 members. It empowers Chávez’s governing coalition to use its slim majority in the legislature to obtain an overwhelming majority of seats on the Supreme Court. The law also gives the governing coalition the power to nullify existing judges’ appointments to the bench.

Link.

DadaKopf

It's a very tricky problem for Venezuela. The separation of powers must be maintained, but the legal system is also in need of reform. The case here is that the principles of egalitarian, universal justice by the judiciary aren't upheld by judges, who are at best biased towards the elite minority, racist, and at worst, corrupt.

In light of this, is it really so crazy that an executive will seek to pass legislation that deals with the denial of justice to a country's citizens by another branch of government? As we well know here, self-regulation doesn't work so well.

In a situation where inequality, poverty and social barriers are so pronounced, strong methods that we don't need at home may been needed there. It's easy for us to underestimate that what is happening in Venezuela is a class war, and I would imagine reconciliatory solutions that establish rule of law are required. As in Northern Ireland, rules can be bent if the outcome is positive.

But is Chavez's method of judicial reform the right one? I don't know. And it's true that HRW (thanks for the link) comes from a particularly conservative point of view.

But this is what a rational government may do, but no government is entirely rational. And I do worry that Chavez's 'socialism for the 21st century', which I'm in many ways supportive of, is indeed transforming into 'neo-populism', a strange new hybrid of populism, socialism and neoliberalism.

But as always, democracy however nascent, is careful balance between forces within a particular country, and it's not so helpful to judge one country against another's standards when it comes to the fine detail. Maybe the Chavista strategy of judicial reform is OK in terms of the results it'll achieve.

On the other hand, I don't see the point in angering the opposition by shutting them down. Go at them through the courts. But then, maybe they tried and that avenue didn't work.

I dunno.

Dirk Gently

DadaKopf wrote:

I

On the other hand, I don't see the point in angering the opposition by shutting them down. Go at them through the courts. But then, maybe they tried and that avenue didn't work.

I dunno.

This is another reason why I'm disappointed at this decision if indeed it goes ahead. I've been pretty much following events in Venezuela on a near daily basis now for the past couple of years and on a number of occasions Chavez himself has point blank refused to pursue some of his more outrageous critics in the courts under already existing liable laws because despite the fact that certain opposition media personalities have made a crusade out of misleading the public about him he always maintained that to take them to court would only fuel the oppositions claims that he was trying to silence them. A number of other public figures and senior military officers have successfully taken the court route in the past and won their liable cases against opposition media personalities. Chavez was of the opinion that it didn't look good punishing these people even though they were breaking the law because it added fuel to their claims that they were been muzzled and Chavez didn't want to give them the satisfaction of being the one to take them to court.

It had appeared that he understood that even when it looked like he could silence them through reasonable action he chose not to for the sake of public perception, even when others where urging him to take action under the existing liable laws. It appears he has finally had enough. Maybe he should have just gone to the courts in the first place and got the personalities involved struck off or their company fined when ever they misrepresented the truth. (Told lies)

As I said, a bad move by Hugo on this one, perhaps he's getting a bit weary and is starting to play into the oppositions hands.

Sand

Not surprised in the least - we are talking about a man who led a military coup, got into power on a populist ticket, gutted any legislative or constitutional check on his direct or indirect power, is forging militia to work against rival political movements and uses the time honoured technique of whipping up external threats and internal collaborators to justify his abuses of power.

Classic charismatic dictatorship, with plenty of foundations being put down in case the public ever get an election wrong.

I'm curious though why all the Chavez fans are suddenly concerned about *this* development yet everything before was justified by the fact everyone in Venezeula who disagreed with Chavez was a millionaire CIA agent who hated democracy?

This is relatively minor - its just threatening to shut down a radio station. Whats so important about that as compared to the destruction of checks and balances that Chavez has accomplished over the past few years that makes it possible for him to revoke the licence?

I mean, the hilarious part of the article is:

But the TV's head said there must be some mistake as its licence was not up for renewal in the near future.

Not up for renewal? Thats so charmingly naive. Does what the law or regulations state mean anything if they contradict Chavez? He can easily have them changed either by packing the courts with a few more of his cronies, or by circumventing the legislature/judiciary entirely and calling a Bolivarian circle together to change it by decree. I understand hes also considering a national referendum to decide what media is allowed to broadcast, and which isnt. What a wonderfully democratic approach to freedom of speech. Hurray for democracy.

I dont think Chavez - or his fans - would agree with the concept that we are all slaves of the law in order that we may be free.

The good news is that hes running Venezuela and not Ireland, so we can cheer his amusing tirades from a functioning liberal democracy.

Hobbes

I really wish some people would go do some checking before going off on the anti-Chavez triade.

we are talking about a man who led a military coup, got into power on a populist ticket, gutted any legislative or constitutional check on his direct or indirect power, is forging militia to work against rival political movements and uses the time honoured technique of whipping up external threats and internal collaborators to justify his abuses of power.

I believe it was a failed coup then got in by democratically elected. Is that a bad thing? As for the other, as always put up or shut up when it comes to making accusations.

As for the radio station issue.

I had a rummage around as usual. From what I understand he is shutting down any stations that are trying to destabalise the country or had a part in his kidnapping. This investigation into these stations has been ongoing for a couple of years now and its only recently they said they would not renew any such companies media licences.

Bare in mind this station is alleged to have helped in the coup to oust him. But it is famous for other gems of falsely reporting of Chavez supporters gunning down anti-chavez reporters (prior to the coup), declaring that Chavez had retired when they knew he had been kidnapped, yet had no problem airing the strikes daily.

He also doesn't seem to have an issue with any anti-chavez media outlets that don't suggest taking the country by force from the democratically elected leader.

So lets not get all "OMG HES CENSORING THEM!", they have known about this investigation and its outcome for years.

DadaKopf

Hobbes wrote:

He also doesn't seem to have an issue with any anti-chavez media outlets that don't suggest taking the country by force from the democratically elected leader.

So lets not get all "OMG HES CENSORING THEM!", they have known about this investigation and its outcome for years.

And most countries have laws which make it a crime - even treasonable offence - to publicly call/act towards the destruction of the state. So, if this channel was in Ireland, and it played an instrumental part in a Sinn Féin uprising, I'm sure action would have been taken by the state to defend itself.

sand wrote:

I'm curious though why all the Chavez fans are suddenly concerned about *this* development yet everything before was justified by the fact everyone in Venezeula who disagreed with Chavez was a millionaire CIA agent who hated democracy?

Ha. Speaking for myself, any time I've posted her about Chavez, I've always expressed concern of the way things could go. I've always been guardedly skeptical about the regime.

sand wrote:

Not surprised in the least - we are talking about a man who led a military coup, got into power on a populist ticket, gutted any legislative or constitutional check on his direct or indirect power, is forging militia to work against rival political movements and uses the time honoured technique of whipping up external threats and internal collaborators to justify his abuses of power.

Hmm. What other leaders fit this bill? De Valera, a terrorist who led a rebellion, became political and spiritual leader of Ireland, founded FF which is a populist party, founded the Irish Press to preach the word of his new Irish vision, pursued economic policies that concentrated on keeping out external threats - the UK.

Or what about GW Bush? Didn't stage a coup first, but gets 'elected' on a populist ticket as a classically charismatic leader with no real achievements, goes about removing important checks and balances through the Patriot Act among others, and to maintain political support and secure the interests of the minority elite, he whips up non-existent 'external threats' such as Saddam Hussein, and leads the invasion of Iraq whose objective is 'regime change'. A coup, in other words.

Ironically, while Saddam wasn't a threat, the US has a track-record of fomenting instability and actively attacking unfavoured Latin American regimes, including Venezuela.

Boston

Anyone remember that radio station in rwanda? You know the one that told people to butcher their neighbours?

DadaKopf

Yeah, great music, but I didn't like the morning show.

Boston

Estimates put the death toil at between 800,000 and a million men, women and children murder in what was eventually termed a genocide. It's one of the biggest if not the biggest failure by the UN in reacent years. In another thread you wondered why people didn't care about the congo wars, yet here you take this piss out of what happened in rwanda.

DadaKopf

You wanna get personal? Well, I won't.

Yes, Rwanda was a terrible episode. And the UN failed bigtime. Rather, Rwanda was the victim of the self-interest of the US, France and China - the US didn't want another Somalia, and France was busy making money from selling machetes made in the People's Republic.

And in Rwanda, as in most of Africa, the radio was the key instrument of education, propaganda and communication between Hutus. The radio station was never so explicit in the orders coming from the Red House, opting for symbolic language to allay Tutsis' and observers' fears. Which makes it difficult, generally speaking, to censor.

But this thread is about Venezuela.

In Venezuela, I imagine, among the elite middle-class TV and radio is used more for information, propaganda and entertainment. Communication, presumably, is through telephones and the internet, which the majority poor don't have access to. The poor, blacks and mestizos in Venezuela, by contrast, rely on TV and radio not only for information and propaganda, but for communication. Clearly, in Venezuela, the mass media is a powerful instrument for change, which is, presumably, why this issue has been seen as decisive in the country.

An irony though: Chavistas watch pro-government channels; anti-Chavistas watch anti-government channels. If neither watch each other's channels, what impact can the media possibly have? Is the only group that can be affected the middle-class?

Sand

I believe it was a failed coup then got in by democratically elected. Is that a bad thing?

Oh Im sure it's a good thing, Im sure he got a solid grounding in rule of law and the concept of democratic government from his attempts to circumvent election via hefty firepower. Just a shame he failed at the coup attempt, would have saved some time.

I had a rummage around as usual.....He also doesn't seem to have an issue with any anti-chavez media outlets that don't suggest taking the country by force from the democratically elected leader.

At the sources that arent afraid to tell it like it is? That everythings completely fine comrade?

I wandered over to Reporters Sans Frontiers [They may be millionaires in the employ of the CIA, but if so they appear to route the payments through the French government], to try and check out what they thought. According to their reports on the situation in Veneuzela, the main crime of the media appears to be not acting as a tool of Chavez, i.e. they ignored/downplayed Chavez's return to power and have not played stories as he might have wished. Theres no evidence the reporters and anchormen picked up their guns and wandered over to the Presidential Palace, or committed any illegal acts.

Now, this might be shocking to some political views, but media does not have to sing to a government hymn sheet. They can even be hostile to a government. Its called freedom of speech. The right to be wrong. Its a right that journalists exercise in Ireland where they regularly denounce government ministers and TDs as idiots, incompetents or malevolent and where they do their best to ignore positive achievements and sensationalise negative blows. Should Bertie bring in laws to harrass or ban media which destabilises the state by not running with stories as he wishes? Should Al Jazeera be banned because it doesnt play stories the way the White House wants?

Like I said, this issue or threat is relatively minor - its simply a symptom of the real problem and issue.

Ha. Speaking for myself, any time I've posted her about Chavez, I've always expressed concern of the way things could go. I've always been guardedly skeptical about the regime.

Grand, but like I said why are people upset about this relatively minor threat that might not even be followed through [ self censorship can be effected through threats alone]? The circumvention of judiciary, legislature and the resort to populism is a far greater threat to rule of law, individual liberties and democratic legitimacy in Veneuzela that simply one example of the results of the work Chavez has been doing since 1998.

Lets face it, if Chavez loses an election say 55-45 [I doubt it would get that far - stations are banned from releasing exit polls to prevent any result being challenged], he'll simply claim it was rigged, summon his supporters to save the Bolivarian revolution from the US imperialist lap dogs and hold on to power through force. Hes been steadily crushing every legal or constitutional impediment that might act against him.

Hmm. What other leaders fit this bill? De Valera, a terrorist who led a rebellion, became political and spiritual leader of Ireland, founded FF which is a populist party, founded the Irish Press to preach the word of his new Irish vision, pursued economic policies that concentrated on keeping out external threats - the UK.

Any leader could fit really if you want to make them fit. Ill sidestep invoking Godwins and limit myself to Mussolini, Franco, Mugabe - Mugabe of course being a fine example of the sort of charismatic type beloved by anti-imperialist types back in his hey day - Castro, Pinochet so on and so forth. Will Chavez end up as another Mugabe? Maybe, but I hope Im wrong for Venezeulas sake if nothing else.

I dont want to get into DeValera [ I think he was a disaster for Ireland, I hold that his coup was completely unnecessary, but I wouldnt accuse him of having the same respect for rule of law that Chavez has, and he tended to crush non-state paramilitaries, not organise and arm them] or Bush, not comparable [no coup (tricky for some to acknowledge I accept), a lousy leader he may be but as the recent elections and supreme court rulings have demonstrated hes not a dictator or even close to it except in various indymedia tirades].

Orizio

But is Chavez's method of judicial reform the right one? I don't know. And it's true that HRW (thanks for the link) comes from a particularly conservative point of view.

I don't think you'll find any sane person on this earth who thinks stuffing the Supreme Court with a certain parties cronies is a good thing.You are clearly intelligent, so I'm sure you'll agree that such an autocratic move is wrong whatever your rationalisations.

I would like to know as well where this 'conservative' remark comes from.Its clearly unsubstantiated and frankly bizarre.Please elaborate,or give some proof that my source is biased or inaccurate.

But this is what a rational government may do, but no government is entirely rational. And I do worry that Chavez's 'socialism for the 21st century', which I'm in many ways supportive of, is indeed transforming into 'neo-populism', a strange new hybrid of populism, socialism and neoliberalism.

That is indeed something we should all be worried about, although it seems clear that Chavez has been a populist for years.Such is the trend that exists throughout South and Latin America today.

But as always, democracy however nascent, is careful balance between forces within a particular country, and it's not so helpful to judge one country against another's standards when it comes to the fine detail. Maybe the Chavista strategy of judicial reform is OK in terms of the results it'll achieve.

You seem to believe as well, like neo-conservatives for example, that what matters is the end product not the actions that achieve the end product?

So you believe that percieved juidical faults(you haven't established that these faults existed prior to Chavez election but for the sake of the argument...) are going to be solved by illiberal and bullying tactics that help only to transfer juidical power from one elite to another?Is it safe for me to assume then that you feel Venezuela should be an autocracy and not a liberal democracy?

On the other hand, I don't see the point in angering the opposition by shutting them down. Go at them through the courts. But then, maybe they tried and that avenue didn't work.

The irony of this remark is really quite incredible.:rolleyes:

Voipjunkie

Don't democracies close radio and TV stations all the time

I remember quite recently a station in this country losing it license and indeed many unlicensed Stations around the country are closed and their equipment siezed.

And you don't have to go that far back to remember a TV network in the UK having been closed down after it had the audacity to air a program the government did not like. (Thames, Death on the Rock)

Not to mention the censorship that prevailed in this country under section 31 when the government decided who wwe should and should not be allowed to hear.


My understanding is that this station played an integral part in the attempted coup and overthrow of a democratically elected Government the shocking part is that it has remained open this long.
Does anyone seriously believe that if TV3 or Newstalk played an integral part in an attempt to overthrow our democratically elected government that they would be allowed to continue broadcasting not a hope.

Voipjunkie

Orizio wrote:

I don't think you'll find any sane person on this earth who thinks stuffing the Supreme Court with a certain parties cronies is a good thing.You are clearly intelligent, so I'm sure you'll agree that such an autocratic move is wrong whatever your rationalisations.

That is what happens in this country the PDs are in power we end up with Adrian Hardiman a former member of the PDs and lifelong friend of the minister for Justice Micheal McDowell is appointed to the supreme court.

Fianna Fail appoints its cronies to the bench

When Pat Rabbite was last in Government a former TD and at that time a serving DL city councillor was appointed to the Bench no doubt if Pat returns to power after May Pat MacCartan will be in line for a promotion to the High or Perhaps Supreme court.

Judge Moriarty who delivered his recent report in the payments for politicians was a lifelong member of the Labour Party before he was appointed to the bench.

bjj-fighter

Chavez is no liability.Viva Chavez,Viva Fidel Long live communism

Sand

Good news, Chavez is apparently going to have his tame congress expand his ability to rule by decree. Well, I guess if youre that popular and one with the people why bother with a legislature? What we need is a strong, decisive visionary leader for Venezeula who doesnt need to be bothered with details like decisions reached by political consensus because he already knows what the people are thinking without having to ask them.

Personally I'm hoping Bertie will introduce similar powers for himself in Ireland so he can skip the whole Dail sideshow and get down to sorting Ireland out. Those TDs are just a bloody distraction with their questions and voting against his policies.

democrates

Sand wrote:

Good news, Chavez is apparently going to have his tame congress expand his ability to rule by decree. Well, I guess if youre that popular and one with the people why bother with a legislature? What we need is a strong, decisive visionary leader for Venezeula who doesnt need to be bothered with details like decisions reached by political consensus because he already knows what the people are thinking without having to ask them.

Personally I'm hoping Bertie will introduce similar powers for himself in Ireland so he can skip the whole Dail sideshow and get down to sorting Ireland out. Those TDs are just a bloody distraction with their questions and voting against his policies.

When the constitution was first revised and five branches of government introduced, legislative power was transferred to him, not the peoples branch, this looks like another round of the same.

From that article:

Swearing in his cabinet two days before his own inauguration, Mr Chavez explained that the new era would be backed by "five engines", which would:

[*]allow him to rule by decree for a year
[*]lead to socialist constitutional reforms
[*]reinforce popular education
[*]change the "geometry of power" or the way political, social, economic and military power is distributed across the territory
[*]lead to the "explosion of communal councils" In the same address, Mr Chavez also announced he would nationalise key businesses, declared himself a Trotskyist and cited the ideas of Marx and Lenin.

An optimist can take Rule by decree for a year as an interim measure to get key measures implemented quickly while waiting for the "explosion of communal councils" which would change the geometry of power by giving more power to the people, an initiative which will take time.

However, with a taste of ruling by decree like a royal of yore, will he follow through and transfer power to the councils? Given he has such little tolerance for a legislature, I have grave doubts.

Hobbes

Sand wrote:

Good news, Chavez is apparently going to have his tame congress expand his ability to rule by decree.

First up he hasn't actually gotten it yet.

Secondly this is nothing new. He was approved "Rule by decree" before back in 2001.

It always has to be approved by congress and then for a set time frame.

So far all I've seen is "OMG He is becoming a dictator" type scarmongering press. Funny you don't see many reporting how inflation is lowest since 1998, unemployment is way down in the country, increased the minimum wage, invested more in teaching staff for the country (40% pay increase coming).

Orizio

Yes and you don't hear a whole lot about the rising crime rates in the country, the crippling corruption and his distinctly illiberal juidical reforms.

Maybe the 'press' is just incompetent?

irish_bob

the only people who have a problem with chavez are american big business
the usa has always regarded south america as its backyard and while chavez is absolutly no threat to the usa , he is a major pain in the ass to u,s business interests in venezuela , chavez recently announced that he wished to nationalise a phone company there which is owned by a virgina in the usa based company
the fear in the u,s is that chavez example could spread through out latin america , it finally looks like thier old latin bogeyman fidel was about to bite the dust when up pops chavez to take the batton
i see fox news try and scare the gop heartland each day by selling the lie that chavez is allowing terrorists a base in his country
chavez as prooved at the u,n last yr is an eccentric clown in some ways but he is hardly anything resembling a global threat

democrates

irish_bob wrote:

the only people who have a problem with chavez are american big business
the usa has always regarded south america as its backyard and while chavez is absolutly no threat to the usa , he is a major pain in the ass to u,s business interests in venezuela , chavez recently announced that he wished to nationalise a phone company there which is owned by a virgina in the usa based company
the fear in the u,s is that chavez example could spread through out latin america , it finally looks like thier old latin bogeyman fidel was about to bite the dust when up pops chavez to take the batton
i see fox news try and scare the gop heartland each day by selling the lie that chavez is allowing terrorists a base in his country
chavez as prooved at the u,n last yr is an eccentric clown in some ways but he is hardly anything resembling a global threat

He also plans to privatise an oil facility in the Orinoco delta (possibly motivated by Enya - that's not confirmed as I just made it up).

I conject he's doing it for two reasons, first a genuine belief in having key strategic assets in state hands so the public interest is served first (as we Irish realised was not such a bad thing as the implications of the Telecom Eireann privatisation unfolded), second an attempt to neutralise a threat to his power - the last oil strike was a pretty unstable time over there. His rhetoric about Marx, Lenin, and Trotsky may just be branding to make it look like ideology is the prime motivator rather than power play. Wish I could mind-read.

While the public response from others is "affected companies better be adequately compensated" it will be interesting to see what value they expect, just the goose or future golden eggs foregone. (Aside: If the latter that should also make interesting input into arrangements negotiated elsewhere)

If this practice spreads to other significant profit bases a lot of foreign wealth concentators will be more gung-ho than ever to get Chavez out, and they're not just dominant in America they have puppet politicians over the FDI barrel accross the globe.

If Chavez is genuine in his intentions and that's a serious if, Venezuela may be turn out to be a very important test case for an alternative to capitalism, but they can't go it alone and he knows it. It remains to be seen if he simply replicates the Soviet failure which also featured local councils, good education, and privatised industry, or if he opts for something approximating Swiss Democracy and Lenins New Economic Programme which Stalin reversed. Peace in our time?

Sand

First up he hasn't actually gotten it yet.

Secondly this is nothing new. He was approved "Rule by decree" before back in 2001.

Im pretty sure I said expand tbh. Anyway, what are you saying here? That he hasnt got it yet? Or that he already has it?

And how do you reconcile Chavez's popularity and democratic mandate with his desire for rule by decree? You might be sympathetic to left wing economic idealogy but doesnt it bother you in the slightest that hes basically trampling all over the concept of diffuse power which has served Europe & the US relatively well? Are we really back to the hero worship of enlightened tyrants?

Why does he need to rule by decree if his democratic mandate is such that passing legislation would be routine? Why risk discrediting and undermining democratic norms in Veneuzela? Would you like to see rule by decree introduced into Ireland? Do you think it would be good or bad for the democratic process here?

It always has to be approved by congress and then for a set time frame.

Like the Enabling Act then?

the only people who have a problem with chavez are american big business

Or anyone who values the concept of checks and balances and individual liberties.

If this practice spreads to other significant profit bases a lot of foreign wealth concentators will be more gung-ho than ever to get Chavez out, and they're not just dominant in America they have puppet politicians over the FDI barrel accross the globe.

The vast majority of oil fields and companies are state owned. Despite the image "big oil" is very much the exception, not the rule.

His rhetoric about Marx, Lenin, and Trotsky may just be branding to make it look like ideology is the prime motivator rather than power play. Wish I could mind-read.

The oil funds his programs so either way - power or idealogy, he is best served by holding the reins himself. If oil continues it decline in value [full credit to Bush and his team for their work on reducing the price of oil, we gave them stick when they forced it to rise, but credit where its due....] he may get into a wee bit of bother and start having to print money to fund the revolution. He has been making noises about the independance of the central bank with this in mind Id think.

Voipjunkie

Sand wrote:

Personally I'm hoping Bertie will introduce similar powers for himself in Ireland so he can skip the whole Dail sideshow and get down to sorting Ireland out. Those TDs are just a bloody distraction with their questions and voting against his policies.

I wonder does Chavez turn up for Questions on a Thursday

The Dail is largely irrelevant in this country it offers no oversight and is absolutely useless at holding people to account.

As Enda and Pat demonstrated when Bertie stayed on despite admitting trousering large ammounts of money from businessmen.


What makes me laugh is that people look suspiciously at Chavez and never a thought to our own pretence at democracy.

Hundreds of thousands on the electoral register who are either registered more than once or dead.
Business men giving large amounts of money to the leader and being rewarded with positions in state companies.
State controlled television
A lame duck parliament.
Multiple Radio stations controlled by a man who has left the country so he does not pay tax.
Majority of newspapers controlled by one company.
Corrupt police force.
A judiciary that makes judgments based on a radio phone in program.
People left lying on trollies in dirty hospitals


No not in south America right here welcome to Ireland

Hobbes

Orizio wrote:

Yes and you don't hear a whole lot about the rising crime rates in the country, the crippling corruption and his distinctly illiberal juidical reforms.

Maybe the 'press' is just incompetent?

Well hows about filling us in on the details then?

I wonder does Chavez turn up for Questions on a Thursday

Afair he has a tv show where people ring in. Not sure if he still does it.

Im pretty sure I said expand tbh. Anyway, what are you saying here? That he hasnt got it yet? Or that he already has it?

From the news reports I read he is only going to congress to get a rule of decree on 13th. There has been no update as to if he got it or not that I can see. Do you know?

And how do you reconcile Chavez's popularity and democratic mandate with his desire for rule by decree?

Democracy and "rule by decree" are not mutually exclusive. There are a number of other democracies that have similar or same laws with similar limitations. France, USA, Mexico spring to mind.

Do you think it would be good or bad for the democratic process here?

Comparing apples to oranges tbh.

The Corinthian

Hobbes wrote:

Democracy and "rule by decree" are not mutually exclusive.

LOL. People’s capacity for self-deception is hilarious.

Chavez was always prone to become a full-fledged dictator. That’s not to say he will, but given his pre-presidential history, the cult of personality he’s fostered and his increasingly authoritarian attitudes, make if far, far more likely than not.

The problem here is that he’s also become a Socialist hero. He’s given hope to a new generation of ideologists who have been moping around depressed ever since 1989, when the wall came down in Berlin and it turned out that Socialism wasn’t such a brilliant system after all.

So if he does go down the road of dictator for life – which frankly is more than likely – what we’re going to increasingly see is the following process in discussions here over time:

1. Denial. He’s not a dictator. The media is biased. They’re all lies, lies, lies!
   
2. Avoidance. Would people stop concentrating on his faults and look at what he’s done for the poor in Venezuela? At least he’s standing up against the US!
   
3. Justification. He had to suspend democratic rights to save the country from right-wing death squads. He only imprisoned/tortured/killed bad people!

lostexpectation

her's one... the 'opposition' would be worse

DadaKopf

Democracy and "rule by decree" are not mutually exclusive.

Ah, come on now. Rule by decree is simply dictatorship by one entity or another. But we'd be all fooling ourselves if we thought we all lived in ideal democracies. I can't see how a democrat could ever justify someone making decisions on behalf of others with no, or very little, accountability to citizens. If Chavez is over-stepping the mark, he's overstepping the mark.

The Corinthian wrote:

The problem here is that he’s also become a Socialist hero. He’s given hope to a new generation of ideologists who have been moping around depressed ever since 1989, when the wall came down in Berlin and it turned out that Socialism wasn’t such a brilliant system after all.

Let's not confuse the moral argument for socialism, or socialisms, with failed practise. In my opinion, redistribution and the creation of a more equal society is just. Soviet communism was a decrepit web of corruption and exploitation. But in a Western liberal economic context, socialism has done very well to save capitalism from itself, as J. K. Galbraith said. There is a very strong connection between stable economic and social development and higher levels of equality in a society. The economic argument goes: the more unequal, and hence, poor a society is, the less space there is for further growth, and so on. The only difference today is that equality hasn't been embraced, capitalist's inherent problem with this has simply been outsourced.

In terms of Chavez and Venezuela, though, I've always said that he will have a tough time avoiding the mistakes of past Latin American populism. And there it goes, the problem in Venezuela isn't Chavez' declared attempt to fuse capitalism and socialism (social democracy), but rather the political forces that undermine it. Presumably Venezuela would develop very nicely if 80% of the population earned more, could spend more and have a stake in the country's fortunes. Venezuela's political power structures are to blame here, and Chavez may well be falling in the same traps as before.

Ninners

Personally speaking I have great respect for Chavez what with the reforms he has made to the public health-care system and the social welfare system in Venezula.

But i certainly think not renewing the licence of an opposition tv-station is a bad political move in terms of th respect and support he has from EU poloticians and people. I think he is playing right into the hands of the American administration by doing this. Now they will be able to say that Chavez is censoring the media and therefore a threat to democracy and American security!

The Corinthian

DadaKopf wrote:

Let's not confuse the moral argument for socialism, or socialisms, with failed practise.

Neither should you confuse a simplistic principle with a moral argument.

But in a Western liberal economic context, socialism has done very well to save capitalism from itself, as J. K. Galbraith said.

No argument there. However, that simply serves to demonstrate that Socialism is useful as a moderator to Liberal Capitalism, not as an economic system in itself.

There is a very strong connection between stable economic and social development and higher levels of equality in a society.

Since when? The US, for example, has vast inequalities, yet has the largest and most developed economy in the World, while the USSR and much of the Warsaw pact countries had a good degree of equality and disastrous economies.

In terms of Chavez and Venezuela, though, I've always said that he will have a tough time avoiding the mistakes of past Latin American populism. And there it goes, the problem in Venezuela isn't Chavez' declared attempt to fuse capitalism and socialism (social democracy), but rather the political forces that undermine it. Presumably Venezuela would develop very nicely if 80% of the population earned more, could spend more and have a stake in the country's fortunes. Venezuela's political power structures are to blame here, and Chavez may well be falling in the same traps as before.

Didn’t take you long to get to the justification stage.

DadaKopf

Justification? I don't know about that. But given that the Venezuelan government is improving things in some circumstances, and disimproving things in others, and admitting that I don't know the full picture, I'm making a point of exercising extreme caution in my judgements about Chavez and the Venezuelan government.

But, as I went through the poverty reduction figures ages ago in another thread, the indicators actually look good. On the other hand, there are concerns about the country falling into populism once again, a terribly tragic political phenomenon.

Neither should you confuse a simplistic principle with a moral argument.

Can the principle of egalitarianism ever be detached from a moral argument? You just split the to for the sake of making a rhetorical point. Which is meaningless. My morality and my principles go hand in hand. Don't yours?

The Corinthian

DadaKopf wrote:

Justification? I don't know about that. But given that the Venezuelan government is improving things in some circumstances, and disimproving things in others, and admitting that I don't know the full picture, I'm making a point of exercising extreme caution in my judgements about Chavez and the Venezuelan government.

I’ve no doubt they’re improving things in some circumstances, the question however is whether those circumstances justify (or whether anything should justify) those things that are not improving or even disimproving. After all, otherwise you’re really just giving us another version of the “at least he made the trains run on time” justification.

But, as I went through the poverty reduction figures ages ago in another thread, the indicators actually look good.

Source?

Can the principle of egalitarianism ever be detached from a moral argument?

I never suggested that is should be detached, only that it is simplistic. Egalitarianism is a noble goal in itself, but its single-minded pursuit (or imposition) can cause more misery than good. The problem arises that egalitarianism and the pursuit of happiness can of often be at odds with each other, something that Socialism tends to reject and so no implementation, given this, would ever solve this.

Probably an off topic point, though.

Orizio

Hobbes wrote:

Well hows about filling us in on the details then?

Naturally...

Venezuela is 141 out of 163, behind the likes of Ethiopia and Iran below.

Corruption(Click the TI Corruption Perceptions Index 2006 media pack, its in PDF)

Venezuela, a country of 26 million, has recorded an average of nearly 10,000 homicides a year since Chavez took office. The homicide rate, 37 deaths per 100,000 people, is more than double what it was in the 1990s.

Crime Rates 1.

Caracas has become South America's most violent capital. Worse, the police are themselves suspects in many of the killings. The public prosecutor's office says it is investigating over 6,000 alleged “extra-judicial executions” by police. The brothers were kidnapped by men in police uniform, as was a businessman kidnapped and murdered last month. Two dozen policemen are currently awaiting trial for killing three students, and wounding three others, who failed to stop at a roadblock.

The vast majority of murders take place in the anonymity of the slums, and never come to public attention. According to some accounts, gang-members have been recruited into the police to enforce political control rather than fight crime.

Crime Rates 2.

Asked which country in South America has the worst track record for murder, most observers would probably respond Colombia. However, Venezuela now appears to have snatched the grisly title of homicide record-breaker.

The country has been gripped by an outpouring of public anger in the past week over a spate of execution-style murders that have underscored a view among locals that President Hugo Chávez has lost control over spiralling crime.

Similar crimes committed with the apparent complicity of police officers have become increasingly common in recent months, while the frequency of murders is rising. Police figures show that there were 11,900 homicides during 2003, equal to 46.5 per 100,000, the last figures available since the government ordered the police to stop releasing weekly crime statistics.

The homicide rate was about 20 per 100,000 in the 1990s but began to soar in 2000. Crime experts believe the annual homicide rate has remained the same since it officially peaked in 2003, or may have risen. (When did Chavez come to power again?)

Venezuela’s fatal crime rate exceeds that of Colombia, where there were 17,726 murders last year, equivalent to 40.8 homicides per 100,000. Colombia’s population is about 43.4m, that of Venezuela about 25.6m.

Crime Rates 3.

The Venezuelan government is undermining the independence of the country’s judiciary ahead of a presidential recall referendum that may ultimately be decided in the courts, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today. President Chávez’s governing coalition has begun implementing a new court-packing law that will strip the Supreme Court of its autonomy.

Juidical Reform.

DadaKopf

I never suggested that is should be detached, only that it is simplistic. Egalitarianism is a noble goal in itself, but its single-minded pursuit (or imposition) can cause more misery than good. The problem arises that egalitarianism and the pursuit of happiness can of often be at odds with each other, something that Socialism tends to reject and so no implementation, given this, would ever solve this.

Blah, blah, blah. :rolleyes:

Source?

Search yourself. The most recent other discussion on Venezuela.

The Corinthian

DadaKopf wrote:

Blah, blah, blah. :rolleyes:

Well, you asked. If you don't like hearing it don't do so in future.

Search yourself. The most recent other discussion on Venezuela.

Of course. I'll take your word for it too.

mike65

Chaves continues his drive to take total control of the state

Mike.

purple'n'gold

Mr. Chavez is living on borrowed time, the Americans will not put up with his shenanigans much longer.

bobbyjoe

purplengold wrote:

Mr. Chavez is living on borrowed time, the Americans will not put up with his shenanigans mush longer.

Whats it to them what Chavez does?
All he's harming is perhaps the multinationals who operate in South America and they don't run the US do they?

purple'n'gold

bobbyjoe wrote:

Whats it to them what Chavez does?
All he's harming is perhaps the multinationals who operate in South America and they don't run the US do they?

The Americans don’t like pseudo communists operating in their back yard. And they regard Venezuela as their back yard. Also, Venezuela has lots of oil, and just look at what the USA done to Iraq to secure the oil there.

nacho libre

The CIA are probably working on a way to assassinate him that makes it appear he died from natural causes. They'll show the Russians how it is done.;)

bobbyjoe

purplengold wrote:

The Americans don’t like pseudo communists operating in their back yard. And they regard Venezuela as their back yard. Also, Venezuela has lots of oil, and just look at what the USA done to Iraq to secure the oil there.

Doubt they care much about the welfare of "freedom" of the people there its always about oil and mony. They had no problem with all the right wing compliant dictators.

purple'n'gold

The USA could not care less about freedom or democracy in other countries. To see Bush making speeches about it is stomach churning. Their only criteria are how it affects America. They are concerned big time about oil supplies, hence the rape of Iraq. And they will not hesitate to overthrow Chavez, they won’t do it overtly of course, but the CIA has ways and means. And plenty of practise.