Chavez wins referendum

[CountArach]

Well, we haven't had a Chavez thread in a while.

Chavez wins referendum to remove term limits (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601085&sid=aGnkofmHBIu0&refer=europe)

Feb. 16 (Bloomberg) -- Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez scored a victory in his drive to stay in power as voters scrapped constitutional term limits that would have forced him from office in 2013.

The amendment carried with 54.4 percent of the vote to 45.6 percent, according to preliminary results, said Tibisay Lucena, president of the National Electoral Council, in comments carried on state television. The referendum marked the second time in 14 months that Chavez sought to remove the constitutional bar that kept him from seeking unlimited re-election.
Chavez declares this a mandate for Socialism (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g-XT1LHvGnHwytS8tnBmfnd_BcqgD96CIANG3)

"Those who voted "yes" today voted for socialism, for revolution," Chavez thundered to thousands of ecstatic supporters jamming the streets around the presidential palace. Fireworks lit up the Caracas skyline, and one man walked though the crowd carrying a painting of Chavez that read: "Forever."
[...]
The constitutional overhaul allows all public officials to run for re-election as many times as they want, removing barriers to a Chavez candidacy in the next presidential elections in 2012 and beyond.
Now will people accept that the people of Venezuela really do love him?

[PowerWizard]

Now will people accept that the people of Venezuela really do love him?


The US media will hardly accept it, but I'm sure the rest of the international community will accept it. It was a democratic election, with no major flaws reported, Chavez could only gain 54 % support and the bulk of the domestic media was against him. He is the legitimate leader of Venezuela.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Now will people accept that the people of Venezuela really do love him?

I'll accept a simple majority voted to remove term limits for him. ~;p

But even socialists should accept we have term limits for a reason - to prevent one single man from gaining too much power, from establishing a cult of personality.

There's no excuse for getting rid of the limits - I'm sure someone else could continue down his socialist path. But importantly for Chavez, that man wouldn't be him.

CR

[CountArach]

I'll accept a simple majority voted to remove term limits for him. ~;p

But even socialists should accept we have term limits for a reason - to prevent one single man from gaining too much power, from establishing a cult of personality.
There are no term limits down here and things work fine - that's what elections are for. People are smart enough to realise when someone is getting too big for their boots and is starting to enjoy their position a little *too* much. There doesn't need to be a Constitution to tell them this. I forsee Chavez losing an election one day for this reason - and I wouldn't be surprised if he comes back with the military and the working class.

There's no excuse for getting rid of the limits - I'm sure someone else could continue down his socialist path. But importantly for Chavez, that man wouldn't be him.
Alright that is a valid argument.

[Hosakawa Tito]

Hey, it worked for Michael Bloomberg so why not? Some people are just indespensible and we certainly can't be expected to live without them.

[CountArach]

Hey, it worked for Michael Bloomberg so why not?
Well yeah, but Chavez sought the vote directly from the people, rather than just a council.

[seireikhaan]

"Love" him? That I would doubt. Approve of his governance? Seems so.

[KukriKhan]

I'll give him this: he's achieving his socialist state via the ballot box, not the AK47, and doing it over 20 years, not overnight.

It wouldn't work here; we don't trust our leaders that much, or for that long. But apparently it works fine in Caracas. He's 54, and has plans through age 64. Will he stick around 10 years after that - after his perceived mandate has been achieved?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

This referendum -- essentially a referendum on Chavez himself -- passed with 54% of the vote. That's a full point better than Obama did.

I loathe strong-man socialism more than I mislike socialism itself. Chavez is strong-man socialism AND a bag of chips.

To the devil his due, however. Chavez has not used smoke and mirrors, has not resorted to military thuggery, and his use of a foreign "enemy" as a foil for rallying support is far less baseless than many of the claims made by dictators the world over. The USA really HAS tried to bust on him quite a bit.

In the long run, I believe he will do more harm than good for Venezuela -- but it is THEIR decision, not mine to make.

Half a century from now, however, when I am a doddering old fool complaining about world affairs (I'm only middle aged so far), someone will write some compelling history about New World Socialism and Chavez -- and Castro will warrant only a chapter and Guevera little more than a footnote.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I pity Venezuela.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

So what does this say about Bush's mandate in 2004? Chavez did only 4 points better...

Did we love Bush then, or is 54% the cutoff?

[Strike For The South]

So what does this say about Bush's mandate in 2004? Chavez did only 4 points better...

Did we love Bush then, or is 54% the cutoff?

Love only applies when you agree with the man. Otherwise he wants to genocide infants.

[Xiahou]

Chavez is a good propagandist, as the Economist (http://www.economist.com/world/americas/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13061800) points out.
He has turned almost the whole of the state bureaucracy, including the armed forces and the state oil company, into an election machine. The government-dominated electoral authority has said nothing. Pro-government rallies teem with public-sector workers in red shirts and baseball caps bearing the logos of government departments. “Everyone’s here voluntarily,” insists Clevis Bozo, who works in the internal audit office of Petróleos de Venezuela (PDVSA), the oil company. “It’s the will of the people.”

He puts the entirety of his government to work influencing voters while he works to muzzle opposition voices. It's not surprising that he won- it's surprising that he didn't win by more. :yes:

From the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/14/opinion/14sat2.html):
The government has attacked unsympathetic unions, harassed human rights advocates and clamped down on free speech. In a scathing report released in Caracas last year, Human Rights Watch said Mr. Chávez’s policies “have degraded the country’s democracy.” Mr. Chávez responded by sending armed security agents to abduct two Human Rights Watch representatives from their hotel and put them on a plane to São Paulo, Brazil.
He and his supporters are increasingly resorting to intimidation. Mobs have occupied the municipal government headquarters in Caracas, which is run by the opposition, and lobbed tear gas canisters at the home of a TV executive who has been critical of the government and others. The leader of one hard-core group is threatening “war” if Mr. Chávez loses, according to news reports.Sorry, but I don't regard that as a "free and fair" vote. :shrug:

[seireikhaan]

From the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/14/opinion/14sat2.html):Sorry, but I don't regard that as a "free and fair" vote. :shrug:
Well, we know that can't be true, look at the source. :wink:

[Xiahou]

Well, we know that can't be true, look at the source. :wink:Hey, I could've found different sources, but I thought the socialist Chavez apologists would give most weight to the NYT. Although, convincing them that Chavez is anything short of a saint is a challenge regardless of the source. :wink:

[Fragony]

Now will people accept that the people of Venezuela really do love him?

Have you been missing a few mass demonstrations that were violently silenced after a tv-network critical of Chavez was taken of the air?

[Kralizec]

Chavez has pretty much the same problem as Putin - his succes is built on high oil prices. He'll be able to run again, but that doesn't mean he'll be elected.

[CountArach]

From the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/14/opinion/14sat2.html):Sorry, but I don't regard that as a "free and fair" vote. :shrug:
You are mistaking his campaign tactics for the tactics of some of his more radical supporters.

Have you been missing a few mass demonstrations that were violently silenced after a tv-network critical of Chavez was taken of the air
Nope, I know the country is sharply divided.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

You are mistaking his campaign tactics for the tactics of some of his more radical supporters.

I'm trying to phrase a response without violating Godwin's Law...

Regardless, that is like saying that the SA wasn't part of Hitler's campaign tactics, it was simply the tactics of his more radical supporters. And we all know that isn't true, it was entirely part of the "campaign" tactics.

[Ice]

If the people of Venezuela want a dictator, they got one. I just hope they don't have any regrets.

[CountArach]

If the people of Venezuela want a dictator, they got one. I just hope they don't have any regrets.
Not at all. They still have the ability to not vote for him - hence he is not a Dictator. He becomes a Dictator at the point where he ignores the election results.

[Ice]

Not at all. They still have the ability to not vote for him - hence he is not a Dictator. He becomes a Dictator at the point where he ignores the election results.

I remember, vaguely, hearing about him trying to do that in the last election, but the army generals said they would step in if he did.

I could be wrong though, and am too lazy to dig out a link.


Anyways, you are correct that he is currently not a dictator. However, if he consolidates enough power, that could easily happen in a country such as Venezuela.

[Husar]

Chavez is a good propagandist, as the Economist (http://www.economist.com/world/americas/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13061800) points out.

He puts the entirety of his government to work influencing voters while he works to muzzle opposition voices. It's not surprising that he won- it's surprising that he didn't win by more. :yes:

Well, I learned that corporate identity is an idea from the USA. ~;)

[Xiahou]

You are mistaking his campaign tactics for the tactics of some of his more radical supporters.Your being absurd. When local government headquarters, held by opposition parties were taken over by pro-Chavez mobs, what did he do about it? Were these "radicals" treated like the criminals that they are by Chavez?

And how would you like to explain away the arresting and deportation of critical HRW observers? :dizzy2:

And that's not even touching on his government run and funded propaganda structure he has set up for himself. Suppression of opposition and one-sided cheerleading from the government and government owned industries. How does any of that sound free and fair to you?

[Caius]

Now will people accept that the people of Venezuela really do love him?
When you have to vote with a gun in your head, I'm sure that the people will love him.

[CountArach]

Your being absurd. When local government headquarters, held by opposition parties were taken over by pro-Chavez mobs, what did he do about it? Were these "radicals" treated like the criminals that they are by Chavez?
Chazvez orders police crackdown (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090208/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/lt_venezuela_grenade_attack)
"Chavez has condemned the attacks and ordered police to crack down. No suspects have been arrested."

And how would you like to explain away the arresting and deportation of critical HRW observers? :dizzy2:
That was a mistake and I didn't comment on it because I already said it was reprehensible when he did it.

And that's not even touching on his government run and funded propaganda structure he has set up for himself. Suppression of opposition and one-sided cheerleading from the government and government owned industries. How does any of that sound free and fair to you?
Most of the media is anti-Chavez - that indeed sounds like a free and fair media. And of course the government is cheerleading him - HIS PARTY CONTROLS THE GOVERNMENT.

When you have to vote with a gun in your head, I'm sure that the people will love him.
What evidence is there of people being intimidated into voting one way or the other by the government?

[Whacker]

For argument's sake, does anyone have any real data or good sources on corruption in the voting process in Venezuela? If the people did truly vote for this, then I pity them.

[Xiahou]

"Chavez has condemned the attacks and ordered police to crack down. No suspects have been arrested."No arrests, huh? ~:handball:

Though the ruling party, the United Socialist Party of Venezuela, has denounced such actions, the government has done very little to stop them. The government itself has been targeting student leaders, arresting dozens on vague charges. Accusations of terrorism have been made, and phones have been tapped. In one instance, a student leader’s phone conversation was taped and then aired on Venezuelan radio.link (http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20090206_venezuela_referendum_and_declining_security)

The common pattern seems to be Chavez supporters riot, attack and otherwise intimidate opponents. Chavez makes a token comment that he doesn't support what they're doing- and then he has more of his opponents arrested- charged with the same things that his supporters do while he turns a blind eye.

Most of the media is anti-Chavez - that indeed sounds like a free and fair media. And of course the government is cheerleading him - HIS PARTY CONTROLS THE GOVERNMENT.Right. I'm sure had Bush made millions of Federal employees go out and do legwork for the McCain campaign, you would've brushed that off as well, right? I mean, Bush controlled the government, so its ok. While he was at it, he could've used the FCC to force broadcasters to run wall-to-wall campaign ads too. These are all hallmarks of fair elections. :yes:

[CountArach]

No arrests, huh? ~:handball:

Though the ruling party, the United Socialist Party of Venezuela, has denounced such actions, the government has done very little to stop them. The government itself has been targeting student leaders, arresting dozens on vague charges. Accusations of terrorism have been made, and phones have been tapped. In one instance, a student leader’s phone conversation was taped and then aired on Venezuelan radio.link (http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20090206_venezuela_referendum_and_declining_security)

The common pattern seems to be Chavez supporters riot, attack and otherwise intimidate opponents. Chavez makes a token comment that he doesn't support what they're doing- and then he has more of his opponents arrested- charged with the same things that his supporters do while he turns a blind eye.
That applies to any number of governments. Its not the right thing to do at all - and I don't see how it could be defended, but that is the nature of power. And for the record:
http://cpj.org/2009/02/pro-government-group-threatens-venezuelan-media-ou.php

In an interview published on Friday, the leader of the Venezuelan pro-government group La Piedrita took responsibility for a series of attacks against local journalists and media outlets, and threatened to attack the 24-hours news channel Globovisión and RCTV Director Marcel Granier. The Committee to Protect Journalists called today on Venezuelan authorities to investigate the allegations and to immediately bring those responsible for the attacks to justice.

In its February 6 edition, the Venezuelan weekly Quinto Día published an extended interview with Valentín Santana, leader of La Piedrita, detailing the pro-government group's political stand and its past actions. In the interview, Santana threatened to "take up arms" against Granier and Globovisión, accusing them of promoting violence against Venezuelan Pesident Hugo Chávez.

Granier issued a statement the same day calling on local authorities to detain Santana. Over the weekend, Chávez condemned Santana's declarations and said La Piedrita's actions could be defined as "terrorism," according to Venezuelan news reports. According to El Universal, Chávez ordered Santana's detention on Sunday; he has not yet been detained.
That seems like far more than a token comment to me.

Right. I'm sure had Bush made millions of Federal employees go out and do legwork for the McCain campaign, you would've brushed that off as well, right? I mean, Bush controlled the government, so its ok. While he was at it, he could've used the FCC to force broadcasters to run wall-to-wall campaign ads too. These are all hallmarks of fair elections. :yes:
Show me where anyone was forced to campaign for Chavez.

[naut]

Chavez is a good propagandist, as the Economist (http://www.economist.com/world/americas/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13061800) points out.
Apart from the fact that most media in Venezuela is run by anti-Chavez proponents.


When you have to vote with a gun in your head, I'm sure that the people will love him.
Do you have any proof for that fact or are you going to throw around baseless claims?


If the people of Venezuela want a dictator, they got one. I just hope they don't have any regrets.
Ah yes. Just like in Guatemala. Oh wait. The US put a dictator in there to replace the democratically elected Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán.

[Proletariat]

Parliament, in which Mr Chávez has an overwhelming majority, had been instructed to propose the constitutional amendment. It framed a tortuous, 75-word question which avoided all mention of the issue of indefinite re-election. Instead, it asked voters, in barely intelligible terms, whether they wanted to “expand the rights of the people”, by reforming five articles of the constitution.

http://www.economist.com/world/americas/displayStory.cfm?story_id=13133562&source=features_box_main

I'll never understand the few members here that celebrate this perverted form of democracy.

[CountArach]

http://www.economist.com/world/americas/displayStory.cfm?story_id=13133562&source=features_box_main

I'll never understand the few members here that celebrate this perverted form of democracy.
'Barely legible' is a real stretch. Here is the wording:
http://www.laht.com/article.asp?CategoryId=10717&ArticleId=325913

Do you approve of the widening of the political rights of Venezuelans in the terms contemplated in the amendment to articles 230, 160, 174, 192 and 162 of the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, processed by the National Assembly, which allows people to run for all positions of popular election in such a way that their election will be the exclusive expression of the vote of the people?
I'll agree it is open to some misinterpretation. However, I also believe it would be obvious to almost everyone who voted as to exactly what they were voting on.

[Proletariat]

Doesn't matter, no one voting read the frigging thing anyway.


The tortuous, 75-word question (which does not mention the abolition of presidential term limits) will probably make little difference to the outcome. “People don’t care about the articles [to be modified],” says Ms Graterol. “What they have here”—she touches her head—“and here”—the heart—“is Hugo Chávez. They know their leader’s future is at stake.”

Do you really think that Chavez is a great guy, or that what was best happened in Venezuela here, CountArach? Or are you just trying to bait the antiChavez brigade? Genuinely curious.

:juggle2:

[Proletariat]

I'll agree it is open to some misinterpretation. However, I also believe it would be obvious to almost everyone who voted as to exactly what they were voting on.

Obvious to political nerds like us on the internet sure. Are the full implications obvious to every starving, slum dwelling, red cap wearing, whipped into a frenzy, illiterate Venezuelan? Doubt it. Can't say I'm disappointed by this, nothing seems to ever go right when put to a vote or otherwise in Latin America. The right leaning governments that pop up there are just as horrible as the left, a whole continent of political disaster after disaster.

I just don't understand how anyone from the outside looking in gets their jollies from this loser.

[CountArach]

Do you really think that Chavez is a great guy, or that what was best happened in Venezuela here, CountArach? Or are you just trying to bait the antiChavez brigade? Genuinely curious.
A fair question. I do think that Chavez is a great guy in terms of what he has done for the poor people of Venezuela and the real attempts at grassroots, participatory democracy (As opposed to representative democracy) that he has made efforts at. I agree with many of his economic reforms, such as Nationalising the oil industry. I also agree with parts of his foreign policy, such as forging tight ties with Cuba and Bolivia that include being able to send Cuban doctors abroad to cure the sick, to be brilliant. However, at the same time I disagree with some of his methods and ideas. I find him to be something of a strongman at times and I believe some of his actions reflect this - such as shutting down one of the television stations for being anti-Chavez.

Ultimately I think he is one of the best things that has happened to Venezuela, but that doesn't mean he is the best possible thing that could happen to them.

[Xiahou]

I'll agree it is open to some misinterpretation. However, I also believe it would be obvious to almost everyone who voted as to exactly what they were voting on.I think that's wishful thinking. Do you think that the campaign ads the poor people were forced to listen to on the Metro explained the referendum was to allow Chavez to be president forever or did it tell them to vote to support "widening their political rights"?

[Strike For The South]

I'm sure the poor illiterate Amerindians knew exactly what they were voting for.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Chazvez orders police crackdown (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090208/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/lt_venezuela_grenade_attack)
"Chavez has condemned the attacks and ordered police to crack down. No suspects have been arrested."
I bet they're searching on the golf courses of Venezuela for the ringleaders as we speak.

[LittleGrizzly]

Im sure the anti chavez media would have informed the electorate what they were voting on, probably if anything overplaying the case against voting for the refferendum, well done Chavez and well done Venezula!