Chavez stopped?

L

Loxley

Water Chip? Been There, Done That
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7124313.stm
Unlike the elections in Putins Russia there is little complaint about this one from the opposition. Maybe because they won.

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has narrowly lost a referendum on controversial constitutional changes.

Voters rejected the sweeping reforms by a margin of 51% to 49%, the chief of the National Electoral Council said. With his raft of reforms, Mr Chavez was seeking an end to presidential term limits and the removal of the Central Bank's autonomy.
Click to expand...
So what do people here think? Will this stop him from trying for "president for life"? Will he perhaps try to do this through military force next time or will he work out his period and resign?

Personally I think this will be great. Even though he is against US involvment in the affairs of the country Presidents for Life has never really worked out good in latin american countries.
 
I don't know why people even bother. Democracy is a farce in non-first world countries, where the high standards of life compensate for the non-representation of the voters in the decision-making process. Where I live, everybody knows who has the pan grabbed by the handle: the oligarchy that accommodates itself with every change in the govt.

Chavez is a dictator and it is only a matter of time before he forcefully seizes the rest of the power that he finds lacking. I don't see a good alternative. While I don't expect him to solve Venezuela's problems, I think he is a better choice than a pro-US president. I'll speculate a bit (keeping in touch with historic trends of Latin America).

Venezuela is one of the few Latin American countries with highly valuable resources (oil) which can be used to negotiate with first world countries favorably. A pro-US president would continue to sell oil cheaply to the US (I call this plundering but then again I'm not the IMF) while neglecting the social problems in the country. This practice is what has allowed first world countries to thrive while the countries with resources are still in shambles. Chavez came to my country trying to form an alliance, trading oil for Panama's resources (we don't have any, my country was fucking beneath the ocean and thus wasn't geologically in a position to receive valuable minerals or oil). This isn't a new idea, rather its a rehash of a very old idea by one of the greatest men that came out of Latin America: Simon Bolivar His vision was far ahead of his time. I'm not a chavista but his proposition was very intriguing (from what I could discern): a unified Latin America, with different countries but cooperating economically and fomenting internal improvements on the social side. He wanted to trade oil for other resources. He failed in my country because the retards that I put in power are too busy sucking up to the US to realize that it would be in their best interests to cooperate with Chavez. Imagine a union of Latin American countries akin to the European Union, working together to improve social standards and trading their resources favorably with each other. Its both easier and harder over here because most of the countries have the same language and the same religion. Its harder because we lack cojones and long range vision. We are too busy with political infighting and wondering whether will h (a sad consequence of democracy, giving uneducated, ignorant people a choice, you should have to be properly educated in order to make a good choice).

This sounded so much more eloquent in my head, those Brouwerij beers are bouncing in my head.
 
Honestly, I find Chavez kind of funny. The bits where he criticized Bush as the devil were hilarious. But the election loss was a good thing. He's not out of power but seems willing to abide by an election defeat. That's a good sign for democracy in Venezuela.

Latin America has experienced a backlash againt the neo-liberal reforms of Washington for a few years. Many of those reforms, packaged in the Washington Consensus, led to increased prices, lower services and higher unemployment. In that sense Chavez is representative of the backlash of these countries to the Washington Consensus. Brazil's Lula was also elected based on this response- although Lula has been more moderate than Chavez. But in either case you have a political backlash by labor against capital.

I would also hesitate before going too far in criticizing democracy in the developing world, although I concur with the thrust of your position. Generally speaking, democracy is very hard to establish in the developing world. The reason is simple, weak economies lead to fragile institutions which allow rulers (or a ruling class) to redistribute wealth and power into their own pockets while failing to undertake the types of reforms necessary for economic development. That problem is not unique to the developing world, but happens in developed countries as well. Bush's administration has led to significant redistribution of wealth to the rich, for instance. The difference is that democratic instiutions are more consolidated in the developed world, and the developed world can more easily afford them than in the developing world.

That said, democracy can work to contain the predation of rulers and ruling classes. By limiting the capacity of rulers to mandate what they want and by making beholden to other groups, rulers may need to bargain.

Rulers want to rule, but how they sustain their rulership depends on their circumstances. In some cases they can repress rivals, in others they appeal to unifying ideologies. In a few they redistribute wealth and improve quality of life standards. But with democracy, rulers have to sell their program to the masses- allowing the masses a chance to demand more from the ruler.

Does it matter? Yes. You don't need to be democratic to grow and in some circumstances democracy can frustrate economic growth. But it can serve to control or constrain rulers, and that's usually a good thing. Without constraints, rulers would be unfettered in their grab for political or economic power.

As for oil, yes it helps but it can also hurt. A lot of depends on how the oil is used and also how large the population is. Generally when you have large populations and oil wealth, you get problems. Where you have small populations, oil wealth can be redistributed to help societies grow. But remember it was also the Venezuelan Oil Minister, and founder of OPEC, who called oil the Devil's excrement.

Juan Pablo Parez Alfonso, a founder of OPEC complained in 1975: "I call petroleum the devil's excrement. It brings trouble. Look at all the waste, corruption, consumption, and public services falling apart. And debt, debt we shall have for years"(Economist May 22, 2003).
Click to expand...

For more -
http://hir.harvard.edu/articles/1261/1/
 
Mikael said:
Except De Gaulle stepped down when he lost.
Click to expand...

I meant the whole 'losing a referendum' thing.

Skynet said:
Imagine a union of Latin American countries akin to the European Union, working together to improve social standards and trading their resources favorably with each other. Its both easier and harder over here because most of the countries have the same language and the same religion. Its harder because we lack cojones and long range vision. We are too busy with political infighting and wondering whether will h (a sad consequence of democracy, giving uneducated, ignorant people a choice, you should have to be properly educated in order to make a good choice).
Click to expand...

I don't think it's the lack of cojones; It's the lack of education that hampers such a thing, and will continue making it impossible for a long time if the situation remains as it is.

That's one thing, another one is the gigantic money and power involved in drugs, arms and people-smuggling businesses, at least that's the problem in my home state of Chiapas. The oligarchy is quite content co-operating with the drug lords, as long as nobody gets into each other's way. A co-operating Latin America isn't in the power-hungry oligarch's top priorities, and "the people" are too dumb, too scared or not numerous enough in intellectuals to do anything about it. Sad but true.

Welsh said:
Latin America has experienced a backlash againt the neo-liberal reforms of Washington for a few years.
Click to expand...

Y'know, I think it's more about the whole McHitlers and banana republics you guys spawned all over the place than neo-liberal reforms.

Speaking of McHitlers, none of those would ever encourage an united, cooperative Latin America. They want their generalissimo powers and death squads, complete with pictures of the smurfs on the side of the 4x4 Toyotas armed with brand new Yankee/Soviet equipment.

That said, what I loathe most about this Chavez asshole is the whole "Oh noes, evil Spaniards came and destroyed our civilization" attitude, mixed with redistributive commie demagogy. Yuck.
 
Lack of education. The bane of my country.

Over here, you can perceive how this country is rich only in money but not culture. Most of the projects that are being considered are either: new rich neighborhoods for the wealthy locals and foreigners, malls (geez, we already have 3 major malls in the city, quite enough thank you), tourist resorts. Of these 3, tourist resorts are the best options as they will provide income for non-oligarchs, at least partially.

Not ONE project has been considered that is not commercially relevant. No new museums, theaters, simply there are no options for the non-mundane. The worst thing is that these "people" (cattle would be a much more accurate term) will create the policies that will guide Panama's direction in our mid-term future. Hence my disparaging of democracy.

A person like me, would never EVER become president of this country without violent acts.

I don't dislike democracy per se, rather its poor implementation and poor response to the circumstances where it is employed. In order for the masses to limit the power of the wealthy without pulling an October Revolution, have to be educated so that they can exert their power to make good choices, otherwise, they'll be manipulated like the cattle they are.

On your closing point Wooz, you would certainly appreciate Vargas Llosa's (son) The Manual of the Perfect Latin American Idiot which accurately portrays many Latins' defeatist position (if only Spain hadn't conquered us, woe is me).

Devil's Excrement? Yep, that's one way of seeing it. In highly corrupted countries such as mine, oil would become a nasty means to repress.

The thing with Democracy in a country such as Panama is that we lack the checks and balances system, that helps keep scum (politicians) on their toes. It's very easy for the very rich such as the Motta family to buy laws that further their interests. My grandfather (http://www.aeronautica.gob.pa/index.php?option=info&op=historia&pag=1960 Aulio Hernandez), used to work as the Aerial Security Director in the Autoridad de Aeronautica Civil (Panama's institution that governs all things aeronautical). He instituted a law which basically forced local aviation companies to hire Panamanians to crew passenger flights. After my grandfather left the institution, the Motta family strong-armed Eustacio Fabrega (Director of said institution, he was above my grandfather) into derogating that law. Currently, many Panamanian pilots have had to leave the country because the assholes at Copa Airlines prefer to pay better salaries to foreign pilots than our compatriots. I'll try to find some sources from our newspapers to substantiate this but it will prove difficult as our newspapers acquired an online presence only after year 2000.

To close, I would like to add that I'm no commie in the same sense that I'm not a capitalist. I endorse whatever helps society in a greater degree.
 
With regard to US creating McHitlers- yes. You can consider that a Cold War form of Imperialism, except the Marines were enforcing that policy before the Cold War. Ever since Monroe Doctrine, the US has taken a policy that this Hemisphere should be free of outside influences (and that we control the shots). That policy was initially backed by the Brits until the US could do it on its own.

I won't justify it although I am not sure if US indirect empire was any worse than European imperialism in other parts of the world. Thucydides says it in the Melian Dialogue-

"as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must."

That said, I recall some moves about a decade ago among Latin American states working collectively to sustain democracy in the region.

As for the quality of democracy- one of the countries I study is Mauritius- an African sugar colony not unlike many of the sugar colonies in Latin America. Lessons of democracy generally uphold the notion that democracy can help keep a country stable and help a country become prosperous- primarily by constrained abuses by the ruling class.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top