Venezualen Navy claims to have detected a nuclear submarine.

[evilsoup]

Is it 'populist' to implement widespread reforms for the benefit of the vast majority of his people? How is that a bad thing - isn't that the whole point of democracy, to get leaders who represent the interests of everyone?

As far as I can tell, there has never been any doubt as to the fairness of his elections. Abolishing term limits to stay in power is definitely dodgy opportunism - but then, he did put the constitutional amendment to a national referendum, so you couldn't really argue that it was undemocratic.

Compare this to his opponents, who can't win an election because of their scummy policies: so they tried to overthrow him in a military coup (which actually succeeded, only for massive public demonstrations in favour of Chavez to force the fuckers to back down), then conspired to create a strike in the naitionalised oil company to try and force Chavez to call an early election ... and only after these underhanded, illegal methods failed did they force a recall election - which Chavez won handily.

I mean, he's obviously not perfect, but he seems like a pretty good leader to me.

[Bakustra]

Zentai, can you elaborate on this assertion, please ? I don't say you're wrong, but political matters are really subjective, so...

Zentei hates socialism, so Chavez's policies of nationalization and land reform cannot be considered good by any means, and his policies on human and civil rights are admittedly uneven, though, for example, criticisms of press freedom in Venezuela tend to revolve around the shocking crime of not renewing the broadcast license of a station that actively worked to overthrow him. Also, he's crazy because he says that the US might be in a dominating position over Latin America. Basically, a lot of complaints about Chavez may well rely on his opposition- but his opposition includes a number of anti-democratic organizations, so one wonders as to their truthfulness when they're willing to suspend democratic government and call for the US to invade.

This ignores that he's managed to halve poverty in Venezuela (and hasn't nationalized large amounts of the economy) and hasn't caused economic disasters, of course but I'm sure that those are all around the corner.

Why all the hate for Chavez? I mean I haven't looked that much into him, but as far as I can tell he has okay policies. Is it just that he's prone to gaffes?

It's mostly that he's one of those president-for-life types who like to wipe their ass with their country's constitution and make up for it with rah-rah bullshit fake-patriotism. He's got most of the unendearing traits of someone like George Bush, plus some extra ones to make him more annoying and dumb.

I mean, it takes a special kind of contemptible politico to come into office and push a new constitution with term limits (1999), then abolish the term limits as soon as you personally would have to step down because of them (2009). Chavez did that.

He doesn't lose points in my eyes for being anti-US, but neither does he gain any, and if you don't like him because of his opposition to the US and his loud proclamations of his own populist intentions, there's not a lot to like him for.

You are aware that term limits were removed by national referendum, right? Every election and referendum he's faced has seen him win with greater support than any US president since WWII (higher voter turnouts mean that even the 54% victory in the referendum is actually a larger base of support than exists in the US). I'm also not sure why you'd say that he's "wiping his ass with [Venezuela's] constitution" apart from that, unless you're enamored with the sacred status of the US Constitution which has left it incredibly difficult to modify. Unless you're talking about his human rights records, but his record is mixed on those.

[Lord Zentei]

Zentai, can you elaborate on this assertion, please ? I don't say you're wrong, but political matters are really subjective, so...

Zentei hates socialism, <blah blah blah>

This ignores that <blah blah blah>

How about if you speak for yourself, and allow others to do the same, you trolling little shit?

[evilsoup]

Well Zentai, what do you dislike about Chavez?

[Lord Zentei]

Who has he oppressed (as in: sending the secret police to beat them up, or using riot police to stop their peaceful demonstrations)? Apart from multinational corporations (and fuck those guys), who has he disinherited?

Apart from the fact that these kinds of shenanigans have a way of undermining investment in a country, Chavez's rampant dictatorial attitudes include the suppression of opposition candidates and muzzling speech that doesn't agree with him. But doubtless you don't want to hear it from me, so perhaps you'll believe Noam Chomski when he says it:

Linka

Hugo Chávez has long considered Noam Chomsky one of his best friends in the west. He has basked in the renowned scholar's praise for Venezuela's socialist revolution and echoed his denunciations of US imperialism.

Venezuela's president, who hasrevealed that he has had surgery in Cuba to remove a cancerous tumour, turned one of Chomsky's books into an overnight bestseller after brandishing it during a UN speech. He hosted Chomsky in Caracas with smiles and pomp. Earlier this year Chávez even suggested Washington make Chomsky the US ambassador to Venezuela.

The president may be about to have second thoughts about that, because his favourite intellectual has now turned his guns on Chávez.

Speaking to the Observer last week, Chomsky has accused the socialist leader of amassing too much power and of making an "assault" on Venezuela's democracy.

"Concentration of executive power, unless it's very temporary and for specific circumstances, such as fighting world war two, is an assault on democracy. You can debate whether [Venezuela's] circumstances require it: internal circumstances and the external threat of attack, that's a legitimate debate. But my own judgment in that debate is that it does not."

Chomsky, a linguistics professor at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, spoke on the eve of publishing an open letter (see below) that accuses Venezuela's authorities of "cruelty" in the case of a jailed judge.

The self-described libertarian socialist says the plight of María Lourdes Afiuni is a "glaring exception" in a time of worldwide cries for freedom. He urges Chávez to release her in "a gesture of clemency" for the sake of justice and human rights.

Chomsky reveals he has lobbied Venezuela's government behind the scenes since late last year after being approached by the Carr centre for human rights policy at Harvard University. Afiuni earned Chávez's ire in December 2009 by freeing Eligio Cedeño, a prominent banker facing corruption charges. Cedeño promptly fled the country.

In a televised broadcast the president, who had taken a close interest in the case, called the judge a criminal and demanded she be jailed for 30 years. "That judge has to pay for what she has done."

Afiuni, 47, a single mother with cancer, spent just over a year in jail, where she was assaulted by other prisoners. In January, authorities softened her confinement to house arrest pending trial for corruption, which she denies.

"Judge Afiuni has suffered enough," states Chomsky's letter. "She has been subject to acts of violence and humiliations to undermine her human dignity. I am convinced that she must be set free."

Amnesty International and the European parliament, among others, have condemned the judge's treatment but the intervention of a scholar considered a friend of the Bolivarian revolution, which is named after the hero of Venezuelan independence, Simón Bolívar, is likely to sting even more.

Speaking from his home in Boston, Chomsky said Chávez, who has been in power for 12 years, appeared to have intimidated the judicial system. "I'm sceptical that [Afiuni] could receive a fair trial. It's striking that, as far as I understand, other judges have not come out in support of her … that suggests an atmosphere of intimidation."

He also faulted Chávez for adopting enabling powers to circumvent the national assembly. "Anywhere in Latin America there is a potential threat of the pathology of caudillismo [authoritarianism] and it has to be guarded against. Whether it's over too far in that direction in Venezuela I'm not sure, but I think perhaps it is. A trend has developed towards the centralisation of power in the executive which I don't think is a healthy development."

Chomsky expressed concern over Chávez's cancer and wished the president a full and prompt recovery.

Chomsky's book Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance became a publishing sensation after Chávez waved a copy during a UN address in 2006 famous for his denunciation of President George W Bush as a devil.

Its author remains fiercely critical of the US, which he said had tortured Bradley Manning, alleged source of the diplomatic cables exposed by WikiLeaks, and continued to wage a "vicious, unremitting" campaign against Venezuela.

The Chávez government deserved credit for sharply reducing poverty and for its policies of promoting self-governing communities and Latin American unity, Chomsky said. "It's hard to judge how successful they are, but if they are successful they would be seeds of a better world."

Leonardo Vivas, co-ordinator of Latin American initiatives at the Carr Centre, said that Afiuni's case was the most prominent example of the erosion of justice in several Latin American countries. The centre hoped that Caracas would now heed Chomsky.

"He is one of the most important public intellectuals in the US and is respected by the Venezuelan government."

The decision to lobby publicly was taken because quiet diplomacy had limits, said Vivas.

Chávez, who is convalescing in Cuba, has a reputation for lashing back at criticism, raising the risk that the Afiuni initative could backfire.

"That could happen," said Vivas. "But that would mean recognition of the problem."
Chomsky's letter
Judge María Lourdes Afiuni has suffered enough

With this public letter I want to express my open support of the liberty of judge María Lourdes Afiuni, detained in Venezuela since December 2009. In November of last year I was informed of her situation by the Latin American initiative of the Carr Centre for human rights policy at Harvard University. Ever since, I have been directly involved in mediation efforts with the Venezuelan government, with the purpose of releasing her from prison through a gesture of clemency by President Chávez.

Judge Afiuni had my sympathy and solidarity from the very beginning. The way she was detained, the inadequate conditions of her imprisonment, the degrading treatment she suffered in the Instituto Nacional de Orientación Femenina, the dramatic erosion of her health and the cruelty displayed against her, all duly documented, left me greatly worried about her physical and psychological wellbeing, as well as about her personal safety.

Those reasons motivated me in December 2010 to address, jointly with the Carr Centre, a petition for an official pardon from the president in the context of the yearly presidential amnesties.

In January I received with relief the news that Venezuela's attorney general had suggested house arrest for judge Afiuni given her fragile health condition, which ended up with emergency surgery. Being in her house with her family and with adequate medical attention has been without doubt a significant improvement of her situation.

However, judge Afiuni has suffered enough. She has been subject to acts of violence and humiliations to undermine her human dignity. I am convinced that she must be set free, not only due to her physical and psychological health conditions, but in conformance with the human dignity the Bolivarian revolution presents as a goal. In times of worldwide cries for freedom, the detention of María Lourdes Afiuni stands out as a glaring exception that should be remedied quickly, for the sake of justice and human rights generally and for affirming an honourable role for Venezuela in these struggles.

For the above reasons I want Venezuelans to be aware of my total solidarity with judge Afiuni, while I affirm my unwavering commitment with the efforts advanced by the Carr Centre in Harvard University to release her from imprisonment. At the same time, I shall keep high hopes that President Chávez will consider a humanitarian act that will end the judge's detention.

As for the economic aspect of things and the reasons why he consistently gains support, it's easy to pay for populist programs when you're an oil exporter and the price of oil is soaring. But that doesn't mean that you're doing anything particularly right.

Linka

The commanding heights: Just before being sworn in for a third term, Chvez announced a major round of nationalizations.

On December 3, President Hugo Chvez was reelected by Venezuelans to a third term with the support of nearly 63 percent of voters. Most observers quickly attributed Chvezs victory to support among the countrys poor, stemming from his strategy of broadly redistributing Venezuelas oil wealth.

The myth that Chvez has redirected Venezuelas priorities toward the poor is so widespread that it is even commonplace among his critics. But there is a problem with this diagnosis of Chvezs success: It isnt true. Most existing statistics do not show significant improvements in either the well-being of or the share of resources being directed to Venezuelas most disadvantaged citizens. And the few statistics that do appear to support this notion are so filled with inconsistencies that they cant be trusted.

The most commonly cited statistic in defense of the Chvez-helps-the-poor hypothesis is the decrease in poverty rates, from 42.8 percent when he took office in 1999 to 33.9 percent in 2006. But this decrease is neither unprecedented nor surprising, given that the Venezuelan economy is in the midst of an economic expansion fueled by a five-fold increase in global oil prices since his first term began. Historically, drastic declines in poverty in Venezuela are associated with periods of substantial real exchange appreciation similar to the current one. The last such episode, which lasted from 1996 to 1998, coincided with an even larger decline in the poverty rate, from 64.3 percent to 43.9 percent. The fact that Venezuela is presently running a fiscal deficit despite unprecedented global oil prices signals that the current improvement, just like previous ones, will sooner or later be reversed.

A full reading of Venezuelas health and education statistics shows no signs of the dramatic turnaround in well-being often claimed by the Chvez government and its supporters. For instance, the percentage of newborns who are underweight actually increased from 8.4 to 8.8 percent between 1999 and 2004. The infant mortality rate has declined, but it has been declining steadily since the 1940s. There isnt even much evidence that the government is trying to do more for the poor. The average share of social spending, excluding social security, has actually decreased during the Chvez administration (29.3 percent for the period from 1999 to 2004, in contrast to 31.5 percent for period from 1990 to 1998 before Chvez was in office).

The biggest challenge to evaluating Chvezs success in poverty reduction is disentangling fantasy from reality in official announcements and data. One example is the governments claim of having eradicated illiteracy by teaching 1.5 million Venezuelans how to read and write. Several colleagues and I analyzed the veracity of this claim by studying official Venezuelan government data. According to our estimates, in the second school semester of 2005, there were still 1,014,441 illiterate Venezuelans over the age of 15, only slightly less than the estimate of 1,107,793 people at the start of the program. Even this small reduction can be traced back primarily to changes in the demographic composition of the population.

Similar inconsistencies can be found almost everywhere in the government claims. The administration says it mobilized more than 3 percent of the labor force to work in social programs called misiones, but official employment statistics show no evidence that these people were ever employed, and official budget figures show no evidence that they were ever paid. Estimates of the percentage of Venezuelans with access to sanitation services derived from government data are also inconsistent with official claims of large improvements.

But if Chvezs social policies are not working, why did he win such a clear victory in the December elections? The explanation lies largely in Venezuelas economic growth. The country has experienced three straight years of near-double-digit growth, partly because of the recovery from the 2003 national strike and partly because of the dramatic increase in worldwide oil prices. If there is one universal rule of voting behavior, it is that incumbents do well when the economy is growing.

That high economic growth would obviously be a point in favor of Chvez if it werent so clearly unsustainable. Despite a five-fold expansion in oil prices, Venezuela is currently running a fiscal deficit projected at 2.3 percent for 2006. A decline in oil prices, or perhaps even something less dramatic, will make this house of cards come tumbling down. When it does, it will be the Venezuelan poor who will pay the heaviest price.

And when that time comes, Venezuelans of all stripes may have no choice but to accept Chvezs continued rule. He has used his time in office, and his countrys ample resources, to consolidate a formidable political machinery whose power is based not only on its ability to hand out rewards to supporters, but also to punish its opponents by systematically denying them access to employment and public services. Every arm of the state, from the tax collection agency to the judicial system, is being used to ensure that Chvezs opponents pay a high cost for their political opinions.

The centerpiece of this system is the elaborate Maisanta database, an electronic registry of the political allegiances of 12.4 million Venezuelans. In what Venezuelan economist Ana Julia Jatar has termed a 21st century apartheid, the list is routinely used by government offices to screen job applicants and those seeking social assistance. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights is currently processing 780 cases of political discrimination against signers of the petition to hold the 2004 recall referendum. Only time will tell whether Chvezs elaborate system for the suppression of dissent will be sufficient to counteract the effect of an economic downturn. In the meantime, another oil boom will have been squandered and another chance for Venezuelas development will have been thrown into the dustbin.

By the way, poverty was already dropping in Venezuela before Chavez got into power (evidence). Chavez becomes president in 1999, poverty rates had dropped from the high 60s to the mid 40s in the two years before he got into power; he maintained that momentum albeit at a slower rate.

[evilsoup]

Thank you for actually giving some useful information, like I said I haven't really looked that much into Chavez and so didn't really have a strong opinion about him either way. The economic stuff - well, I'm sure there'll be plenty of people to disagree with that analysis. 'Centralisation of power' is worrying, but not damning. But attacking the judiciary like that is completely unacceptable.

[Lord Zentei]

Centralization of power is very much damning; especially when he's riding a wave of populist support to amend the constitution in his favour to do so, all the while reducing the influence of the assembly. It's no longer about democracy, and has become about his own ego.

If you aren't inclined to believe economic analysis, there's not much more to say on that front.

[Rabid]

Disclaimer : I'm not condoning in any way what is happening to this lady, but...

... We are given no details on what she is accused of exactly, outside of "accusations of corruption" (which can be everything and nothing). What we know is that she had a bad health, was sent to prison nonetheless, and suffered abuse and humiliation from the hand of other inmates, and possibly from some of the guardians. Conditions of detention I'm ready to bet are pretty much the standard for Venezuelan inmates ; as they are already more or less the standard for French inmates...

My point is : It could well be, for all we know, that she is in fact guilty as charged, and that her conditions of detention aren't designed to be cruel or inhuman, but just what they are for any other Venezuelan inmates. A taste of equality, if you want to be cynical about it.

[evilsoup]

It's not so much that I won't believe the economic analysis, just that I'd have to look into it a bit before making up my mind on it. But as for my opinion on Chavez himself - yeah, attacks on the judiciary rate pretty high on my 'fuck that'-ometer. So fuck him.

[Simon_Jester]

Is it 'populist' to implement widespread reforms for the benefit of the vast majority of his people? How is that a bad thing - isn't that the whole point of democracy, to get leaders who represent the interests of everyone?

I don't mind that he does things that are popular among the people of his country.

I mind that he seems to be in favor of democracy only when it is personally convenient for him to do so. I mind the size of his ego, his attempts to make himself over as a new Bolivar when he really is not (in my opinion), and his efforts to assume moral leadership of a Latin American world that doesn't seem very interested in being led by him.

It's that simple.

As far as I can tell, there has never been any doubt as to the fairness of his elections. Abolishing term limits to stay in power is definitely dodgy opportunism - but then, he did put the constitutional amendment to a national referendum, so you couldn't really argue that it was undemocratic.

Hell yes I can. My standard of quality here is George Washington- a man who voluntarily stepped down from office when people would cheerfully have reelected him for a third term. Heck, a lot of people would have cheerfully made him king. And that was when he hadn't gone to bat for a constitution with term limits just ten years earlier.

If Chavez wants to be as good a man he claims to be, he should be able to come close to that standard. If he wanted term limits in 1999, he should abide by term limits in 2009. I don't think that's an unfair standard. The fact that he does not, and seems to desire to be president for life suggests that his own commitment to democracy is not as deep as he claims.

I don't care whether his opposition is more or less democratic. I'm not talking about his opposition, or about trying to replace him with anyone in particular. What I'm saying is that in my opinion, he is personally about as pro-democracy as Robert Mugabe. Let us not forget that Mugabe was and is a popular man for his role in fighting colonialism, after all... but that doesn't make him any more than a tinpot faux-statesman. And it certainly doesn't give him a pass for policies that have wrecked his country's economy and turned it a hellhole of subsistence farming and hyperinflation.

Compare this to his opponents, who can't win an election because of their scummy policies: so they tried to overthrow him in a military coup (which actually succeeded, only for massive public demonstrations in favour of Chavez to force the fuckers to back down), then conspired to create a strike in the naitionalised oil company to try and force Chavez to call an early election ... and only after these underhanded, illegal methods failed did they force a recall election - which Chavez won handily.

I mean, he's obviously not perfect, but he seems like a pretty good leader to me.

He's a good politician and his opponents stink, but that doesn't make him anywhere near the caliber of man he keeps up the pretense of being.

[Bakustra]

To contrast, economically speaking, we have CEPR, who are somewhat more optimistic about the effects of the Chavez government, as opposed to the Foreign Policy article's argument that anything good in Venezuela happened despite the Chavez government. They wrote that article in 2009, so any discrepancies between reported poverty levels are almost certainly a result of the ongoing recession. They also directly attacked Franscisco Rodriguez's (the author of the Foreign Policy article) analysis of the Chavez government here and here and here.

Is it 'populist' to implement widespread reforms for the benefit of the vast majority of his people? How is that a bad thing - isn't that the whole point of democracy, to get leaders who represent the interests of everyone?

I don't mind that he does things that are popular among the people of his country.

I mind that he seems to be in favor of democracy only when it is personally convenient for him to do so. I mind the size of his ego, his attempts to make himself over as a new Bolivar when he really is not (in my opinion), and his efforts to assume moral leadership of a Latin American world that doesn't seem very interested in being led by him.

It's that simple.

Why do you care that he's trying to take a leading role in Latin American politics, moral or otherwise? Do you think that he's trying to exert power over other Latin American states?

As far as I can tell, there has never been any doubt as to the fairness of his elections. Abolishing term limits to stay in power is definitely dodgy opportunism - but then, he did put the constitutional amendment to a national referendum, so you couldn't really argue that it was undemocratic.

Hell yes I can. My standard of quality here is George Washington- a man who voluntarily stepped down from office when people would cheerfully have reelected him for a third term. Heck, a lot of people would have cheerfully made him king. And that was when he hadn't gone to bat for a constitution with term limits just ten years earlier.

More than a hundred Senators and Representatives, including people like Daniel Inouye, John Dingell, and Robert Byrd, have served for more time that Chavez has wished to rule Venezuela. Are they all "personally opposed to democracy"? Was Tage Erlander, who served as Prime Minister of Sweden for 23 years, "personally opposed to democracy"? Refusing to serve beyond an arbitrary length of time shouldn't really be your litmus test for the belief in democracy held by an individual, I think.

Also, I admit to an error; he lost one referendum over major alterations to the constitution in 2007, which would have included increased centralization of executive power.

Disclaimer : I'm not condoning in any way what is happening to this lady, but...

... We are given no details on what she is accused of exactly, outside of "accusations of corruption" (which can be everything and nothing). What we know is that she had a bad health, was sent to prison nonetheless, and suffered abuse and humiliation from the hand of other inmates, and possibly from some of the guardians. Conditions of detention I'm ready to bet are pretty much the standard for Venezuelan inmates ; as they are already more or less the standard for French inmates...

My point is : It could well be, for all we know, that she is in fact guilty as charged, and that her conditions of detention aren't designed to be cruel or inhuman, but just what they are for any other Venezuelan inmates. A taste of equality, if you want to be cynical about it.

She was specifically charged with "corruption, accessory to an escape, criminal conspiracy and abuse of power" according to the UN. This is a deeply disturbing case, but on the other hand, Lincoln and FDR acted very similarly in attempting to "pack" the US Supreme Court to avoid them ruling unfavorably, and a number of US presidents have appointed judges in order to influence the judiciary in their favor or in the favor of their political ideologies, so treating this as though it were the final nail in the coffin for democracy in Venezuela requires either blinders or an argument that the US is undemocratic as well.

[Lord Zentei]

Weisbrot tends to be quite pro-Chavez. But he doesn't mention that average wages are down 15% since 2007, nor that Venezuela is basically in a state of stagflation right now.

More than a hundred Senators and Representatives, including people like Daniel Inouye, John Dingell, and Robert Byrd, have served for more time that Chavez has wished to rule Venezuela. Are they all "personally opposed to democracy"? Was Tage Erlander, who served as Prime Minister of Sweden for 23 years, "personally opposed to democracy"? Refusing to serve beyond an arbitrary length of time shouldn't really be your litmus test for the belief in democracy held by an individual, I think.

These men have not been re-elected by altering the constitution to eliminate term limits, nor have they reduced the powers of other branches of government, nor have they attempted to undermine the opposition.

[Korto]

As far as I can tell, there has never been any doubt as to the fairness of his elections. Abolishing term limits to stay in power is definitely dodgy opportunism - but then, he did put the constitutional amendment to a national referendum, so you couldn't really argue that it was undemocratic.

Hell yes I can. My standard of quality here is George Washington- a man who voluntarily stepped down from office when people would cheerfully have reelected him for a third term. Heck, a lot of people would have cheerfully made him king. And that was when he hadn't gone to bat for a constitution with term limits just ten years earlier.

If Chavez wants to be as good a man he claims to be, he should be able to come close to that standard. If he wanted term limits in 1999, he should abide by term limits in 2009. I don't think that's an unfair standard. The fact that he does not, and seems to desire to be president for life suggests that his own commitment to democracy is not as deep as he claims.

Jester, I don't get this argument. If anything, Washington unilaterily deciding to step down, against the will of the people, is undemocatic, whether or not it was a good idea. I see nothing democratic about term limits, as they deny the voters a full choice of candidates (again, whether or not they're a good idea).

As for intimidation of the judiciary, I saw no solid evidence of it in that letter.

Speaking from his home in Boston, Chomsky said Chávez, who has been in power for 12 years, appeared to have intimidated the judicial system. "I'm sceptical that [Afiuni] could receive a fair trial. It's striking that, as far as I understand, other judges have not come out in support of her … that suggests an atmosphere of intimidation."

It could also suggest that as judges, they can't speak out over a matter currently under review.
The woman may be guilty. She may not. She was sent to prison to be held for trial despite being sick, a poor decision. We (the Australian justice system) held a mentally handicapped 15 year old in an adult prison. This is just an example that shit decisions get made, and a single anecdote means nothing. The judge got bashed, she got moved to home detention (the boy got released after lawyers managed to prove his age). She is going to go on trial, and if there's good evidence, that is how it should be.
We need more than the accusations from one person, about one case, to declare intimidation of the judiciary.

Zentai, 1) I see nothing particularly democratic about term limits
2) Our Federal has spent the last few decades quietly stealing power from the the states, and the states from the Local. It's not particularly unusual.
3) What politician doesn't try to "undermine the opposition", including by rejigging electoral boundaries? Undemocratic, but again, not unusual.

[Lord Zentei]

1) I see nothing particularly democratic about term limits
2) Our Federal has spent the last few decades quietly stealing power from the the states, and the states from the Local. It's not particularly unusual.
3) What politician doesn't try to "undermine the opposition", including by rejigging electoral boundaries? Undemocratic, but again, not unusual.

In order:

• There are distinct differences between mob rule and democracy. The presence of populist strongmen is one of them. Term limits prevent such men from taking power.
• The Federal government "stealing" power from the states is quite different from the drastic modifications to the constitution that Chavez has undertaken for his own aggrandizement, and even when the comparison is apt it is hardly flattering.
• The stifling of opposition by arrests is hardly something you'd describe as "not unusual", unless you're talking about undemocratic countries. Not that "not unusual" is much of an excuse even if it were true.

[Korto]

I concede on (3), feeling forced to accept your knowledge on the matter, as I'm too damned lazy to do any research of my own. Therefore, I found myself without an argument.

[Bakustra]

Weisbrot tends to be quite pro-Chavez. But he doesn't mention that average wages are down 15% since 2007, nor that Venezuela is basically in a state of stagflation right now.

Do you have a source for these?

More than a hundred Senators and Representatives, including people like Daniel Inouye, John Dingell, and Robert Byrd, have served for more time that Chavez has wished to rule Venezuela. Are they all "personally opposed to democracy"? Was Tage Erlander, who served as Prime Minister of Sweden for 23 years, "personally opposed to democracy"? Refusing to serve beyond an arbitrary length of time shouldn't really be your litmus test for the belief in democracy held by an individual, I think.

These men have not been re-elected by altering the constitution to eliminate term limits, nor have they reduced the powers of other branches of government, nor have they attempted to undermine the opposition.

He hasn't been re-elected under the terms of the revised constitution yet, and term limits are not essential to democracy. Also, are you going to trot out the old saw about how he's not willing to let outright treasonous corporations have free reign to work to overthrow him?



The Economist. Ke-yoot. Well, whichever anonymous Brit wrote that article should be ashamed of himself for such inept propagandizing. When the opening paragraph proudly implies that FPTP voting is undemocratic, then you know you've got severe bias going. It also defends Venezuelan politicians as being supposed to be above the law, complaining that one member of the National Assembly was found guilty of being involved in a murder and sentenced to prison.

We then move on to unspecified grumbles about lame-duck sessions passing bills and doing work, and a complaint that the president can reform local governments into "socialist communes", which I guess we are meant to presume will be horribly undemocratic because they're communes.

Oh, I almost forgot- presenting the 2010 enabling act as though it were handing all the reins of power over to the President. I have to applaud the writer's restraint in not sinking to the depths of Donald Rumsfeld and rhetorically asking, "You know who else ruled by presidential decrees? Hitler!"

Please find a better source for your claims.

1) I see nothing particularly democratic about term limits
2) Our Federal has spent the last few decades quietly stealing power from the the states, and the states from the Local. It's not particularly unusual.
3) What politician doesn't try to "undermine the opposition", including by rejigging electoral boundaries? Undemocratic, but again, not unusual.

In order:

• There are distinct differences between mob rule and democracy. The presence of populist strongmen is one of them. Term limits prevent such men from taking power.
• The Federal government "stealing" power from the states is quite different from the drastic modifications to the constitution that Chavez has undertaken for his own aggrandizement, and even when the comparison is apt it is hardly flattering.
• The stifling of opposition by arrests is hardly something you'd describe as "not unusual", unless you're talking about undemocratic countries. Not that "not unusual" is much of an excuse even if it were true.

So in order for democracy to exist, you must have term limits? Don't say stupid things in your rush to condemn active political participation as "mob rule".

Also, while I love that the New York Times is willing to advocate one law for the rich and one law for the poor, it, too, relies on charged and biased language to contend that the "secret police" arrested Afiuni and the other claimed arrestee, which nobody else has claimed, instead relying on the good old-fashioned regular police forces. In addition, its claims that Chavez is trying to shut down opposition through control of the media is simply false- 75% of all advertising in the lead-up to the 2010 parliamentary election was for the opposition. Every private media network is for the opposition. So I simply have to take everything in that article with a grain of salt, seeing as Chavez's opposition have been quite willing to lie and cheat and coup and lockout and advocate American invasions to try and get him out of power.

[Lord Zentei]

Ah, so Bakusta demonstrates that he's an apologistic blowhard yet again. I had almost forgotten that.

Say, if you refuse to accept sources that are presented to you, then why should anyone provide you with more? Do you seriously think that I intend to play your game as you say "no, I don't accept that one"?

Incidentally:

So in order for democracy to exist, you must have term limits? Don't say stupid things in your rush to condemn active political participation as "mob rule".

I would appreciate that you refrain from lying about what I post. The absence of populist strongmen is necessary for democracy. Term limits are a means to an end - a means which were present when Chavez took power, and which were explicitly removed to allow him to stay in power beyond the usual two terms.

As for the statement that the media not being under attack in Venezuela, that's so hilarious that I honestly don't know what to say. I'll let Amnesty International do it instead. But hey, I guess that they're right wing "propagandaists" too, like the New York Times, and presumably Noam Chomski.

[Simon_Jester]

Why do you care that he's trying to take a leading role in Latin American politics, moral or otherwise? Do you think that he's trying to exert power over other Latin American states?

I find his rhetoric personally obnoxious. Consider the scene that gave rise to King Juan Carlos's famous "why don't you shut up?" as an illustration of the problem.

I say he's a blowhard. That makes me dislike him, and disrespect him. It is not my main reason for disrespecting him, nor is it a reason for me to call him evil or anything.

More than a hundred Senators and Representatives, including people like Daniel Inouye, John Dingell, and Robert Byrd, have served for more time that Chavez has wished to rule Venezuela. Are they all "personally opposed to democracy"? Was Tage Erlander, who served as Prime Minister of Sweden for 23 years, "personally opposed to democracy"? Refusing to serve beyond an arbitrary length of time shouldn't really be your litmus test for the belief in democracy held by an individual, I think.

Bakustra, you're doing your selective-reading stunt again. The very next fucking paragraph I wrote reads:

If Chavez wants to be as good a man he claims to be, he should be able to come close to that standard. If he wanted term limits in 1999, he should abide by term limits in 2009. I don't think that's an unfair standard. The fact that he does not, and seems to desire to be president for life suggests that his own commitment to democracy is not as deep as he claims.

Emphasis added, in hopes that this time you will perceive what I wrote instead of making up raving gibbering bullshit.

So why don't you shut up too? All you accomplish with this sort of shit-flinging is to prove yourself more of a chimp than anyone else in the argument.

She was specifically charged with "corruption, accessory to an escape, criminal conspiracy and abuse of power" according to the UN. This is a deeply disturbing case, but on the other hand, Lincoln and FDR acted very similarly in attempting to "pack" the US Supreme Court to avoid them ruling unfavorably, and a number of US presidents have appointed judges in order to influence the judiciary in their favor or in the favor of their political ideologies, so treating this as though it were the final nail in the coffin for democracy in Venezuela requires either blinders or an argument that the US is undemocratic as well.

Question, Bakustra, and I think I'm entitled to demand an answer if you intend to stay in this thread:

Did Lincoln nor FDR arrest and imprison judges for ruling in ways Chavez wouldn't care for? If not, how is there enough equivalency for your argument quoted above to hold water? How is appointing more judges the same as arresting existing judges?

---

...My standard of quality here is George Washington- a man who voluntarily stepped down from office when people would cheerfully have reelected him for a third term. Heck, a lot of people would have cheerfully made him king. And that was when he hadn't gone to bat for a constitution with term limits just ten years earlier.

If Chavez wants to be as good a man he claims to be, he should be able to come close to that standard. If he wanted term limits in 1999, he should abide by term limits in 2009. I don't think that's an unfair standard. The fact that he does not, and seems to desire to be president for life suggests that his own commitment to democracy is not as deep as he claims.

Jester, I don't get this argument. If anything, Washington unilaterily deciding to step down, against the will of the people, is undemocatic, whether or not it was a good idea. I see nothing democratic about term limits, as they deny the voters a full choice of candidates (again, whether or not they're a good idea).

Ultimately "democratic" has to be about more than "people vote in elections." Elections can be made meaningless by corruption, by political parties that turn into oligarchies, by intimidation of dissenting voices within the state, and by many other things.

While I don't think that term limits are necessary for democracy to work, term limits for the supreme executive have the huge advantage of stopping any possibility of the top leader making himself into the functional equivalent of a dictator. Remember that not all dictators are unpopular- it's quite possible to be cruel and repressive toward minorities within the country, and painfully unaccountable to the voters, while still winning elections.

Healthy democracies need limiting mechanisms in place to keep presidents from turning into dictators. And if Chavez thought it such a good idea to introduce term limits as one of those mechanisms in 1999, then I despise his about-face decision to reverse the term limits as soon as they prevented him from holding power.

That's what makes me question his commitment to democracy, coupled with all his attempts to take all the power in the government into his own person. I don't think Chavez believes in democracy; I think Chavez believes in Chavezocracy. And I don't respect politicians who think that way, especially when they make so many loud noises about "the people want" when it's not clear whether they can distinguish between "the people" and "themselves."

[Bakustra]

Simon, to answer your questions, first, both of them are attempts to bring the judiciary under the control of the executive, either through passing laws to encourage judges to retire, trying to appoint cronies to the courts, or through potential trumped-up charges against judges. I don't see where the particular difference lies as a threat to democracy, as you are claiming. Both countries have severe problems with implementing the ideal of an independent judiciary, but nobody would claim that the US is autocratic because FDR tried to pack the court or that the majority of presidents have appointed Supreme Court justices based on politics rather than their judicial abilities, but similar blurring of the lines in Venezuela becomes a clear sign that Chavez is nothing more than an autocrat.

Secondly, you're basically saying that Chavez is not allowed to alter his opinions on things and be sincere when you say that his switch to opposing term limits (on the majority of governmental positions, not just the presidency) is obviously the consequence of him wanting to undermine democracy. He clearly believes that he needs more than twelve years to put his vision for Venezuela's future into action, but I'm not sure how that automatically translates into him secretly wishing to replace democracy with a cult of personality.

Zentei, not all sources are created equal. You posted a shitty source that starts out with hilarious hypocrisy about FPTP voting and moves on into other distortions and grey propaganda. If I posted shit from Monkey Smashes Heaven or the Daily Beast or the Daily Mail or Breitbart at you, would you really accept it unquestioningly and treat it as automatically factual like you are demanding I do for the Economist article? While the Economist is not so untrustworthy as those sources, if it posts a blatantly biased and untrustworthy article, I don't see why I should be forced to accept it uncritically.

But at least you managed to bring out a much better source with Amnesty International, however, they still report the RCTV lack of license renewal as likely because of its "editorial line critical of the government." FAIR, however, notes that RCTV and Venevision, two of the largest networks, actively participated in the 2002 coup d'etat against Chavez and this is not in question. This raises its own questions about the extent to which Chavez is "suppressing the freedom of the press" and to which he is defending his government against seditious and subversive organizations. Can the violence against individuals be justified under that? I would say no. But could the television and radio networks have been accused fairly of attempting sedition? It's quite possible, considering that he let RCTV operate for five years with no consequences for actively working to overthrow him and Venevision has had nothing happen to it. Do you think that if, say, CNN collaborated with and aided a coup d'etat against the US government, that they would get off with something as light as a refusal to renew their license afterwards?

Even then, AI ultimately comes to this conclusion on freedom of expression in Venezuela:

On p olitically motivated charges and independence of the judiciary

To end the misuse of the justice system to harass those who are critical of government policies and to drop any politically motivated charges against them;

To guarantee the independence of the judiciary.

On freedom of expression and assembly

To unequivocally and publicly affirm its respect for the right of everyone to freedom of expression and assembly;

To carry out full and impartial investigations into reports of threats and harassment of journalists and to bring those responsible to justice;

To guarantee that security forces do not use excessive force during protests and that they abide by international human rights standards for law enforcement officials, and to guarantee the right of demonstrators to peaceful protest without fear or risk to their life or physical integrity.

Oddly enough, they don't seem to be particularly accusatory of Chavez here. Certainly they don't seem to be saying that Chavez is trying to control a media that is overwhelmingly in private hands- State TV has an audience share of about 5-6%, much less than the private TV stations. If Chavez is trying to shut down all opposition media, he seems to be inordinately incompetent about it.

[Lord Zentei]

What are you whining about WRT first past the post voting? It IS a shit system. And there is a distinct difference between the Economist and Monkey Smashes Heaven. As you point out yourself - but your assessment of the source seems to be based on your dislike for the article. That's a bullshit argument: if you accept that the Economist is a better source, then you can't dismiss the article simply because you disagree with it.

And as for these charges:

On p olitically motivated charges and independence of the judiciary

To end the misuse of the justice system to harass those who are critical of government policies and to drop any politically motivated charges against them;

To guarantee the independence of the judiciary.

On freedom of expression and assembly

To unequivocally and publicly affirm its respect for the right of everyone to freedom of expression and assembly;

To carry out full and impartial investigations into reports of threats and harassment of journalists and to bring those responsible to justice;

To guarantee that security forces do not use excessive force during protests and that they abide by international human rights standards for law enforcement officials, and to guarantee the right of demonstrators to peaceful protest without fear or risk to their life or physical integrity.

These are NOT trivial accusations, and it amazes me that you're implying that they are.