Randy Paul, better-informed-than-I, has a more in-depth take on the referendum in Venezuela, saying that "[w]hile there are some good ideas" in the referendum package, it was a bad idea all things considered.
« Illiteracy Watch | Main | Today in Racism »
More Chavez
03 Dec 2007 10:12 am
Comments (7)
"I'm neither in favor or opposed to term limits for Latin American leaders, so even that might have been plausibly pushed at some point"
Very nicely put. And what if some very specific Latin American leader just by the grace of God ended up with all the justices in the Supreme Court, all the members of the National Electoral Council, all members of the Legislative on his side? And on top of that the legislative would have given such Latin American leader carte blanche to legislate by fiat? And what if he were politicizing the army? Closing tv stations? Would you be willing to reconsider your position on term limits for Latin American leaders? Intellectually, at least?
And would you even think about that scenario in the US?
No, Eduardo, I would not be willing to falsely make up some rationale for imposing term limits all over Latin America if I happened to truly be opposing the continuation in office of just one of them, say, Hugo Chavez. That would be fraudulent and deceitful.
By the way, the "intellectually at least" was meant in the simple, literal sense -- i.e., I have given no money or resources or time or any other substantive "support" of any Chavez initiative.
But since you will bitterly assume that anyone who doesn't wake up screaming about the threat which Hugo Chavez is posing to that formely titanic, gleaming role model of Latin American democracy which was Punto Fijo Venezuela, such a term is a sure Masonic ring signifier of a fellow traveler secret Fidel-worshipping tyrant boot-licker anyway, no?
Look, go vent your misplacedly sarcastic diatribes against someone else who was strongly in favor of this referendum.
Term limits are inherently undemocratic things. So long as elections are held at somewhat regular intervals, they are completely unnecessary. If the people of Venezuela don't want them lifted, that is obviously their right as a Democracy. It is also the right of those who do want them lifted to continue to push for that.
As for the Tv station thing... No nation on this planet would have allowed those stations to have remained in operation. They were acting as the headquarters of people who were demonstrably attempting to overthrow the democratically elected government of Venezuela. It was an unfortunate action only in that it had to be undertaken.
If Think this proves that Chavez is not a dictator. Dictator's don't lose referendums like this, and they certainly don't lose them by an amount small enough to be overcome by last minute cheating.
El Cid,
Sorry it came out as a vent but I am actually enjoying "the morning after" quite a bit. It doesn't mean everything will be Ok in Venezuela but you take whatever you can.
What I tried to get at is how easily people apply totally different standards to others. I think your response make my point quite nicely. And that's Ok, Cid; everybody does it.
And yeah. You've got a point: I misread "the intellectual" part. It is a shame it wasn't what you meant because if it was it would be pretty funny.
Peace
I agree with R. Paul's take on the very mixed policy bag that the referendum provided. I was surprised that Chavez decided to put all of the items on a single question instead of splitting them up. He might have had more success on some of the less controversial items. I think it is premature to see this as an enduring loss of political power.
Chavez's acceptance of this defeat does pose an intellectual conundrum for those of us that are uneasy by his consolidation of power. So while he might not be acting procedurally like a dictator in accepting this loss, his policy vision remains one of a substantive dictatorship in creating an executive with limited checks and balances, disproportionate control over media and speech, and perhaps most importantly, overwhelming control over the direction of central social spending.
Term limits are theoretically undemocratic in that they limit choice. But in the Latin American context - where revolutions have been waged to enshrine the principle of term limits as the pathway to real choice - unlimited re-election symbolize strongman rule. This might seem quirky to those of us raised in the US, but the history of the region makes it so.
To put it in an American perspective think about California's proposition process. Technically, it's a more "democratic" process because it is a direct citizen referendum. But a lot of us that have actually participated in them certainly don't feel that it is any more democratic than the alternative of letting our elected state officials make policy. Sometimes it feels even less democratic than representative democracy because it has become a way for entrenched special interests to mobilize a passionate minority in order to circumvent the checks provided by the legislature and governor.
My point here is that what is "democratic" depends on the context. Unlimited terms certainly doesn't feel democratic in Latin America.
Term limits are inherently undemocratic things. So long as elections are held at somewhat regular intervals, they are completely unnecessary.
You've got to be kidding me. Clearly you don't know anything about the history of Latin American politics or the underlying power dynamics of a Presidentialist system.
Comments closed December 17, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
I have supported (intellectually at least) many of Chavez' initiatives, but I didn't think this referendum was a wise idea in policy or in politics. Particularly not the rather frightening bundle of various massive changes under no particular theme. With luck this loss may tone up the humility just a bit (this is Hugo Chavez, after all) so that maybe he'll realize that whatever gains he makes must somehow survive after he is no longer leader.
If at some point he wants to push a limited referendum on some finer aspects of communal based democratic organizations, fine. Or some sorts of property-rights reforms leading to "social" property rights. Assuming these are properly defined. I'm neither in favor or opposed to term limits for Latin American leaders, so even that might have been plausibly pushed at some point.
But a massive proposal of disparate reforms tied together with the removal of Hugo's term limits? Bound to be frightening and divisive to the populace.
Posted by El Cid | December 3, 2007 10:22 AM