Hugo Chavez given free rein in Venezuela

[muntrv]

http://www.comcast.net/news/index.jsp?cat=GENERAL&fn=/2007/01/31/575754.html

[BlueStateModerate]

1. Dictatorships are bad.

[Warren Stupidity]

Chavez is not a dictator.

He is the popular and constitutionally elected president. The limited power of decree is completely legal under the Venezuelan constitution and has been used before by Chavez, and has been used before by other Venezuelan presidents. Also, Chavez can be recalled and removed from office at any time should he abuse his power. Hardly a dictator.

[originalpckelly]

7. No, no, no, he's the nice fuzzy kind of dictator.

I hate when people make excuses for tyrants, whether in America or in Venezuela.

[ConsAreLiars]

9. What do you mean by "tyrant?" How does Chavez fit that definition? Or are you

just engaging in kindergarten name-calling? Here's a dictionary definition:

ty·rant (tī'rənt) pronunciation
n.

1. An absolute ruler who governs without restrictions.
2. A ruler who exercises power in a harsh, cruel manner.
3. An oppressive, harsh, arbitrary person.

[arcos]

37. He is not...

But the decree sucks anyway because he seems a dictator wannabe.

He has 100% support of congress... he must be able to pass whatever laws he wants without the need of this decree.

[KingFlorez]

17. He was elected democratically

[pampango]

63. Marcos was elected democratically in the Philippines,

then decided that two terms were not enough for him and ruled as a dictator. Sometimes it is not how you enter office that matters, but how you choose to leave it.

[slackmaster]

66. So was Hitler, in 1932

I'm not saying that Chavez is another Hitler, but history is filled with democratically elected leaders who became tyrants.

[blitzen]

2. News Flash: Bush Given Free Rein in US...

by complicit media, pussillanimous congress, and distracted, apathetic citizenry

[madmax]

6. Sounds familiar.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x80761

[LittleClarkie]

12. But hey, Hugo's a lefty

hence, it's okay.

[rman]

48. Which explains why the powers that be in the US hate him,

which explains why he's being painted as a communist, a dictator and terrorist supporter.
Same old, same old.

[pampango]

62. Ruling by decree is something that Bush & Hugo both enjoy. n/t

[Selatius]

3. Here's some more on the development

Caracas, January 31, 2007 (venezuelanalysis.com)— Venezuela’s National Assembly passed a so-called “enabling law” today, which will allow President Chavez to pass laws by decree in eleven different areas for a period of 18 months. Chavez had asked for the enabling law earlier this month, saying it is needed to accelerate the process of transforming Venezuela’s state and economy into “21st century socialism.”

This is the third time Chavez has received such authorization during his presidency and Chavez is the fifth Venezuelan president to take advantage of this power, which both the 1961 and the 1999 constitutions permit.

The enabling law, which Chavez has called the “mother law” for the laws that are to help bring about 21st century socialism, was passed in an outdoor meeting of the National Assembly today. In the course of the meeting, to which the public had open access, various representatives of the pro-Chavez coalition explained why they supported the law.

Most legislators talked about how they trusted Chavez to pass laws that would increase democracy in Venezuela and the need to act rapidly because this is what the Venezuelan people are expecting.

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news.php?newsno=2207

[Warren Stupidity]

4. except of course it isn't free rein.

The legal authority is limited in scope and limited in time. Venezuela allows for recall elections to remove the president should he abuse his powers. Chavez has had similar authority twice before, and both times used it well to implement much needed and hugely popular reforms of Venezuela's corrupt economic system.

[Selatius]

5. Areas where the legislature gave Chavez the authority to make laws:

According to the AP, assistant secretary of state for Western Hemisphere affairs Thomas Shannon took the matter far more casually. When asked about the enabling law while in Colombia, Shannon told reporters, "It's something valid under the constitution. … As with any tool of democracy, it depends how it is used," he added. "At the end of the day, it's not a question for the United States or for other countries, but for Venezuela."

The eleven areas where Chavez will be allowed to pass laws for the next 18 months are:

1. Transformation of the state, where laws are to be passed that make the state more efficient, honest, participatory, rational, and transparent.
2. Popular (grassroots) participation, in the economic and social policies of the state, via planning, social comptrol, and the direct exercise of popular sovereignty.
3. Essential values for the exercise of public functions, so that corruption would be eradicated definitively, the strengthening of ethics, and the formation of public servants.
4. In the area of economic and social policy, so as to create a new sustainable economic and social model. The goal is to achieve equality and the equitable distribution of wealth through investment in health care, education, and social security.
5. Finances and taxation, to modernize the regulatory system in the monetary, banking, insurance, and tax systems.
6. Citizen and judicial security, for the improvement of citizen identification, migration control, and the fight against impunity.
7. Science and technology, so it is developed to satisfy the needs of education, health, environment, biodiversity, industrialization, quality of life, security, and defense.
8. Territorial order, for a new distribution and occupation of subnational space, so as to improve the activities of the state and of endogenous development.
9. Security and defense, for the development of the structure and organization of the Armed Forces.
10. Infrastructure, transport, and services, to promote the existing human and industrial potential for the optimization of land, rail, sea, river, and air transportation, as well as of telecommunications and information technology.
11. Energy sector, so that oil production in the Orinoco Oil Belt may be nationalized and turned into joint ventures, tax rates changed, and electricity companies nationalized, among other things.

The last time Chavez was granted an enabling law was in the year 2000 to adjust the country’s laws to the just passed 1999 constitution. At that time 49 laws were passed as law decrees. Vice-President Jorge Rodriguez, who is in charge of overseeing the development of the law decrees suggested last week that a similar number of laws could be passed this time around. He also said that the first drafts of the new laws would be ready in three months.

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news.php?newsno=2207

It's obvious to me Chavez has been given this power in the past. The people trust him to carry out their mandate. Otherwise, they would've opposed giving him that authority seven years ago.

[originalpckelly]

8. Absolute power is never good.

Never. It always ends in disaster.

[ConsAreLiars]

10. Does Chavez have "absolute power?" Or are you still making up

shit. You don't regard elections as valid unless they give the results that the multinationals want? Is being a populist and standing up against US imperialism so offensive to you? Why?

[Renew Deal]

27. This is pretty vague.

"1. Transformation of the state, where laws are to be passed that make the state more efficient, honest, participatory, rational, and transparent."

Anything can fall under that.

[Selatius]

11. True, but Chavez' abilities to rule by decree is limited to only these areas.

This is limited in scope, and anybody reading Venezuelan history would see this as normal in both their old constitution and their current one. The power granted to Chavez mostly deals with executive branch functions such as administration and logistics. A not too dissimilar power is seen in the US system with the US president signing executive orders. The only difference is the US president can pass executive orders forever without having to consult Congress to gain the power. Chavez, on the other hand, has an 18 month clock that's running down.

[LittleClarkie]

13. What if someone substituted Bush for Chavez in these arguements?

But Bush needs this authroity to impliment needed changes.

But it's limited power by decree.

Wouldn't we all still be having a hairy cat fit?

[Selatius]

14. This is why Chavez only has 18 months.

If George W. Bush had to go back to Congress to get the power to issue executive orders for a limited amount of time and then have to go back to get reauthorization, I would generally think that was a good idea.

[ConsAreLiars]

16. It's really a rather simple thing. "Which side are you on?"

Chavez uses his position to fight the rich and powerful. Chimpy and his gang of murderers us their power to increase suffering. I can tell the difference.

[LittleClarkie]

19. Anyone, left or right, with too much power is a worrisome thing

And anyone can justify the giving of such power by saying that the person with the power "means well."

There are certainly Bush supporters who believe that.

[Selatius]

22. No disagreement there, but ultimately I think their system provides one good idea

Namely, that we should import the idea to the US and strip the president of the power to sign executive orders forever and without the consent of Congress. If the US president wants the the power to issue executive orders, he ought to go to Capitol Hill to get the power from Congress, and they can either give it to him or deny it, and there ought to be a time limit on that power. Of course, it would only be one of several constitutional reforms I'd implement.

Other reforms would include abolition of the Electoral College in favor of the popular vote, amending the 1st Amendment to allow mandatory public financing of federal campaigns, reorganizing the House so that states apportion their representative seats according to proportional representation, giving citizens the power to recall their respective senators if they wish half-way through their 6-year terms, etc.

[ConsAreLiars]

23. I said nothing about "means well."

That straw man won't fly. "Which side are you on?" That is how to determine whether Chavez is like Chimpy or not. If you can't see the difference, well at least the people of Venezuela and the US are not that blind.

[rman]

43. Chavez does everything right that Bush is doing wrong

Very few Americans agree with the changes Bush is making, and by far most Venezuelans agree with the changes Chavez is making.
The changes Bush is making are creating a dictatorship in the US and bring total war to the world. Compare that to the changes Chavez is making.

[eridani]

51. He already has that power, as have all his predecessors

They are called executive orders here. In Venezuela, the constitutional constraint of having to ask permission every now and then is added.

[Warren Stupidity]

55. Coupled with a recall provision and open honest elections?

Sounds good to me. We could recall Dumbass tomorrow.

[muriel_volestrangler]

34. 'Only' those areas? They're huge. The limitation is just the time.

1. Transformation of the state, where laws are to be passed that make the state more efficient, honest, participatory, rational, and transparent.
As already said, this might cover just about anything.

2. Popular (grassroots) participation, in the economic and social policies of the state, via planning, social comptrol, and the direct exercise of popular sovereignty.
'Social control' is a pretty wide expression too.

3. Essential values for the exercise of public functions, so that corruption would be eradicated definitively, the strengthening of ethics, and the formation of public servants.
This does fit in your 'executive branch' functions. I hope "the formation of public servants" doesn't mean an ideological test for them, though.

4. In the area of economic and social policy, so as to create a new sustainable economic and social model. The goal is to achieve equality and the equitable distribution of wealth through investment in health care, education, and social security.
A huge amount of government spending - not just 'administration and logistics', but a whole new economic and social model. That's the kind of thing a parliament ought to be debating.

5. Finances and taxation, to modernize the regulatory system in the monetary, banking, insurance, and tax systems.
Controlling taxation is one of the most powerful positions in any country. Civil wars and revolutions have been fought over it.

6. Citizen and judicial security, for the improvement of citizen identification, migration control, and the fight against impunity.
One of the fundamental functions of the state. This could also cover almost anything in law enforcement ("the fight against impunity").

7. Science and technology, so it is developed to satisfy the needs of education, health, environment, biodiversity, industrialization, quality of life, security, and defense.
This may just be 'executive administration'.

8. Territorial order, for a new distribution and occupation of subnational space, so as to improve the activities of the state and of endogenous development.
This could expand to almost anything - "improving the activities of the state" is an incredibly broad phrase.

9. Security and defense, for the development of the structure and organization of the Armed Forces.
Yes, the executive should be in charge of these, but passing new laws without a parliament to discuss them? Not a good idea.

10. Infrastructure, transport, and services, to promote the existing human and industrial potential for the optimization of land, rail, sea, river, and air transportation, as well as of telecommunications and information technology.
Not an area for worrying about, it seems, but this does mop up about the last remaining area of government not yet handed over to Chavez.

11. Energy sector, so that oil production in the Orinoco Oil Belt may be nationalized and turned into joint ventures, tax rates changed, and electricity companies nationalized, among other things.
The most important part of Venezuela's economy. OK, the parliament wants to nationalise these. Shouldn't they be debating such an important law in the open, rather than handing the power over to one man?

All in all, I don't see why parliament is resigning its responsibilities. It should be writing the laws. They shouldn't be just a bunch of yes men for Chavez.

And there is a similarity to the original 'dictator' - a Roman Republic dictator. These were appointed for a period of 6 months, and the one man was given huge personal power, overriding the normal checks and balances that their system had, and able to pass whatever laws he wanted (though they only lasted for the duration of his dictatorship). They did it in time of crisis, such as when they had been invaded.

[Selatius]

42. I'm a bit agnostic on the text.

I don't believe the text given in the article is the exact wording of the bill being debated.

There's one other issue though that I must bring up. One frustrating thing with socialists on the left is methodology. Chavez hails from a definitely more authoritarian brand of socialism than I do. Although, I don't think he's anywhere near people like Stalin or Mao, and I generally won't say he hails from the kind of libertarian socialism espoused by people like Bakunin or Chomsky.

I generally land in the libertarian quadrant of socialism, as I generally hold more faith in direct action and community coordination than I do with state-level exercise of power (noting the history of the state as the preferred tool of oppression), so if I were a representative in the National Assembly, I would've likely voted against the bill or offered amendments/struck provisions to maintain a check on decree power. I'm generally not comfortable with centralizing that kind of decision-making power, even with people whom I generally trust.

I generally support Chavez' social policies though, and I'm hoping he pushes the country towards market socialism.

[arcos]

38. Still... Chavez DOESN'T need this power...

He has 100% support in the Venezuelan Congress... he can pass any law that he wants. This is useless and although I support Chávez (because the Venezuelan people do), this is not right.

[Selatius]

50. Ultimately, this is up to the Venezuelan people to solve.

It seems to be the norm in Venezuela. Chavez, as the article notes, already held this power once before and let it go willingly when the previous period of decree expired, and even under the old constitution the power of decree existed and has been exercised in the 70s, 80s, 90s, and apparently about to be now.

The conception of democracy is different with different people apparently.

[The Anti-Neo Con]

15. I see nothing wrong with it.

How is a dictatorship of the left bad? Chavez is giving his people socialism and I admire that.

[rockymountaindem]

24. Dictatorships are always bad

The Scandanavian states have socialist systems and they've never had rule by fiat.

[Selatius]

26. As an aside, I have to say Scandinavian countries are mixed economies, not socialist ones.

They were never able to implement socialism precisely because of opposition from the private sector. The compromise was a mixed economic system instead, capitalism with trimmings to deaden the pain.

[rockymountaindem]

28. Ok, you're correct

They are not socialist because there is private ownership. I should have said that they have an extremely robust social system, an important distinction. I would suspect that's doubly true for someone with an anarcho-syndicalist star in their tagline ;)

[eridani]

52. The percent of the economy in private ownership has INCREASED under Chavez

Redirect money to poor people, and the next thing you know a lot of new businesses pop up to help them spend it.

[ConsAreLiars]

29. Why do you believe Venezuela is under a dictatorship.

Post your definition and say why the Chavez presidency qualifies. Or are you just echoing what the Corporate Media and The Chimpy gang have been saying about a government they want to exterminate? Get some facts, if you want them. Or simply repeat reich wing talking points, if you prefer.

[rockymountaindem]

31. Why don't you jump all over me?

I said nothing about Chavez. I think that if Iraq has taught us anything, it's that the government of another country is their business. He poses no threat to the USA and if he's going to turn Venezuela to paradise on Earth or run it into the ground, I don't care. Honestly, I have no zeal for a debate on the politics of Venezuela.

I was merely refuting the notion that any kind of "good dictatorship" could ever exist. Even if there were some kind of one-man dictatorship that was doing everything I could ever have wanted, they'd still be on my bad side because democracy is the most important thing to me. But it's up to the people of Venezuela to do their thing. Ain't none of my business.

But keep up with your "if you're not with Chavez you're against humanity" attitude. It looks good on you.

[ConsAreLiars]

32. Pardon me!

I thought this thread was about Chavez. I had no idea you were off on some unrelated tangent about "dictatorships' in general, and that you believed that the term did not apply to Chavez. Keep up your non sequitors. They look good on you, and I suppose I can expect many more in the future.

[rockymountaindem]

33. Don't apologize

Just do better next time.

[rman]

49. I sure looks like you did say Chavez is a dictator.

Why else did you bring up dictatorship in the context of Chavez?

[rockymountaindem]

59. Can't anybody be agnostic on Chavez?

Somebody else brought up the idea that a dictatorship of the left is not a bad idea. Without making any reference to Chavez, all I said was dictatorships are bad no matter what. Honestly, I don't care what he does. If he rules for 30 years or is deposed tomorrow, it doesn't matter to me.

Why are people around here so damn defensive whenever Chavez is brought up?

[rman]

61. Suggesting he's a dictator is not agnostic,

nor is it simply "bringing up" Chavez.

[rockymountaindem]

65. For the last time...

I did not say he's a dictator. All I said was "dictatorships are bad" to someone who said "what's wrong with a dictatorship of the left". If anybody said he's a dicator, that poster did, not me. Also for the last time: I don't give a damn about Chavez.

[rman]

71. ok

Sorry about that.
Yes, it's a sensitive topic to many.
I think you'd understand why if you'd know about the history of US foreign policy, and if you'd know what Chavez is doing. Even if you don't care i hope you agree it is not right to call someone a dictator who is not a dictator (not you but others do that all the time).

[Warren Stupidity]

53. Chavez is not a dictator.

You all can keep repeating that, but it remains a false statement.

[slackmaster]

67. This has to be one of the most ironic posts ever on DU

How is a dictatorship of the left bad?

Because a left jackboot up your ass feels no better than a right jackboot up your ass.

[Nutmegger]

18. I stand with Chavez.

:kick:

[bridgit]

20. rule by decree...we have that here and it's not working...

:thumbsdown:

[rman]

41. difference: Venezuelans actually voted for Chavez,

en masse, repeatedly.

Also this rule by decree is limited in scope and time.

[bridgit]

47. true enough friend...

:thumbsup:

[killbotfactory]

21. He can't do whatever he wants

It's not free reign.

[Renew Deal]

25. Is it acceptable to call Chavez a dictator now on DU?

Let the hysterics begin. :hide:

[arcos]

39. He is not a dictator..

I don't like this at all, but a lot more has to happen in order to call him a dictator.

I support Chávez because the Venezuelan people support him... personally, I couldn't stand him being my President, but I think it's great that they love him and reelected him three times.

[rman]

44. Always has been

Call a certain other country a certain something, and you'll be banned.

hysteria indeed.

[Warren Stupidity]

54. Telling whopping lies has always been acceptable here. nt.

[Swamp Rat]

30. Ayer estuvo el diablo aquí, en este mismo lugar, aquí aun huele a azufre!

[arcos]

40. ¡Saludos Swamp!

Y si... es el diablo, en persona!

[Judi Lynn]

73. Absolutely real in red. It looks like his own true element. Good one! You should feel proud. n/t

[malaise]

35. More than Bush in the US?

I think not.

[LittleClarkie]

36. So just as long as he only has as much power as Bush, and not more

it's all good? I didn't think we were terribly happy with the level of power Bush has right now. No?

[malaise]

45. Who said it's all good?

but at least Chavez is defending the poor in his country.

[rman]

46. Actuallly Chavez has has a lot less power

And there's no comparing how he uses it.

[Warren Stupidity]

56. Chavez has less power.

And his power is checked by the recall provision of the constitution, whereas Dumbass has asserted rule by decree powers (only we call them signing statements and executive orders) and Roman Consul style 'unitary executive' authority completely unchecked by any democratic process for the duration of his reign.

Venezuela is a more democratic country than ours and Chavez rules only as long as he remains popular with the majority of the population. No dictatorship. No tyrant.

[Vidar]

57. Venezuela can legally recall the president. We can't. Who's the dictator?

[Judi Lynn]

76. It's in one ear and out the other with these guys. They don't read for comprehension! n/t

[Donald Ian Rankin]

58. I am completely unsurprised, although I'm depressed so many DUers are still taken in by him.

So many people keep parroting "he's not a dictator, he's not a dictator, so he must be all right".

One man rule, with no checks and balances, by a man with the power to control the media and elections so that he can stay in power as long as he wants, and no qualms about doing so (Chavez has already demonstrated that his commitment to democracy is only skin deep), is deeply unhealthy, even if he does/did initially have a democratic mandate.

Chavez is not a dictator. But he's moving inexorably in that direction.

So that you can say you read it here first: he's already started suppressing the media. Next will come the suppression of political opposition. Elections with grow increasingly stage-managed, and more and more of the apparatus of both state and politics, the media, the judiciary and the army will come to be personally controlled by and answerable to Chavez. His popularity will slowly decline, but he'll just have his political opponents jailed, and claim - possibly truthfully - that the majority of the populace who still support him because the only media they get comes from him gives him a mandate to do so. Within a decade he'll be a dictator de facto, if not de jure.

I may be wrong of course. He may suddenly reverse the direction of his policies and start restoring independence and neutrality to his countries institutions.

Would anyone like to take a bet?

[BushOut06]

68. Because so many people keep insisting he IS a dictator

It seems like some of you insist on this circular logic, and simply dismiss any arguments that you can't rebut.

He was ELECTED. He has been REELECTED. He can be RECALLED at anytime, if the Venezuelan people so desire.

So tell me - based on that, how exactly is he a dictator?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

72. I'm sorry, I think you must have replied to the wrong post.

I said that he wasn't a dictator, not that he was. Who did you mean to reply to? Or did you just not bother reading mine?

[manic expression]

78. The people support him

overwhelmingly. They risked their lives to bring him back to power after a coup. These powers have been granted to other Venezuelan presidents, they are not unheard of.

By the way, if a head of state used similar powers, while being cuddly with the US, NO ONE would bat an eyelash. This is hypocrisy at its finest.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

60. Did people get this upset...

the last several times Venezuelan presidents were given limited, temporary powers of decree by the Venezuelan parliament?

No?

Then it seems a more than a little disingenuous to get worked up over it now.

[noonwitch]

64. It's never good to give one person sole power.

Whoever that person is. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

[Akoto]

69. Although I agree with Chavez on some things ...

I must concur with those who express the 'absolute power is never good' opinion. Yes, even if it's only over a defined area, and even if it exists in the US. Where matters of government are concerned, there should always be immediate checks and balances for the good of the people.

Unfortunately, I suspect that many people would support Chavez to the bitter end simply because he opposes Bush. While that is a cause many would appreciate, he must still be watched and held to account, as with any elected leader.

[rman]

70. Chavez is not given absolute power

As you'll find out when you inform yourself about what this rule by decree is actually about.
And nobody is saying he should not be watched not be held accountable.

[cooolandrew]

74. I feel Chavez has good intentions

With corprate power trying to oust him from power I can partly see why he has made this move, BUT there is the potential he may become power crazed or the people no longer want him in power at some point. I hope he stays honest and popular hard to say if that will be the case. Also this plays into the hands of the evil dictator pretext.

[cooolandrew]

75. I feel Chavez has good intentions

With corprate power trying to oust him from power I can partly see why he has made this move, BUT there is the potential he may become power crazed or the people no longer want him in power at some point. I hope he stays honest and popular hard to say if that will be the case. Also this plays into the hands of the evil dictator pretext.

[manic expression]

77. Good

Hopefully this can enable him to collectivize the country. One can only hope he will use these abilities to create an equitable society, with democratic control over the means of production.

By the way, this isn't really free reign, as many have pointed out.