Venezuela - the most democratic nation on Earth

110 posts / 0 new
Last post
NorthReport

Laughing

Madwow

NorthReport wrote:
Madwow wrote:

[Crazy isn't it.

If you are refering to your comment I couldn't agree more. 

Why did you not include my full comment you clown?

Unionist

Could I suggest a little more "wow" and a little less "mad"?

Madwow

Unionist wrote:
Madwow wrote:

 unionist is kind of a favorite in these parts. 

You're not the only one who appreciates quality. +

Yeah your right. There is no use in me arguing with you here.  All I can say is fuck you, because we both know that anything else will get me banned.   

 

/quote]

N.R.KISSED

Excellent news for Venezuela and the rest of us.

NorthReport

Madwow 

It seems that Chavez's decisive victory has you foaming at the mouth?

Sounds like you forgot to take your rabies virus medication, or something like that.

You should wait for Chavez's assured re-election results before getting really upset!

Madwow

NorthReport wrote:

Madwow 

It seems that Chavez's decisive victory has you foaming at the mouth?

Sounds like you forgot to take your rabies virus medication, or something like that.

You should wait for Chavez's assured re-election results before getting really upset!

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090207/venezuela_chavez_090207/20090207?hub=World

 

janfromthebruce

Madwow wrote:

Jingles wrote:
If GW had been allowed to run again, he would have won. No doubt about it.

So are you in agreement with what Chavez is trying to do?

I'm not an elitest ass or anything and I am in complete agreement with Chavez - letting democracy run free and transparent and accountable for the able and of the people. It's as democratic as in Canada, in fact, more so as they get to directly elect their president, whereas, we don't get to directly elect our Canadians Prime Minister.

But it is outragous that in Canada a PM can be elected more than 2 times. We must do something about this. 

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

Madwow

I'm not an elitest ass or anything and I am in complete agreement with Chavez - letting democracy run free and transparent and accountable for the able and of the people. It's as democratic as in Canada, in fact, more so as they get to directly elect their president, whereas, we don't get to directly elect our Canadians Prime Minister.

But it is outragous that in Canada a PM can be elected more than 2 times. We must do something about this. 

Yeah you guys are right. Every time someone who follows your world view is in power change the rules to keep them in power not considering there could be opposition. Sounds good, but not feasible. Why are the left afraid of a open referendum on many social issues? Because you would lose?

 

NorthReport

Yea, let's go the California route with their Propositions and bankrupct our country as well. That's a tough one but no thanks.

Jacob Richter

Congratulations are in order for Mr. Chavez and his referendum victory.

Fidel

Madwow wrote:

 Because you would lose?

We've learned, and Venezuela's socialists have learned not to include so many sweeping changes in a single referendum.

One of the issues in Chavez' referendum on constititional change was money creation and central banking.

 By comparison, Brian Mulroney's phony majority government rushed a bill through parliament privatizing the remainder of money creation in Canada. There was no parliamentary debate and little fanfare. Much of the neoliberal capitalist agenda in North America was legislated and rammed through houses of parliament below the public's radar of awareness in all three countries over the last 30 years. A large majority of Canadians actually voted against the very neoliberal free trade deals in 1988 and 1993 and resulting in some of the lowest voter turnouts since then.

NorthReport

Madwow wrote:
NorthReport wrote:

Madwow 

It seems that Chavez's decisive victory has you foaming at the mouth?

Sounds like you forgot to take your rabies virus medication, or something like that.

You should wait for Chavez's assured re-election results before getting really upset!

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090207/venezuela_chavez_090207/20090207?hub=World

 

What a shame. I guess they forgot to vote. Laughing 

skarredmunkey

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

NorthReport

Chavez calls vote a mandate for socialism

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090215/chavez_090216/20090216?hub=TopStories

Fifty-two-year-old Yira Guerra credits Chavez's policies with allowing her two children to get a free college education.

"My son got a bachelor's degree," Guerra said, adding that such social programs would disappear if another leader took power.

However, 50-year-old Carmen Gilarte charged that longer presidential terms breed corruption.

"We don't want anybody to stay perpetually in power," Gilarte said. "We have to give opportunities to the next generation."

Chavez dismissed the concerns, saying former U.S. president Franklin Roosevelt was elected four times.

"Ten years is nothing. I don't know what they're complaining about."

Chavez has remained a popular leader by using vast oil revenues to boost social programs, such as literacy classes and benefits for single mothers.

He has also cultivated closer relationships with American adversaries, such as Cuba and Iran.

But his opponents argue that if he is allowed to remain in power for another 10 years, checks on his authority will continue to erode.

Opposition parties boycotted the 2005 congressional elections, giving Chavez a stranglehold on the National Assembly and allowing him to pack the Supreme Court with his allies.

sanizadeh

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.

Unionist

sanizadeh wrote:

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.

Chavez says he needs more time to do just that. That's precisely the reason for this referendum - so the reforms won't be short-circuited by time. And the majority of Venezuelans have just agreed with him.

Quote:
As part of that goal, a great leader always create a mechanism to train potential successors who believe in his ideals.

Agreed. But that doesn't mean the process has to be artificially cut short by some U.S.-style term limit. We have no such limits in our parliamentary system, and no one has seriously proposed them. The people of Venezuela have democratically decided they don't need them either, in a vote which was unquestionably free and fair. They trust themselves to vote leaders out when needed. That popular self-confidence is the very essence of democracy.

contrarianna

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

Ghislaine

It is nice to see that Venezualans supported lifting term limits - hopefully the US will change this as well some day.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

sanizadeh wrote:

My 2 cents.

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  [url=venezuelanalysis.com[/url]">http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/][=mediumblue][u]venezuelanalysis.c... and do a search for PSUV.

contrarianna

Ghislaine wrote:
It is nice to see that Venezualans supported lifting term limits - hopefully the US will change this as well some day.

The change is not really needed in the US.
There are already no term-limits on that government comprised of enduring corporatist interests and lobbyists---merely a 4 year term-limit mandating a face-lift.

Unionist

Laughing - contrarianna.

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture
Jingles

Madwow wrote:

Jingles wrote:
If GW had been allowed to run again, he would have won. No doubt about it.

So are you in agreement with what Chavez is trying to do?

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.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Jingles wrote:

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.

Same goes for Canadian "progressives" who will be cheering Obama this week when he comes to give marching orders to Harper.

sanizadeh

Unionist wrote:
sanizadeh wrote:

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.

Chavez says he needs more time to do just that. That's precisely the reason for this referendum - so the reforms won't be short-circuited by time. And the majority of Venezuelans have just agreed with him.

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.

It's Me D

Quote:
Canadian society and culture is infused with democracy

Eh? Cool

oldgoat

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 M. Spector's picture

oldgoat wrote:

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.

Meanwhile Kindrid remains at large.  

[IMG]http://i34.tinypic.com/11raq06.gif[/IMG]

oldgoat

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.

Stockholm

"Chavez has won the referendum with 54% of the vote.

Another victory for democracy in Venezuela. "

What makes Venezuela democratic is the fact that they had a referendum - the outcome of the referendum is irrelevant. If Chavez had lost the referendum - Venezuela would be just as much a democracy as if he won it. People are confusing having a democratic PROCESS with getting results that they like.

janfromthebruce

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

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

Frustrated Mess Frustrated Mess's picture

Quote:
You seem to have a hard time grasping the concept of a democracy’s obligation in protecting minority rights and avoiding tyranny by the majority.

It seems you have the same problem with your breathless and childlike support for mass murdering regimes. FARC is not responsible for the murders of trade unionists and human rights workers in Colombia. The government you are so enamored with is. And protection of the rights of minorities? Are you kidding me? Para-militaries working on behalf of corporations, armed by the USA, and supported by the bloody nation, Colombia, you respect so much has ran a campaign of massacring and dispossessing Colombia's indigenous populations.

Is the respect for minorities to which you refer? Isn't Chavez of indigenous blood? Is that his real crime? 

 

 

Unionist

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

[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7893907.stm]U.S. welcomes Venezuela's term vote[/url]

Quote:

The US has cautiously welcomed Venezuela's vote to scrap limits on how often politicians, including President Hugo Chavez, can run for office.

State Department spokesman Noel Clay praised "the civic spirit" of the referendum on Sunday.

 

Stockholm

Or maybe this is an example of how different things are now that Obama is president instead of Bush

Fidel

Stockholm wrote:
What makes Venezuela democratic is the fact that they had a referendum - the outcome of the referendum is irrelevant. If Chavez had lost the referendum - Venezuela would be just as much a democracy as if he won it. People are confusing having a democratic PROCESS with getting results that they like.

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.

Unionist

Stockholm wrote:
Quote:
State Department spokesman Noel Clay praised "the civic spirit" of the referendum on Sunday.

Or maybe this is an example of how different things are now that Obama is president instead of Bush

This whole thing may be standing on a feat of Clay.

Stockholm

"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.

Fidel

Stockholm wrote:

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.

I agree. And it shouldnt be up to a modern day Anglo-Saxon witan in America to interfere either. Hands off Venezuela.

 

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

oldgoat wrote:

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.

Fascists welcome here, as long as they are polite.

Welcome to the new Elbbab.

Fidel

Ya, I find Kindrid tries extra hard to be wrong

A_J

Fidel wrote:
And right next door to oil-rich Venezuela ...

Murder and Impunity in US client state Colombia

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

A_J

Free and fair elections, Venezuela-style

Voters check that they are on the list of registered voters at a polling station Sunday:

[img]http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/3262/propagandadelsiencentroxc1.jpg[/img] [img]http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/5223/propagandadelsiencentrokt2.jpg[/... [img]http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/508/propagandadelsiencentrohn8.jpg[/img]

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

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.

It's Me D

A_J wrote:
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

Huh, I read the list you linked and it says Venezuela's homicide rate went from 37 to 48 between 2000 and 2008 (doesn't include 1999)... I'm not sure where you got your "more than doubled" figure from but you failled to provide a source for it. Not to belittle the victims but that increase is proportionate to the jump in homicide rates closer to home under Paul Martin (source=same list).

A_J

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.

Fidel

No country compares to Colombia for murdered trade unionists and social activists every year. And there were reports of armed paramilitaries right there in the voting stations as per German elections of the 1930's.

It's Me D

Quote:
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 

A_J

It's Me D wrote:
I'm not so embarrased that I don't read the Christian Science Monitor for my official Venezuelan statistics.

Pitty.  It's not a bad publication.  I know what it is that you're afraid of though, and don't worry, despite it's name there's actually next to nothing "Christian" about it.

Thank you for the additional numbers though.  I see the discrepancy now - you have chosen to use the figures that also include victims killed by the police while "resisting arrest" (609 in 1998, and an incredible 2,305 in 2003).

It's Me D

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.

Pages

Topic locked