What are Chavez's proposed changes

[Larkspur]

Chavez Proposes Changes to Venezuela’s Constitution to Pave Way for Socialism

Caracas, August 17, 2007 (venezuelanalysis.com) – On August 15, the third anniversary of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez’s victory in the recall referendum of 2004, and the 202nd anniversary of Venezuelan independence hero Simon Bolivar’s famous oath of Monte Sacro, where he swore not to rest “until the chains of oppression are lifted from my people,” tens of thousands of Venezuelans turned out to an extraordinary session of National Assembly to hear the president’s proposed constitutional reform.

SNIP

New Geometry of Power
Outlining his far-reaching proposal for transforming the Venezuelan state, Chavez called for “a new geometry of power.” Key to this is an amendment to article 16 in the constitution, which states; “The national territory is divided into states, the Capital District, federal dependencies and federal territories. The territory is organized in Municipalities” to be replaced by; “The territorial political division will be determined by the organic law that guarantees municipal autonomy and political decentralization.”

Declaring that, “regionalism, is dogma, that impedes change, we can not accept situations that create Caudillos,” he said the new law would allow for the creation, through popular referendum, of “federal districts” in specific areas, which could then be categorized as states and assigned all or part of the respective territory.

This proposal, he maintained, is “profoundly revolutionary,” and necessary “to remove the old oligarchic, exploiter hegemony, the old society, and, in the words of Gramsci, to weaken the old “historic block.” “If we don’t change the superstructure, the old superstructure will defeat us,” he continued.

The proposal also allows municipalities, “with the acceptance of the people within the municipality,” to create territory or land in common, which would be under the direct government of the community and, according to Chavez, would constitute “the basic nucleus of the socialist state.”

Chavez also said unions or federations of self-governing communes, could be created through popular referendum, through the communal councils, and aggregations of communal councils.

SNIP

And regarding the "President for Life", that's a Reichwing/neo-liberal smear

In a move vehemently opposed by Venezuelan opposition parties, Chavez also proposed an amendment to article 203, which would allow for unlimited presidential re-elections, (countries such as France, Australia, Germany, and England allow for unlimited reelection), a move the opposition claims would lead to ‘dictatorship’. The proposed change would also extend presidential terms from six to seven years.

According Venezuelan vice-president Jorge Rodriguez, the opposition campaign against unlimited reelections is not out of concern for ‘democracy’, given that they supported a military coup against Chavez’s democratically elected government in 2002, but rather a tacit recognition of their inability to compete with Chavez in the electoral sphere.

[Larkspur]

1. All you Chavez bashers, read this post and the article it links to

[rinsd]

10. You're excited about this?

This is the equivalent of the GOP (when they still controlled Congress) of putting thru Constitutional changes allowing Bush to remain in power while simultaneously weakening the power of Democratic governors that opposed him.

Checks and balances are for suckers I guess.

And that old adage about power and corruption apparently doesn't apply to Saint Chavez.

[booley]

18. well lets examine that.

Do you think Shrub could still get elected if he had to run again?

IF Clinton could have run for a third term and ran against shrub, do you think shrub would have had a chance, even with the cheating?

And you did hear about aguy name Franklin delanore Roosevelt, right?
OF course, the real issue isn't hwether we should adopt this ourselves.

The issue was whether this would make Chavez a president for life. And it would ONLY if he can win every election.

Nor has checks and balences gone away. That has nothing to do with how mnay terms a President serves.

Your argument woul dbe bette rserved without the straw men.

[Larkspur]

2. Kicking because the link in the post tells the real story about

Chavez's proposed changes.

[Peace Patriot]

3. It's heartening to see what a free people can do when they have transparent elections,

open debate about every aspect of government and society, leaders with a vision of social justice and who can intelligently analyze problems, and true sovereignty as a people.

We have none of these things any more.

Our elections are rigged with "trade secret" code, owned and controlled by rightwing Bushite corporations, so that we can never make headway on reform.

Our political debate is extremely limited, skewed way to the right--and, indeed, off the charts toward fascism and nazism--and is controlled by 5 rightwing billionaire CEO's of massive corporate news and entertainment monopolies, often with subsidiaries that profit from war.

We have leaders who serve the rich and the corporate, who are rich, and who have excluded the poor and the middle class from high public office by creating an utterly filthy campaign contribution and lobbying system, with much of the campaign money going to corporate news monopolies for 30-second campaign ads that tell the public NOTHING that they need to know.

As for intelligent analysis of problems, we have leaders who NEVER say what's REALLY WRONG--Corporate Rule--and who either divert public attention to phony issues like gay marriage and racist immigrant bashing, or who force real leaders to live in fear of what the corporate news monopolies will do to them if they speak the truth.

And it is the height of BushWorld irony that Bushites and their Democratic colluders and their corporate "robber baron" press smear Hugo Chavez as a "dictator," and cherrypick and severely distort news from Venezuela to hammer home this goddamned lie, when Venezuela, in truth, has the most vibrant political culture in the western hemisphere, while the United States can hardly be called a democracy any more.

Our people are democratic. Our hearts are democratic. The evidence for this is overwhelming. But our government is a fascist tyranny--government of, by and for the very rich--that views the rest of us as disposable slave labor or cannon fodder for corporate resource wars.

Hugo Chavez calls for DECENTRALIZING power in Venezuela, and they call him a "dictator."

Hugo Chavez calls for a six-hour work week, and they call him a "dictator."

Hugo Chavez calls for protection of the rights of the indigenous and black Venezuelans, and inclusive social policy, and they call him a "dictator."

The people of Venezuela DEFEAT a violent military coup that would have instantly created a brutal, repressive dictatorship, and they restore their Constitution, national assembly and courts, which the coup suspended, and restore their elected president to power, and the Bushites call this man, who owes his power entirely to the people of Venezuela, a "dictator."

Hugo Chavez enjoys a 70% approval rating, Bush is down to 25% and sinking, and they call Hugo Chavez a "dictator."

Hugo Chavez is actually elected, and they call HIM a "dictator."

Almost no member of the U.S. Congress can say the same--that they were actually elected. They have no proof of it with unverified--and, in many cases, unverifiable--electronic vote counting. Nor, of course, can Bush/Cheney. Venezuela has the most highly monitored elections on earth. THEIR legislators and THEIR president rule at the PROVABLE will of the voters. And they dare to call Venezuela a "dictatorship"!

Well, the encouraging thing is that the people of Venezuela have achieved democracy, the rule of law and government of, by and for the people, in the midst of relentless, 24/7 fascist propaganda on the public airwaves, which--despite everything our corporate news monopolies tell us--CONTINUES to be the case in Venezuela. Venezuelans have grown impervious to the propaganda, as our people have on the war propaganda. They have gone further, after a lot of hard work on democratic institutions and grass roots organization, and have elected leaders who see to their interests, and if they can do it, so can we.

The democracy and social justice movement is sweeping South America. And if the South Americans--after suffering so much fascist/corporate tyranny--can put things right, so can we.

[Larkspur]

4. Hugo is an economic populist and that means "dictator" to the robber barons

and their minions.

[Mudoria]

5. Please ask for a Chavez forum

where you folks can worship together and not clutter another forum....

[rjones2818]

6. This is in the General Discussion - Politics forum.

It seems to me to fit quite well.

Go Hugo!

[Greyhound]

8. LOL! You guys just can't stand it that you have nothing to back up

your irrational fear and hatred of this man don't you...

:nopity:Waaah, he doesn't work for the enrichment of the ruling class at the expense of the poor...
:rofl:

[tkmorris]

12. Thank you, but no

I'll continue to clutter this one. That ok with you? Great!

[Greyhound]

7. Off to the greatest with this one

Is that the sound of heads exploding?
:rofl:
:kick:

[rinsd]

9. So Chavez seeks to remove power from the states, two of which are not controlled by him

Shocking!

:eyes:

[BornagainDUer]

13. Ding! Ding!Another Origin of Specious award winner. Congrats rinsd!

:applause:

[Bongo Prophet]

11. I think the 6 hour work day to allow for personal development is a great move.

Thank you for the link - this was a better and MUCH more detailed outline of the proposed changes.
As stated, it will allow time for other pursuits, Start new businesses, write and sing and get to know your children.
You know - living as a human being, and not a work mule.

It also can help with unemployment, by spreading jobs to more people. I think a 4-5 hour would be better, so one could work double shifts as needed, but still a good idea to try.
Similar ideas have been around for decades to deal with overworked US workers, like job-sharing and such, but our lack of universal health care and minimal social security for "freelancers" and part timers make this problematic.

It is more likely to work better there, partly because of this:

The state would also create a Social Stability Fund for ‘non-dependent’ or self employed workers such as taxi drivers, fishermen, and artisans, among others, to guarantee them the same fundamental rights as other workers such as retirement pensions, paid vacations and prenatal and postnatal leave entitlements.

A REAL dictator generally says that citizens should work themselves to death for the STATE, or to MAKE MONEY for their bosses, or to SPEND and SHOP to perpetuate their debt and addictions.
A REAL dictator would NOT have months of National Assembly debate and votes, followed by a national referendum, where the PEOPLE get to DECIDE on very basic and CRUCIAL choices.
This is a different sort of thing they got going on down there.

[Larkspur]

14. Well said!!

[Ishoutandscream2]

17. Damn good post!

Work to live, not live to work.

[ProudDad]

15. K&R (n/t)

[LittleClarkie]

16. Venezuelanalysis.com: About us

"Venezuelanalysis.com is an editorially independent website produced by individuals who are dedicated to disseminating news and analysis about the current political situation in Venezuela.

The site's aim is to provide on-going news about developments in Venezuela, as well as to contextualize this news with in-depth analysis and background information. The site is targeted towards academics, journalists, intellectuals, investors, policy makers from different countries, and the general public.

Web server services and bandwith is donated by Aporrea.org, a larger site maintained by grassroots groups in Venezuela. Venezuelanalysis.com is a project of the Fundación para la Justicia Económica Global, which is a foundation that is registered in Caracas, Venezuela.

The website's main base of operations is Caracas, Venezuela, where it maintains its only office.

While the site publishes opinion articles, it also aims for accuracy in the news and facts presented in all articles. Our goal is to become the primary resource for information and analysis on Venezuela in the English language."

I wish most of the articles I read from them didn't all sound like editorial pieces instead of reports, as they indicate they are aiming for facts as well as opinion.

[Peace Patriot]

19. You think what we are getting from our war profiteering corporate news monopolies

are FACTS? Not so. There is a fascist corporate agenda behind every so-called "fact," and highly selective editing in the headlines, in the sub-headlines, in the leads, and in every paragraph--as to WHO gets quoted, how they get quoted, and what facts, or what PORTIONS of a fact, are relevant--as well as highly prejudicial editing in WHAT subject matter is WORTHY of a news article.

I prefer to see the agenda UPFRONT. I don't mind politically colored news articles AT ALL, if the agenda of the writer is visible. I can then see it from his or her point of view, and sympathize accordingly (if I agree), OR, if the thing is too far bent, look elsewhere for more information.

What our war profiteering corporate news monopolies do is something else entirely. They trade upon PAST efforts at "objective" journalism, and the power that this has given them, to LIE TO US NOW. The New York Times is a perfect example. It used its PAST reputation as a credible, objective newspaper to SELL us the Iraq War--to daily blaze Bush/Cheney's lies across their front page, not identified as lies, but parading as the truth.

That changes the whole ballgame. Objectivity is gone! They threw it away! They and the rest of the corporate news monopolies are no longer credible. And if the ONLY place I can find REAL information about the Venezuela and the South American left is a Bolivarian-friendly web site, THAT is the situation.

There is more truth at www.venezuelanalysis.com than in the entirety of all the newspapers, and all the TV/radio broadcasts, in the United States. That it leans toward Chavez is a CIRCUMSTANCE--a reality--that I just have to live with. There is no objectivity TO BE HAD. Where you suggest I go, to find objective reporting on Chavez?

So--in my own mind--I put together my picture of Venezuela, based on the foaming-at-the-mouth hatred of him in corporate "news" sources, versus the friendly--but not slavish--coverage at www.venezuelanalysis.com. I've read enough of the corporate "news" crap (extensive reading and analysis) to have judged it as DISINFORMATION. It cannot be relied upon. So where can we go to gain understanding? www.venezuelanalysis.com PROVIDES understanding--both of the thing itself (the Bolivarian Revolution) AND of the reasons that the Bush State Dept. and its lapdog corporate press revile Chavez. It also has information on their plots and disinformation campaigns against him.

I read both sides--critically, analytically--and put my own views together.

One other thing. What is "objective" in the case of Chavez? The view of a few rich billionaires, who control all news and opinion in this country, and hate and fear the Bolivarian Revolution, or the sympathetic view of Chavez that reflects his 70% public support in Venezuela (with millions of supporters in other South American countries)? WHO'S view is accurate? The corporate view merely tells us why they may assassinate him, not why he is so popular. The www.venezuelanalysis.com view tells us WHY he is so popular, and why the Bolivarian Revolution is spreading like wildfire all over the continent. It also gives us some of the nuts and bolts of democracy--how this revolution is happening, what its procedures are, who's involved, and what THEY think.

As for accuracy and objectivity, www.venezuelanalysis.com gives us much more of a sense of what is REALLY happening in South America, than any of the sour, fearful, greedy, murder-in-their-hearts, so-called "news" articles we get about this subject from corporate "news" monopolies.

If you had to choose, as to "objectivity"--and we do, since we know that good, old-fashioned, "objective" journalism doesn't exist any more--the Chavez-friendly source is MORE objective than the corporate news monopoly source. It reflects the opinions of millions of people--people like us: workers, the poor, minorities, artists, teachers, union leaders, community organizers, concerned people, common people--THE people. And we just have to sort through the "friendly" part (which is very upfront) to grasp an objective understanding of these events. Sometimes "objectivity" IS--and MUST be--partisan. If you are witnessing a murder, are you not a partisan of the victim? Are you going to stand there and be "objective"--or get on your cell phone and call 9/11, or grab a club and intervene? And afterwards, do you regard the murder or the attempted murder as merely a set of facts, or do you regard it as an injustice, and try your best to see that justice is done about it?

If you are a reporter, and you are standing in two feet of water in New Orleans, and bodies are floating by, are you not entitled to be partisan, and to present ALL THE FACTS? Not just the cold facts. But the REAL facts--the failure of government leadership, the murderous neglect of the poor, the deliberate denial and obstruction of aid. Is that LACK of objectivity, or is that REAL objectivity--the total factual picture?

So, the friendly view of Chavez and the Bolivarians may, in fact, be objective--or at least much more objective than a negative view. Think of all that has gone before it--decades and centuries of rightwing brutality and oppression. What well-intentioned observer could NOT be relieved and excited by the Bolivarian Revolution? It is, by any objective criteria, a very positive development. Leftists are no longer being thrown out of airplanes in South America--they are getting elected President!

That is NEWS. And that is OBJECTIVELY true. And that is also cause for celebration by any journalist with blood in his or her veins. Journalists are the ikons of democracy. Shouldn't they be happy when democracy succeeds?

www.venezuelanalysis.com DOES offer some criticism, and it presents various controversies, and examines various pitfalls for this revolution. It has a wide variety of writers. It is an intelligent site, in that sense. It is not like these worthless web sites that politicians put up, low on content and always tooting their own horns. It is not a P.R. site. It is VERY INFORMATIVE. It also gives you the kind of detail you need to judge matters for yourself. Is government help actually getting to the poor? Yes. You can read quotes and detailed descriptions from individuals. Are there problems? Yes. The very poor are being helped, but indicators for the next class up--the working poor--are not as good. Is the literacy program really working? Read accounts of very poor illiterates whose lives have been transformed by learning to read. Are Venezuelan elections clean and aboveboard? Read all about it, from on the ground journalists, observing people as well as balloting. Learn the DETAILS (for instance, that Venezuela handcounts 55% of the ballots, as a check on machine fraud--way, WAY more transparent than our own elections). Find out that the OAS, the Carter Center and EU election monitoring groups were allowed to crawl all over Venezuela, during its elections, and unanimously certified the elections as honest and aboveboard. With this information, you are then in a better position to judge the complaints of the rightwing, trumpeted by the Bush State Dept. and OUR press, that they were cheated.

Like that. Cumulatively, you can gain an understanding of certain things--for instance, that Chavez--whatever else you might say about him--is sincere on helping the poor, and is enacting many programs that are making a significant difference to people. And you can find out that Chavez--whatever else you might say about him--was/is the choice of the people. And you get a sense of the people, and where they are at, as to the development of democracy. (Would Venezuelans put up with a "dictator"? Not bloody likely--from everything I've read about them. The Venezuelan people STOPPED a dictatorial fascist coup!)

I think it is very interesting that the Bolivarian Revolution is succeeding, despite being universally reviled by the corporate media, here and there. www.venezuelanalysis.com gives you some sense of WHY that is so. The corporate media ignores MOST of what the revolution is about (the PEOPLE and THEIR goals), and focuses on ONE MAN. He is a strong leader, to be sure, but there are other leaders (in Venezuela and throughout the region), including millions of grass roots leaders. Chavez alone couldn't do what he is doing. It is a political movement--and a vast one. You learn this at www.venezuelanalysis.com. But you learn nothing whatever about this in the corporate "news," which mostly ignores what's really happening, and cherrypicks and greatly distorts news items from Venezuela, to dis Chavez.

Maybe we should give up the concept of "objectivity" altogether. There is stupid news. And there is intelligent news. And it's not difficult to know which is which, in this case.