Venezuela - the most democratic nation on Earth

I like term limits. But I'm glad we'll be seeing more of Chavez.

If Chavez really wants to help his people and reform Venezuela, this referendum is his bigest mistake.

More important than initiating reforms, is to put together a structure to make the reforms take root in the society. As part of that goal, a great leader always create a mechanism to train potential successors who believe in his ideals.With that, there is never a need to have even the greatest leader in power indifinitely. Without that, reforms die with that leader.  A one-man show always ends in failure.  

My 2 cents.

This from a current story in Counterpunch on some of the hypocritical contortions used in attacking the term-limits referendum:

"More Hypocrisy From the New York Times
Venezuela's Term Limits

By GEORGE CICARRIELLO-MAHER"

"....While the paper had previously insisted that any change to term limits come through popular referendum, it now reverses this view, taking the position that for reasons of political expediency, a simple vote in the small executive council will do.

Of which banana republic are we speaking, where thinly-veiled authoritarianism threatens democratic checks and balances, and weak-kneed apologists parade about under the banner of free press? Why, the place is none other than New York City, the leader none other than Michael Bloomberg, and the newspaper none other than the New York Times. Patience: we haven’t even gotten to the hypocrisy part yet.

“Hugo Chávez’s Choice”

Term limits have a long history, dating from ancient Greece and Rome and Aristotle’s concept of “ruling and being ruled in turn.” With a trademark selectiveness (see, e.g., Senate Report 104-158), those upholding the sanctity of this standard in U.S. politics do so with no mention of the other elements Aristotle would associate with democracy, most obviously the filling of all positions by random lot (except for generals, or strategoi, who in an intriguing inversion of our own system, were to be elected). And nor is there much mention of those countries in the wealthy world which see no need for such limitations, or those celebrated leaders who have accomplished purportedly historic tasks without such fetters: Tony Blair served for 10 years, Margaret Thatcher for 11. Franklin D. Roosevelt, consistently ranked among the greatest U.S. presidents served for 12, and would have served for 16 had he survived. And this is not to mention the unlimited terms available to U.S. senators and representatives.

In fact, the North American obsession with term limits as political cure-all is a relatively recent phenomenon, dating largely to the 1990s and the cynical populism of House Republicans, who raised the mantle of term limits as a silver bullet against corruption. Some even seem impervious to this fervent faith: most notably, Rep. Jose Serrano (D-N.Y.), who recently proposed lifting presidential term limits in the aftermath of Barack Obama’s election. Obama himself would add, “I’m generally not in favor of term limits… I believe in one form of term limits. They’re called elections.” Given all this, then, we might expect Obama, but also Mayor Bloomberg and the editorial team at the New York Times to wholeheartedly embrace efforts at rolling back such undemocratic limitations worldwide. And who knows? Were it possible to exclude the most popular democratically-elected leader in the Western Hemisphere, they might.

But for anyone familiar with past Times coverage of Venezuela (including the paper’s now-notorious celebration of Chávez’s 2002 overthrow at the hands of an authoritarian group of right-wing leaders), it would be of little surprise to know that the paper breathed a sigh of relief when “Venezuela’s voters wisely blocked his plans for indefinite re-election” in 2007...."

http://www.counterpunch.org/maher02132009.html

Overpriced.

You should take the time to familiarize yourself with what Chavez and his supporters are doing in order to create a political organization that will draw in mass participation in forming the policies of the government and develop a collective leadership to ensure continuity of the Bolivarian revolution - with or without Chavez in the presidency. Try going to  venezuelanalysis.com and do a search for PSUV.

- contrarianna.

Yup.

It would have been a good thing for GW to be re-elected. I prefer the naked, raw, viciousness of empire to be on full display, rather than camouflaged as hope and change.

I prefer to see the brutality out in the open instead of the slickness of an ad campaign that has Americans, and people around the world, enthralled with the empty figurehead selected to put a smiley face on imperialism.

It would have forced any American who thinks they are progressive into facing the reality of the situation, and into actually fighting for something instead of being pacified like frightened children by the soothing noises and bright colors of a charlatan.

Actually this is one issue that I think could have a negative impact on the stability of any reform. Contrary to popular belief, a stable system is not often the one with the same leader at top, regardless of whether the system is democratic or undemocratic. The Iranian government is a prime example where stability has been achieved by constantly recycling politicians and bringing out fresh talents (for their own ideology, in this case). The Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran imposes a maximum two consequent terms limit since 1979, and IMO it has greatly contributed to the continuation and stability of their system. But I guess we can wait and see if Chavez can really run this one-man show effectively.

The example from Canadian parliamentary system, in my opinion, is not a great one. No disrespect meant to fellow Canadians here, but to many outsiders the Canadian politcial system is an archaic system, which would have worked great in 19th century Britain but not in modern world. It works now not because the system is efficient but because the Canadian society and culture is infused with democracy, so any half-efficient system would work here.

FYI: Madwow engaged in a series of comments resulting, mainly because of the absence of any really redeeming qualities on his part, in a banning.

My congratulations to the voters of Venezuela on another in a continuing series of good decisions. 

M. Spector, as far as I've read, kindrid is merely taking a point of view  opposed to yours; and indeed to most people here.  You may take this as a personal affront, but it is not against policy.  Calling people fucking retarded, and elitist fucking assholes is.

If kindrid becomes abusive, or contravenes policy in some way, AND a mod becomes aware of it, then appropriate action can be taken.  Meanwhile, there's no rule against merely being wrong.

And for the record I am not an "elitist-you-know-what!  And that is not debatable.

______________________________________________________________________________________ Our kids live together and play together in their communities, let's have them learn together too!

The U.S. must be running out of oil:

U.S. welcomes Venezuela's term vote

I was thinking that this is supposed to be the overall appeal of democracy, to achieve favourable results for the large majority?  MMP in Venezuela, too.

"I was thinking that this is supposed to be the overall appeal of democracy, to achieve favourable results for the large majority?"

If a majority voted AGAINST Chavez - that would be just as legitimate a result. Let the majority of Venezuelans decide what is best for them. Its up to them not you.

Chavez's policies shouldn't be 100% dependent on the continuation of his personality cult. There should be other people from his movement who he grooms to succeed him so that his policies don't havw to die when he does.

Fascists welcome here, as long as they are polite.

Welcome to the new Elbbab.

You don't need to look next door in Colombia for murder and impunity, the murder rate in Venezuela has more than doubled under Chavez - from 20 to 48 per 100,000 inhabitants and is now worse than Colombia.

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

In Caracas it's now 130 per 100,000, worse than either Mexico City or even Bogata.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/1203/p06s01-woam.html

Well, based on those three decontextualized photographs, I'm ready to doubt the word of countless international observers who have stated time and time again that Venezuelan elections exceed global standards of equality and integrity.

The 20 to 48 figure for 1998 to 2008 comes from the Christian Science Monitor article, which you must not have bothered to read.

The general statistics from Wikipedia are merely to confirm that Venezuela is in fact worse than even Colombia.

It's not so much that I "failed to provide a source for it" as it is you who failed to check the sources that were conveniently provided.

I know I'd be embarassed if it happened to me.

I'm not so embarrased that I don't read the Christian Science Monitor for my official Venezuelan statistics.

BTW here are the actual stats in context:

Homicide Rate Timeline 

1990 = 14 per 100,000
1999 = 28 per 100,000

[Chavez Elected - February 2, 1999]

1999 = 28 per 100,000
2008 = 48 per 100,000

 
Source 

More significant is the fact that if you compare the trend in homicides pre-Chavez to that after his taking office you can see that if anything the increase has slowed under Chavez; there is no statistical link between his policies and the homicide statistics.

They have guns everywhere in Venezuela for a long time. Everyone from retired baseball players to young men and women carry pistolas in Venezuela. 

But this is not the same as murder with impunity by paramilitaries and US-backed death squads in Colombia.

I found it. Thanks!  

Funny, nobody blames Barack Obama personally for the high murder rate in the United States.

Yet somehow Hugo Chavez is personally responsible for the level of violent crime in Venezuela.

What ignorant hypocrisy! 

Well said.