I guess if Hugo Chávez can't even get majority support in a referendum for proposed changes to the constitution that he can't be much of an aspiring dictator, can he? On the merits, I'm obviously not an expert in such things but Chávez's proposals -- an end to presidential term limits plus concentration of more power in the president's office -- are probably a bad idea for a country like Venezuela and it's probably a good thing that they were defeated. Still, the level of pious screeching about Chávez's authoritarianism from people who think the dictators ("emirs," etc.) of Qatar, Bahrain, UAE, etc. should be treated with nothing but the utmost respect has always chafed.
« Bad News Journalism | Main | Quotes First, Facts Second »
Venezuelan Dictatorship Watch
03 Dec 2007 09:20 am
Comments (50)
That's where you fucked up, Hugo. Why go with a referendum when you can have the legal team of Addington and Yoo?
The right...couldn't give a damn whether [Chavez is] an autocrat or a democrat.
Quite so. I am also pro-Chavez and anti-Reff, and this is a wonderful day. Venezuelans can just elect another izuierdo in 2012 if they want.
So touching to hear Nicholas Burns concernz, BTW.
He wanted way more than the lifting of presidential terms. Just a couple of examples: the president would be able to create new territorial divisions out of his royal ass; the president would be able to appoint the head of the governments of the states; a lot of power would be granted to some sort of communal government, whose leaders would be appointed by ... you guessed, the president.
The list is very, very long.
Look, someone on the authoritarian right can accuse you of "pious screeching" because the Bush administration is way, way, way, way closer to Denmark than to Chavez when it comes to democracy. And in any case, North Koreans would be thrilled t enjoys the freedoms Cubans and "Qataries" do.
From less freedom to more: good. The other way around, bad. Ok?
a lot of power would be granted to some sort of communal government, whose leaders would be appointed by ... you guessed, the president.
That's simply not true. The communal councils have an elected leadership. Would Chavista's win most of the time? Yeah.
They also don't have power to do much without a community vote so it's a piss poor vehicle for tyranny.
Let's see..the twice democratically elected president (and a recall attempt, not to mention the military coup) of Venezuela holds a public referendum to change the constitution, barely loses and graciously concedes defeat. If his policies were free market, he would be hailed as a beacon of light for democracies all over the world. Instead, since his policies actually address the needs of the majority of Venezuelans, he is excoriated in the U.S press as a dictator.
I'm pro-Chavez and anti-referendum, so today is a good day.
I think so too. This morning I was wondering whether Chávez might not have wanted it this way -- what better way to demonstrate that he's not a dictator and that he's doing it for the people, than to allow the people to explicitly refuse to make him a dictator?
Good on the opposition for not boycotting, too.
We're only part of the way through this novel, you know. Chavez could continue to be gracious, but he just doesn't strike me as that kind of character. We'll see.
The guy packed the Supreme Court with loyalists, has 100% "majority" on the parliament, (which in turn let him legislate by decrees in all sorts of matters) is openly politicizing the military, closed the oldest, biggest TV channel, constantly threatens the non-compliant press, etc. etc. but because "his policies actually address the needs of the majority of Venezuelans" some people on the Left prefer to look the other way to all that.
Being elected doesn't make you a democrat. See Hitler. See Hamas.
Losing constitutional votes neither. See Pinochet.
Matt, I have to say I'm really surprised at the radical leftism of some of your and Ezra' commenters. I take it that on the political spectrum you and Erza are pretty much standard American leftists, who would have ample reason to be hostile to Chavez' radical leftist agenda. Why not condemn him as an anti-democratic anti-mixed economy jerk, even if he (perhaps literally?) thinks Bush is the devil?
"Matt, I have to say I'm really surprised at the radical leftism of some of your and Ezra' commenters. I take it that on the political spectrum you and Erza are pretty much standard American leftists, who would have ample reason to be hostile to Chavez' radical leftist agenda."
Y'know, running third-world petrodollar states doesn't seem to bring about an abundance of the kind of good governance that we'd want to see in the US.
But Chavez seems to have to done the best job on the planet at running a third-world petrodollar state, and thus deserves applause.
Compare and contrast to Putin, to start.
But then again, I'm a lefty. I like a lot of Castro's policy, though have big problems with the lack of democracy and civil rights in Cuba. Chavez is Castro plus elections. Good on him.
Why not condemn him as an anti-democratic anti-mixed economy jerk, even if he (perhaps literally?) thinks Bush is the devil?
You are supposed to CONDEMN him, Matt. It's really not good enough to make vague claims about "authoritarianism". You must be a "radical leftist", rather the regular sort of American. I dug up a radical leftist and he condemned Chavez as a Left Nationalist and an impediment to international socialism, maybe he was an outlier, I don't know but it's CRUCIAL that you condemn people.
Selfreferencing,
They probably aren't that radicals when it comes to what happens in America. Other totally different thing is when we talked about poor third worlders.
I was born and lived in Cuba till I was 32. Every Cuban can tell you stories like the one I am going to tell you. There is this really funny, smart and nice French-Spaniard who came from Spain, where he works with a friend of mine. My friend had told him to contact me in Havana. We talked a lot about politics and the regime, etc. He was always justifying Castro and "relativizing" the pluses of democracy and market economy. Well, one afternoon we are talking about the courts in Spain. So I asked him: Can the judges be controlled by the powers that be? Then he answers back, with almost a hint of horror in his face: "No, that would be the end of the Estado de Derecho!!!' (Estado de Derecho roughly translates as rule of law) Well, you could cut the silent tension that followed.
So, don't worry much about Matt's readership, most likely they are all-righty. And they are not deciding what is happening in Lat-Am, anyway
Selfreferencing,
"But then again, I'm a lefty. I like a lot of Castro's policy, though have big problems with the lack of democracy and civil rights in Cuba"
See what i am sayin'?
But then again, I'm a lefty. I like a lot of Castro's policy, though have big problems with the lack of democracy and civil rights in Cuba.
So serious question Petey. Which place do you think is better, Cuba or Puerto Rico?
In light of today's news, I'll admit that the Chavez story is somewhat more complicated than I thought.
Despite disagreeing with him on policy, I feel a lot better about politicians who are willing to accept an adverse election result. I hope Chavez follows through and leaves office in 2012.
It still puzzles me whether Matt's trolls actually know they're trolls, or whether they merely have no way of differentiating between different blogs on the same domain. (mind, I suppose the same would account for all the cat-rearing advice you get on every haloscan comment thread.)
- Chris
"So serious question Petey. Which place do you think is better, Cuba or Puerto Rico?"
The US subsidy to and control of Puerto Rico kinda distorts the question by making it a richer and politically more stable place than it'd otherwise be.
I think Cuba is better than Haiti, to throw out another imperfect comparison.
-----
My enthusiasm for Castro is quite limited. I'm a big fan of democracy and civil rights. But in comparison to other third-world countries without democracy and civil rights, Castro has done numerous good things for his people.
the Bush administration is way, way, way, way closer to Denmark than to Chavez when it comes to democracy.
The usual 'democracy dodge'. The point is that the non-chimerical Right Chavez and others are pitted against actually do give a damn about liberal democracy: they are extremely hostile to it. It makes no sense to compare the Bush admisitration to a country. The Bush 'administration' (it deserves quotes) is also patently hostile to liberal democracy; Bush just can't get away with all he'd really like to - though not for lack of trying. You are confusing institutions with political personalities.
In fact, the policies of the ruling party in the US for the last 25+ years have pointlessly (esp. after the Cold War), and very efficiently, extended Marxist-Leninists' ability to appeal to people. Nice going, guys. Uniquely feckless, kind of like the US drug war: yes, rightist governments have killed thousands of people; yes, you and millions of others are poor with no hope. But heed El Norte: Just Say No.
Cuba has better health care than Puerto Rico. Probably better education, too.
Eduardo says: "The guy packed the Supreme Court with loyalists, has 100% "majority" on the parliament, (which in turn let him legislate by decrees in all sorts of matters) is openly politicizing the military, closed the oldest, biggest TV channel..."
Shouldn't that be "...closed the oldes, biggest TV channel that openly took part in the 2002 coup." What would happen to say, CNN's license if it conspired to overthrow president Bush?
There's plenty not to like about Chavez. He's authoritarian, and this road to socialism will do more harm than good in the long run. But the level of mischaracterization of what he is doing is astounding.
Oh Petey, Cuba is doing better than Haiti, and also better then other non-democracies in the Third World. I feel so much better now! The problem is that I happen to know that Cuba had the third GPD percapita of Lat-Am in the fifties.
jonnybutter: Point taken on the distinction between the Bush "Administration" and the country. I, however, think that what matters are not the intentions of Bush but what can he get away with. And if you (and I do, believe me) go ballistic with what the Bush "Administration" has done to our institutions it is a huge contradiction that then you defend Chavez. And if the intentions we are talking, Chavez was know first by the Venezuela because he tried to take power by a coup d'etat (what we in El Sur call un gorilazo.)
As for the second paragraph, I didn't understand very well what you meant -blame it on my poor reading skills. But if you please come up with a Marxist-Leninist government that hasn't brought poverty and diminishing freedoms to its people I am all willing to change my mind.
Ok, Petey, fair point.
It's difficult to compare a place with democracy, human rights and liberal democratic principles that is geographically, culturally, and historically very similar to a place that has does not have democracy, human rights, or liberal democratic principles. But it's very easy to compare two places that are both without liberal democratic principles but that are historically and culturally very different.
Cuba's leadership has done great things for its people. I'm sure the Castro brothers are even able to get these to run on time.
And their example should be emulated wholeheartedly by other developing countries not just in Latin America, but the world over. I mean, look at an example of third world socialism *with* democracy and human rights: Zimbabwe. That country is doing so great, they on track surpass South Korea.
But Chavez seems to have to done the best job on the planet at running a third-world petrodollar state, and thus deserves applause.
Compare and contrast to Putin, to start.
Russia is a "third-world petrodollar state"?
I don't know why the fact he's (supposedly) better than a bunch of tinpot sultans and dictators in the middle east makes him worthy of applause.
Chavez can be an ASPIRING dictator and lose all the constitutional referendums he wants. Hitler lost not one, but two presidential elections, and I think we would call him an aspiring dictator.
Chavez isn't the worst third-world autocrat, but I find the gleeful enthusiasm felt for him by some of my idealogical fellow-travelers (like similar enthusiasm for Che) to be a bit mysterious.
Musa,
Chavez tried to overthrow the goverment in 1991 or 1992 by trying to execute a military coup. He is a little bit more than an authoritarian, he is a classic Latin American gorilla. While most gorillas have been from the right, there have been some leftist too. See Velasco Alvarado http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=coup+of+stat&btnG=Search
So, the accusation if that the "TV channel...openly took part in the 2002 coup" The problem with supporting closing channels based on this is that you might end up suppressing all dissidents because they are "agents of the empire", "conspirators against the state", etc just like they do in Cuba. If they really "openly took part in the 2002 coup" you can bring them to the courts. It is not for the president to decide that.
PTS:
I know I don't sound in this discussion like one, but I am a liberal. A Russ Feingold liberal is that helps a little bit more. About the enthusiasm for Che and Chavez (and yes Castro too, though it has decreased as he gets old and the island sinks): it used to hurt me when good people that I really like professes it. I have lived 5 years in Brazil and 7 in the US and finally I know why: they don't know who Che and Chavez are. Some don't want to either and filter the info because they are good souls who want to believe that something really radical can be made to lift the poor.
Somehow it is like the global warming denialists in the right. There is nothing conservative about global warming denials. But for many of them this is like a auto da fe.
During the coup, they rebroadcast over and over a loop of video that supposedly showed a Chavista firing into a crowd of unarmed protesters. In the not so tight shots on the reel you could see that everyone one the bridge was crowed behind walls because they were under fire from an anti-chavez sniper. The guy supposedly shooting into a crowd was shooting into an empty street to try and return fire. This incident was supposedly the reason Chavez government was illegitimate according to Condi Rice.
That goes way, way, beyond having an opinion and they didn't get shut down anyway, they still play on cable. I really can't think of a better reason for taking the broadcast license away from an outfit for something like that.
And something else for your biographical appeal to authority, don't mispell the Spanish when you are writing English.
Eduardo, you like having this conversation in the vacuum, don't you? But lets be honest here, if Chavez wasn't such a hard-ass, the US would have shot him and replaced him with a Venezuelan Pinochet by now. Remember the 70's and 80's, when people tried to be sunny and nice about reform? Well those people got disapeared. The public tried things your way, and people like you failed them. So maybe Chavez is a bit paranoid, and a bit more iron-handed than we'd like him to be, but he has to be.
Soullite
Chavez seemed to be doing okay before the current referendum to concentrate yet more power in the executive.
Amorphous external threats are always the way dictators justify their dictatorship. The threat never goes away, and we always need ever more power and fewer freedoms to oppose it.
Funny how everyone hollering "If you love Hugo so much, why don't you marry him?" missed this part:
Still, the level of pious screeching about Chávez's authoritarianism from people who think the dictators ("emirs," etc.) of Qatar, Bahrain, UAE, etc. should be treated with nothing but the utmost respect has always chafed.
Again, it's everything about him being a left-wing would-be dictator who's sitting on a bunch of oil. When the US government actively undermines and publicly cheers on attempted coups against Musharraf, or Mubarak, or Abdullah II, or Nazarbayev, or even Meles Zenawi; when it uses time-travel technology to go back and undo its support for Marcos, Pinochet, Batista, and Pahlavi; then we'll believe all this breast-beating about a left-wing authoritarian demagogue seeking to make himself a despot.
Because you know what? Chávez is an authoritarian whose views on political power are at odds with those of a healthy representative democratic republic. But those views have little to do with his "anti-market" positions, even though those positions are what really have most pundits in a tizzy (see also: Allende, Mossadeq).
"And something else for your biographical appeal to authority, don't mispell the Spanish when you are writing English."
Ed: Getting personal, uh? But please don't misspell when you are criticizing someone else's spelling. Also, what did I misspell in Spanish? I might (re-)learn something from you and I'd be thankful for that.
While most gorillas have been from the right, there have been some leftist too.
Um... who have the rightist guerillas been? Che's gang in Cuba, Bolivia and elsewhere; FARC and ELN in Colombia; Sendero Luminoso in Peru; Zapatistas in Mexico, Sandinistas in Nicaragua, Tupamaros in Uruguay... all Marxist, Leninist or Maoist. Who am I forgetting?
Unless you mean simian gorillas -- they can be pretty reactionary.
Right,
Gorillas are not guerrillas but army officers prone to overthrown elected government like Pinochet, the many, many, many military rightist dictators that Lat-Am has suffered and a few leftist like Chavez and Velazco Alvarado.
As for guerrillas, there were right wing ones, too; as in Cuba and Nicaragua.
MDS,
"Because you know what? Chávez is an authoritarian whose views on political power are at odds with those of a healthy representative democratic republic. But those views have little to do with his "anti-market" positions, even though those positions are what really have most pundits in a tizzy (see also: Allende, Mossadeq)."
I would agree with you if you were talking about the government but I am not sure I agree with you related to the press. The press had always been very much against right-wing dictators in Lat-Am. Very, very much against Pinochet, Somoza, even Batista. It is very famous the interview that NYT's Matthews did to Castro when he was in the mountains, for example...
Better than Haiti? Everywhere else in the Western Hemisphere is better than Haiti.
Soullite:
"Eduardo, you like having this conversation in the vacuum, don't you? But lets be honest here, if Chavez wasn't such a hard-ass, the US would have shot him and replaced him with a Venezuelan Pinochet by now. Remember the 70's and 80's, when people tried to be sunny and nice about reform? Well those people got disapeared."
Supposedly the coup-attempt against Chavez was American-backed, 60 minutes had something on it, but there was never anything proved, just rumors.
What I can't understand is why people like Soullite - and there are many - refuse to acknowledge that the Cold War is over. So coup attempts and CIA funny business will be extremely less likely. (all of these people's examples are from the Cold War period.) What you have now is "color revolutions."
If the US was so pro-dictator, they would have replaced Saddam "our bastard" with another strongman and they wouldn't have allowed the Hamas election to have happened.
MY:
"Still, the level of pious screeching about Chávez's authoritarianism from people who think the dictators ("emirs," etc.) of Qatar, Bahrain, UAE, etc. should be treated with nothing but the utmost respect has always chafed."
I get your point, but on the other hand when the US does replace one of "our" dictators, i.e. Saddam, the anti-warriors call it the worst mistake in the history of mankind. (Interestingly, the "emirs" of Abu Dhabi just purchased the largest stake in the largest American bank.)
Also, I don't have respect for the Saudi or Egyptian dictatorships, but at least they aren't saying on a regular basis that Israel should be wiped from the map, as Iran's president has been doing.
Also, Chavez called Bush the Devil at the UN, which wasn't smart, these other dictators don't talk like that.
I think it's important to look at Chavez in context. In Venezuela(as in much of Latinamerica) you have a small upper and middle class, and a large underclass. The upperclass controls the media and the oil and the money, and none of it is used to benefit the poor. Chavez got elected to change the balance of power and redistribute some of the wealth. While I think he is somewhat authoritatian, a big part of his problem is poor public relation skills. I do find it heartening that he still chooses to follow a democratic path.
Eduardo,
I'll admit I don't know a lot about Chavez, but this is my take on the situation:
If I complain about Bush and his anti-democratic views (among other things), I think things could get better in the US. Namely, we might stop electing Republicans, we would stop torturing people and in the long run, maybe even the Democratic party would represent the right-of-center view in the US.
What is accomplished by demonizing Chavez? Would it be better if we were replaced by a right-authoritarian government? Is there another option? My understanding is that the answer is no. As a result, I don't cheerlead for him, but I don't criticize him and I have a critical eye for those who thinks its an important part of their political agenda to criticize him - with the presumed desire to get whatever other options there are for Venezuela.
It's the old and very predictable story, Eduardo. The Chavez (or Castro, Che, Mao, Tito, Ho Chi Minh supporters) are compensating for their failures to establish a social and just society in their own countries by cheering on authoritarians in less economically developed countries as long as they are perceived as "socialists" and give the finger to the US - human rights, independence of the judiciary, freedom of the press and the economical situation of the people living there are only a secondary concern. I've seen it first-hand in the way a large part of the left treated eastern european dissidents. It's a mirror image of the hypocrisy on the right.
And in case anybody might be wondering: I am, have always been and will always be a center-left european social-democrat, which would put me somewhere on the far left in the current political landscape of the US.
MY - Still, the level of pious screeching about Chávez's authoritarianism from people who think the dictators ("emirs," etc.) of Qatar, Bahrain, UAE, etc. should be treated with nothing but the utmost respect has always chafed.
Matt tries the usual desperate Lefty tactic to inject moral equivalence when the basic condition is one of countries moving towards less freedom and prosperity (Cuba, Venezuela) or more freedom and prosperity compared to what they had - (Bahrain, Qatar, UAE). Venezuela is now getting more cash flow thanks to high oil prices and USA incompetence at having a coherent energy policy, but it is losing oil production as it loses it's skilled engineers, oil drillers, refinery workers to other countries.
Meanwhile - the emirs of the Gulf are on track to do exactly what the West wants - join the modern world. They are using the huge numbers of well-educated people available in the Gulf region and coming in from outside to create another economic marvel. Qatar, Bahrain, and UAE - especially Dubai - are solid allies of the West and are absolutely booming.
Eduardo is right about Che, in particular. Chavez resurrected the symbol of that eager homicidal butcher. Ask a Cuban exile, not a clueless Lefty wearing the old Che in beret icon thinking it shows the Lefty's solidarity with "freedom fighters". Che was all about executions without trial, then kangaroo courts after Raul said you can't just kill on whim anymore....he was Pol Pot on a smaller scale.
Chavez is an autocrat. He's a former coup leader himself. When that failed, he ran for president on the promise of bread and circuses for the masses. He uses whatever means possible to draw more power into his own hands: violence when he's capable of violence and the voting booth when he's capable of that.
I don't know why it should matter that the neocons recognize that the Saudis or Qataris or anyone else is also an autocrat. You should be capable of recognizing them all.
What is accomplished by demonizing Chavez? Would it be better if we were replaced by a right-authoritarian government?
The problem is when people decide they should praise Chavez, simply because he falls in opposition to Bush.
I oppose American attempts to manipulate the governments of South American countries. But why should I have opposed Pinochet's American-backed autocracy only to now praise Chavez's Cuban-backed one?
I can't decide whether Eduardo's ideas about a rare species of Latin American gorilla hurts his "lived in Cuba" credentials or not.
Small note to Chris Ford - The Gulf countries are heavily dependent upon an incongrous mix of skilled Westerners and unskilled south Asians for their economy, whose prosperity is still driven by oil rents.
I generally agree that Venezuela is moving toward less freedom, however, as the results of yesterday's referendum show, it is still more democratic and free than our "respected" allies in the Gulf.
Musa,
A simple google search for GORILLA MILITAR DICTATOR will show you the meaning of the word as it applies to what we are discussing: a militar dictator in Latin America. It was a very common species back in the seventies when the continent was full of them and the term was most used.
As far as "credentials", it is not me the subject topic. And really, who gives a shit? De todas formas tu no sabes a que hora mataron a Lola.
novakant:
You are probably right. But it's better not to care too much, though. People in Eastern Europe knew what they were going through and at the first opportunity did free themselves. Cubans will do the same.
Petey, although some on the right probably don't care if he's a libertarian or a tyrant, that doesn't mean everyone to the right of you thinks like that.
I don't like Chavez, but I don't like Bush either. When a politician is focused first on things like expanding his power, removing restrictions to his rule by fiat, and attempting to control the media - I really don't care what he *claims* his economic policy (right or left) is all about. Whether he uses socialist or capitalist rhetoric, an autocrat is an autocrat and you can't expect that to benefit the average people over the long term.
Left/Right just isn't the same dichotomy as Libertarian/Authoritarian - There are plenty of different reasons to object to a political style outside of economic disagreement.
Comments closed December 17, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
I'm pro-Chavez and anti-referendum, so today is a good day.
Three cheers for Hugo.
-----
"Still, the level of pious screeching about Chávez's authoritarianism from people who think the dictators ("emirs," etc.) of Qatar, Bahrain, UAE, etc. should be treated with nothing but the utmost respect has always chafed."
The right is anti-Chavez for policy reasons. They don't like Chavez's leftism. They couldn't give a damn whether he's an autocrat or a democrat.
Posted by Petey | December 3, 2007 9:36 AM