Chavez, Chavez, Chavez. Once so full of promise, now a textbook example of the all-corrupting influence of power.
You might recall ol’ Chavy shutting down and threatening opposition broadcasters a few months back (here, here, and here). Now, he’s trying to remove presidential term limits, ensuring he can achieve Castro-like tenure over the Venezuelan people. He justified his move thusly:
“I propose to the sovereign people the seven-year presidential term, the president can be re-elected immediately for a new term. If someone says this is a project to entrench oneself in power. No, it’s only a possibility, a possibility that depends on many variables.”
Come again? That quote makes no sense- grammatically or otherwise. But that’s how he was quoted at CBC.ca and in The Guardian, so I have to think it’s pretty verbatim. And what ‘variables’? His manic desire to stay in power? Even if Chavez has the purest intentions, I think we can all agree that a president-for-life system is pretty problematic within the context of a democracy.
No doubt Chavez has some impressive plans for Venezuela, and because his ‘base’ is composed of the working classes and poor, there’s a respectable progressive edge to his social agenda. But whatever good he does will be obliterated if he undermines the democratic growth of his country. Dictators don’t build free societies. Democracy does, even if the process is painfully slow. If the people of Venezuela choose to sidestep their own democratic development in favour of an aggresive agenda by a charismatic frontman…well, we all know where that leads.
I personally feel that dictatorship is the best for of government. A SMALL bodied oligarchy at the most. Just need to have those fingers crossed that the (wo)man in power is a just one. That’s risky, of course, which is why we settle for democracy.
I don’t feel that becoming sole ruler is, in and of itself, a bad thing, particularly for a nation that needs strong direction. It’s what the ruler does with that power that matters. Unfortunately, shutting down the opposition media is a pretty strong indication of the true character of Chavez…
The right-wing flakes in the US, in general, wouldn’t care at all about Chavez save for the fact that he isn’t “our” dictator. To the right-wing flakes, implemented policies like using oil revenue to fund programs for the poor is treated as something akin to an invasion from Martian or Islamic terrorists. Rather than worry about Venezuela or Iran (two of your favorite demons), you might do well to take a long hard look at China, which really IS taking over the world.
What, no term limits! The wretched dictator! What an outrage! Venezuela’s going to end up like Canada. We can’t have that. Send in the Marines!
“Come again? That quote makes no sense- grammatically or otherwise.”
Well, English is his second language.
I’m not sure Venezuela or Iran are my favorite demons…Chavez is, certainly, but if you recall I have mentioned on numerous occasions that his social programs are good, but apparently come at a steep economic cost. I’m a bit confused about the Iran thing…yesterday’s post on the Revolutionary Guards didn’t really blame anyone for anything. I think the critical difference between China and Venezuela and Iran is that China doesn’t pretend to have democratic structures. Also, we all know China is a sinkhole of civil rights. Venezuela and Iran are a little fuzzier, and worthy of investigation. Also, I don’t think I even mentioned the USA in my post.
Dr. Dawg, you raise a good point…my reading of the various Chavez stories suggests that Chavez wants to extend the 6 year term to 7 and create an affirmation-not-election option for staying in power. Clearly, Chavez needs to elucidate. With a translator, that is.
McAdam, I guess I’m still more comfortable with some sort of recall mechanism (as we have now in our polyarchical democracies- essentially elite rule with some recourse to remove)than a carte blanche to an oligarchy. Like you say, risky. I don’t trust most people to make me toast, let alone govern me effectively.
A constitutional dictatorship, perhaps? Is that what you’re after? An interesting proposal, anyway.
“I’m not sure Venezuela or Iran are my favorite demons…Chavez is, certainly”
Ahah, that explains your current position a whole lot better than the arguments in your post do.
By the way, isn’t “favorite” spelled “favourite”, English being your first language?
Man, Saxboy. You are endlessly entertaining.
As I’m sure you’re aware, ‘favourite’ can also be spelled ‘favorite’. I will grant you the latter is an American spelling, but I think even you have to admit both words fall under ‘English’.
And if you’d like to throw your unthinking support behind two dictatorships, you’re more than welcome. I mean, without you, who will play the ideological clown in my comments section?
“Even if Chavez has the purest intentions, I think we can all agree that a president-for-life system is pretty problematic within the context of a democracy.”
I don’t think so. The people are still given the choice. Maybe you should read up on their electoral system some time? You seem to have very little idea of what you are talking about.
“But whatever good he does will be obliterated if he undermines the democratic growth of his country. Dictators don’t build free societies. Democracy does,”
Wow, now that’s good rhetoric; if it made sense. It’s a big stretch to call Chavez a dictator; he is chosen by the majority of the people (how do Harper and Bush compare?).
“If the people of Venezuela choose to sidestep their own democratic development”
There you go again. The people choose to sidestep; isn’t that their democratic right? Not that I expect much from someone who doesn’t understand the difference between human rights and democracy.
And you wanna call me a clown?
PS Favourite is your only correct spelling. Do I need to send you a dictionary?
*Sigh* Saxboy, Saxboy. First of all don’t send me a dictionary. Read this:
http://www2.gsu.edu/~wwwesl/egw/jones/differences.htm
Oh, and a blog comment isn’t a letter, so you don’t need to put a ‘post-script’ at the end. I get it.
I, as a matter of principle, hold democracy to be paramount in successful public life. And if you notice, I don’t actually call Chavez a dictator in the passage you quote. I make the point that if Chavez undermines democracy, he hurts his country. Then there is a punctuation mark called a ‘period’ that indicates the beginning of a new sentence, and a new thought. This is a general statement-that dictators don’t build free societies- that is pretty historically solid.
And as for your precious distinction between human rights and democracy…liberal human rights (free expression, association, religion, etc.) seldom, if ever, exist outside democratic systems. That’s because the authority of these rights come from constitutions, something that dictators tend to find rather inconvenient. Democracy and human rights are mutually interdependent.
In the post you link to, you question why I call hate speech ‘anti-democratic’. Well, because hate speech is usually aimed at marginalizing or compromising the rights of targeted groups. This prevents them from freely participating in the democratic life of their community. This is why we have laws against hate speech, laws that seemingly compromise the blanket right of free expression. So, Saxboy, I do understand the difference- and perhaps more importantly, the relationship- between human rights and democracy. And I find it interesting that you’re so enthusiastic for Chavez, a fellow who’s rights record is less than stellar.
And I do want to call you a clown. In fact, I did. I also enjoy how when I read your comments, my computer starts to emit a low whining sound.
Curious also that you seem to hold me beneath contempt, yet keep reading my blog…
“I make the point that if Chavez undermines democracy, he hurts his country.”
Fair enough. But does he? I don’t think so. Extending a term for 6 to 7 years by referendum, is that a democratic crime?
“And as for your precious distinction between human rights and democracy…liberal human rights (free expression, association, religion, etc.) seldom, if ever, exist outside democratic systems.”
Nevertheless they are not the same, and there are ample of examples where democratic means where used to suppress people, as given in the comment on your post that you never bothered to answer. Democracy doesn’t guarantee human rights either. Do “black sites” ring a bell?
“This is a general statement-that dictators don’t build free societies- that is pretty historically solid.”
A general statement under a heading “Chavez rides the slippery slope to Dictatortown”. I see it now, thanks.
“So, Saxboy, I do understand the difference- and perhaps more importantly, the relationship- between human rights and democracy.”
As I said before, your relationship doesn’t follow.
“And I find it interesting that you’re so enthusiastic for Chavez, a fellow who’s rights record is less than stellar.”
I don’t know where you got that impression from, it’s definitely not in my comment section.
But I do realize where you get your bias from. It’s the MSM’s view from the same country that can’t spell properly either. Why any Canadian wants to defend their corrupted views or spelling on a Canadian blog is beyond me.
If you’re so bored with compelling arguments that commenters leave, and feel the need to denigrate them calling them “ideological clowns”, then maybe blogging isn’t for you, Nunc Scio.
now you know.
And yet, here you are again…
If I see a compelling argument coming from your byline, I’ll let you know. And as the old saying goes, if the shoe fits…
Also: I can’t read your comments section, because you don’t have the stones to hyperlink your byline. I’ve got better things to do than track you down.
Chavez hasn’t been particularly clear on what he means with his constitutional reforms. But he has indicated, yes, that the term would extend from 6 years to 7. But more troubling is the removal of term limits, meaning he can keep being re-elected in perpetuity.
But here’s the kicker, from the G&M article I link to above:
“…the president can be re-elected immediately for a new term”.
There’s a certain amount of disturing ambiguity here…notice he didn’t say ‘there would immediately be a new election and a new government would be elected’. It sounds a little like he’s putting in some kind of affirmation-not-election system, and seems to be taking for granted that he’ll be re-elected. Suspicious, to say the least.
And I get the impression that you’re quite the fan of ol’Chavez BECAUSE YOU’VE WRITTEN THREE COMMENTS DEFENDING HIM ON MY BLOG. Jesus, man. Connect the dots.
Again, you deliberately mis-characterize my comments. Notice I didn’t say “Chavez has arrived in Dictatortown”. I suggest he’s on his way, and if he, and Venezuela aren’t careful, that’s exactly where they’ll be. Which is more or less the thrust of everything I’ve written about him.
I don’t really want to get into a protracted theoretical discussion on the relationship between human rights and democracy. As I said, they are mutually interdependent and one can’t exist without the other, at least in a the liberal conception. I went a got a Master’s degree on this, so I suggest you do the same. Or, if that’s a bit too much work, I can suggest some books that would give you a good grounding.
For me, the hallmark of an ‘ideological clown’ is the tendency to wildly overgeneralize. Like positing some overarching American viewpoint, and then calling it ‘corrupted’? That’s pretty weak.
Moreover, it’s totally inaccurate. If you actually read my post, you’ll notice I link to the Globe and Mail and he Guardian, neither of which are American MSM. In fact, the Guardian is widely regarded as fairly progressive. Unless both have now move shop to Washington, I find your comment a bit perplexing.
Now I know, indeed.
And seriously, how often do you visit my blog? You must love it here.
Well Mr. Master degree, I’m not going to comment on all your accusations, but here’s something to think about:
1. I’ve never defended Chavez. In my posts I’ve only tried to point out that smearing Chavez for things that don’t seem to make sense to you (grammatically or otherwise) is a technique perfected by the corporate MSM, especially those south of the border. Pointing out those problems is not a defence, or is it?
2. “Moreover, it’s totally inaccurate”
No its not.
- The Guardian headline (“I don’t want to rule indefinitely, say Chavez”) didn’t demonize Chavez with a headline “Chavez rides the slippery slope to Dictatortown”, you did.
- the writer of the Guardian never claimed that Chavez is their favourite demon, you did.
- The Guardian never argued that a president-for-life situation is undemocratic, you did.
Demonizing Chavez implicitly or explicitly (hence your “Chavez-is-my-demon” comment) is something you won’t find in the Guardian either.
On the other hand many mainstream newspapers south of the border (and some in Canada as well) have no problem repeating and often endorsing the US government propaganda position on Chavez, a position you seem to embrace.
”Chavez the textbook example of all-corrupting influence of power.”
“Chavez rides the slippery slope to Dictatortown”.
“Chavez is [certainly my favourite demon]”
That sounds a lot like US propaganda to me.
Now you now.
NB: It’s unfortunate to read that even those with a relatively high degree of education (you profess to hold a Masters) can show such poor judgement when it comes to HOW to read the news. And you, Nunc Scio seem to be no different.
Well, I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this, because I don’t agree with your interpretation of events or my arguments, and you clearly don’t agree with mine. Also, this is all a little tedious.
I am touched, however, that you would dedicate this much time to my blog. I welcome you to comment on further posts, because ultimately your perspective, though I may not fully understand it, is certainly welcome.
I am a bit confused what you meant by ‘Now you now’, but I suppose this is some immensely clever riff on my blog’s tagline, and not a typo. Because that would just be stupid.