What your opinion on the fact that yes,even though he was democratically elected, he doesnt want to give up power?
Few politicians want to give up power! Some just don't have a choice in the matter, because of the constitutional restraints and the balance of power within and without their societies. Chavez, of course, has not just been elected; as I mentioned earlier, he has withstood a recall and won reelection as well. But the real issues and real questions to me lie elsewhere in any case. That is because I have never said that the Venezuelan people should support everything Chavez may seek, including staying in power indefinetely. However, you also need to take into account the following: Democracy, under rule of law, as a sytem that would actually represent a society as opposed to one that would merely allow certain groups to dominate its institutions, works based on intricate system of checks and balances between the different branches of government, and among the different institutions, in that society. It doesn't work as well when you have a monopoly of power and privilege, and worse, when that monopoly has outside links and support. Those politicians who come to power accepting the existing framework in their society, will have very little basis, nor would they find the requisite support, suddenly asking their populace to allow them to stay in power for longer than their allowed terms. That request would often, except in rare cases, be viewed as lacking any legitimacy. Hence, whether they like it or not, they have no choice but to bow to the rules that tell them to leave when their terms are up. And in those countries that have stable instituitons, these politicians don't go anywhere all that uncomfortable anyway. They know it too, lessening their need to clinge to power at all costs. But if you want to fundamentally change an existing order, one that does have powerful outside support to boot, your challenges are altogether different. You have to worry about people trying to get you out of power even before your term is over, and not always through democratic means. You have to worry about what happens once you are out of power, having challenged the powerful and mighty. And you have to worry how you will bring those fundamental changes you promised, working within a framework that was often designed to thwart such changes. Facing these questions, which many of those who voted for you might also share, you might be able to get the people to grant you the right to stay longer. And I admit that causes a major problem too: it causes those who were elected to fight monopoly of power by others, to become monopolists themselves. I have my own answers to how you handle these issues. But I do believe monopoly is bad. Whether the monopolist is a foreign power like the United States, or a domestic one whose tyranny can sometimes be more directly felt.
Are you aware that Chavez tried first to come to power by staging a coup ? Against a democratically elected government as well, the president at the time, Carlos Andres Perez, who won the elections from 1988, with 53% of the votes ? Chavez's coup got 14 people killed, with 130 injured. Why did that happen ? Had Perez started to opress the people after he got himself elected ? Well, Perez was a corrupt asswipe. But wait a minute ! One year later, Attorney General Ramón Escovar Salom introduced action against Pérez for the misappropriation of 250 million bolivars. The issue had originally been brought to public scrutiny in November 1992 by journalist José Vicente Rangel. On May 20, 1993, the Supreme Court considered the accusation valid, and the National Congress removed Pérez from office. He was imprisoned and sentenced to two years of prison on May, 1994 for malversation of funds. So, the question is : if it was so easy to kick Perez out (all it took was a curious journo), why had Chavez seen the need for a coup in order to achieve this goal ?
I fail to see why my views are supposed to represent Argentina. Argentina is a country composed of diverse individuals with diverse viewpoints. My views don't represent Argentina any more than Diego Maradona's views or anybody elses views represent Argentina. But, having grown up in Argentina, I do care deeply for Argentina and it's people, and as a Latin American I do care deeply for Latin America and its people. I want to see Latin America emerge from its cycle of poverty, hatred and class warfare that it seems to have been stuck in. I believe that these power hungry demagogues like Chavez are part of the problem. You seem to support them based on their rhetoric, but I don't think that you realize that they are power-hungry opportunists who prey on the hopelessness and poverty of the masses of dissatisfied people in order to push outdated ideologies and false hope, with the primary purpose of keeping themselves in power. I agree with you that free enterprise is not the issue. You state correctly that Latin America is not being held back by free enterprise or capitalism. It is being held back by the corruption that exists in our government and at every level of society. Of course we cannot operate on truly competitive terms. The corrupt take away our opportunities to succeed. That is one reason why I chose to leave the country where I was born, even though I always have it in my heart. But the answer to our endemic problems is not to give false promises to the disenfranchised by rehashing old tired ideologies that never worked. The answer is to fight this corruption which is at the root of the problems that keep the people disenfranchised. These demagogues, with their desire for power and their false historical claims are distracting from the real work that needs to begin in Latin America. They are contributing to the problem. What Latin America needs is for people to learn to respect and trust the laws and the institutions and the free democratic principles that already exist in our nations, but now are only given lip service. Right now, due to the abuses and the corruption, people have no trust in these institutions. We need to strengthen those institutions and get the citizens to believe in them and trust them. People like Chavez are working to do just the opposite. No. I am indeed European in culture and manners, and in race as well. But my family and I have not colonized any lands. My grandparents and great grandparents escaped from Europe to a remote land in South America in the early 20th century precisely in order to escape the same type of class warfare and hopelessness that existed in Europe at the time, and that sadly also took grip of our continent, and which is now being fomented in Latin America by the power hungry leaders whom you seem to support. Chavez is duping the masses and taking advantage of them, just like many other demagogues have done in the past. If you are willing to justify a leader based on his popular support, then I am afraid you must know very little about history. If Chavez truly cares about Venezuela and its people, he needs to show it by example, by showing respect to Venezuela's democratic institutions that gave to him the privilege of serving his nation as president. And he should use his eloquence to inspire the people of Venezuela to also respect those same institutions. But he doesn't do that, because he wants power for himself. That is not the type of leader we need in Latin America right now. Latin America needs reform. But not the reform that the likes of Chavez propose. We need to fight corruption and level the playing field to provide opportunity to the hopeless masses. We need to learn to respect our institutions and to elect people who respect our institutions. The problem of endemic poverty has to be tackled in a legitimate way, based on legitimate economic principles. Not outdated slogans and failed ideologies. These populist demagogues undermine our institutions every bit as much as the corrupt elite does. It will take time, and it won't be easy. But if our people work together to reject both the corrupt elite and the opportunist demagogues, and if the new generation can produce legitimate leaders who respect our laws and institutions, and who inspire the citizens to also respect our laws and institutions, then there will be hope. Then Latin America can become a place where freedom and justice are the norm and were poverty and hopelessness are diminished.
Let me remind you that Chavez is changing the constitution to remain in power. So by that logic then Chavez doesnt have a choice in that matter because of the constitutional restraints. If we follow your logic then any leader in the world could remain in power simply by changing the constitution. You keep sugarcoating Chavez, even if by someones view he is a good leader, he still is doing anti-democratic actions. Being hypocritical of his own speeches. And finally, you seem to have the thought, foolish in my opinion, that if you support the right in L.America, you are a wealthy elite minority, when its far from the truth. Or that people from the left are "common" people who want the best for their people, and that is also faaaaar from the truth.
I spent a good deal of time crafting my responses to some of the messages here. But then I decided that the debate I was engaging in was not mine. It is up to those in Latin America to decide these issues for themselves. I have my own thoughts on some of these subjects, and have expressed some of them already, but I know that my interest in Chavez is ultimately for different reasons altogether. For me, Hugo Chavez is a special leader, above all else, because of his relationship with Iran. I value the fact that in an enviroment where making friends with Iran (or speaking out forcefully enough on Israel) can be costly, Chavez has chosen to do both. Whether expedient or wise, that posture of Chavez is what I consider courageous. And his most endearing quality.
And, to be fair, that pretty much describes 95% of Argentina. There is no ignored indigenous majority, and given the very high literacy rates, the "professional educated" opinion in Argentina is likely to be the majority opinion (regardless of IM's claims).
I tried writing two responses, but frankly, none of them were sufficient. Because really, there's just no need. That's AWESOME.
I don't want to defend Chavez, but could you enlighten me as to what office Hitler was democratically elected to? Like, who did he beat and what percent of the vote he got?
Chancellor. I don't remember what percentage he got--it wasn't a majority, but there were several candidates. He WAS elected, originally.
Not him directly, but his party won about 43% in the elections and, as such, he was appointed chancellor.
After losing to Hindenburg, I think. I don't know of any democratic election he actually won, but I could be wrong.
The truth can be. Which doesn't take away from many of the reasons why people in Venezuela support Chavez. Its just that those arguments are not mine. His relationship with Iran is what matters most for me, and there is no reason I should hide it either. There are several countries in Latin America which have forged close ties to Iran. Venezuela started the process, with Bolivia, Ecuador and Nicaragua joining as well. The more the merrier as far as I am concerned. At least, as long as it doesn't bankrupt us since obviously some of these countries are mostly looking for some aid. But not Chavez; he had enough money of his own and stood as a true friend.
No - the national socialists got the most votes and formed a Govt with him as chancellor. It was Hindenburg who had to grit his teeth and smile as 'the corporal' took office.
On your first point although well intentioned, not true. While most leaders in L.A. don't specifically decree that they have a problem with the U.S. specifically past involvement in te region, they in fact do. Even among the moderates, Lula, Cristina, and even recently elected Lugo, all have similar beliefs in Latin American Self governance. Your second argument which is oh so fallacious. You think by bringing up Hitler you somehow demean chavez. What possible comparison is their between Hitler and Chavez? Typical weak arguments by the Anti-Left. (which is the term i shall use from now on since Mr.Monday10shirt was offended when i called him a right-wing fauxnews watching oligarc- which he denies, but it seems he's on the right of many issues). And lastly,please don't don't try to paint the typical chavez hating globovision watching crowd in L.A. as the typical mold for a person in L.A. Yes Hugo loves the theatrics but, let's try to keep from refferning to him as a clown. Even if he doesn't satisfy your bourgeoisie customs.
Yeah, thanks for the aid by the way. With it Morales can concentrate on pressing issues like stifling freedom of the press and fighting his opposition in the east. And now coca can grow wild again in Bolivia and we can become the Afghanistan of Latin America. There was never a drug abuse problem in Bolivia now kids are going down in record numbers. It's an epidemic. Gracias Señor Morales. You found more than one way to stick it to your "so called" people.
Are you referring to this? Or something else? http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/01/04/international/i101737S21.DTL&type=health What does the growth of coca, even if true, have to do with Iranian aid to Bolivia?
Trust me most of the leaders , from right and left have similar belief in Latin American self governance. You don't have to be a leftist to want that. Following that logic, being right wing doesn't mean you are pro-imperialism anti Latin American sovereignty like Chavez claims. I was simply stating a point that you can be a democratically elected official and still be greatly anti-democratic, almost to the point of being dictator like. Sure, Chavez was elected democratically, but if he doesn't give up power there is NO difference between him and another dictator who took power by force. On the last, ok, I will try not to state my personal feelings of Chavez by offending him. However, I said that to clarify to people outside Latin America that Latin America is not Chavez-like, and in large parts of Latin America he is indeed seen as a "clown" no matter how childish it sounds.
Perhaps you could ask me a list of "issues" to get my stand. Then again, when you're a 2nd year polisci major with an affinity for big words which you routinely misapply, you tend to miscategorize people.
You seem to emphasize this point of me being in college every time we have a discussion. What's up with that? I've come to think you may bear some ill feelings toward me and my education for some personal reasons, maybe yo dropped out? Got kicked out of college?
You're the one who brought it up. No, just that your "education" is woefully lacking and incomplete, particularly compared to my own, not to mention that for the most part, education is really more being able to critically think rather than to spout ideology or regurgitate mantras
I brought it up once in the Gaza discussion. When a certain poster repeatedly questioned my intelligence, specifically on the subject. And your last point seems to be something you do particularly well.
To which the rest of us get a good belly laugh, at your expense. Right, because I'm the one talking about oligarchy, bourgeoisie and make excuses for autocrats that abuse their power.
Yeah, Oklahoma may be a little better than Sac State. The best Texans money can buy! But I think this guy Pieintheface would even struggle at American River JC.