IAP Political Forum

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7124313.stm

Guess his people knew what was best for them.  Its actually a sigh of relief IMO.  Direct democracy amongst a nation state full of poverty can be scary.

Can I ask what contributed to this, in your opinion? Do you think incidents like the recent King of Spain debacle impacted? 

It was very close.  If he chooses to make another attempt, he may succeed and he indicates the proposal is still alive for him. 

It could appear that the majority of the proposals were potentially beneficial for the people, with the stumbling point being his re-election clause? 

Can you expand on why direct democracy in a poor nation state is a frightening prospect?

A lot of questions... :-X...well I am interested in that area of the world...

I think he will bring this proposal up over and over again as long as he is in office.  The major contributing force of why is was shot down (marginally) is b/c...there were just enough smart people in Vene. to know that this proposal was inching closer towards authoritarianism.   I doubt the Spanish royal remark had very much impact on the results.  The big impact was the fundamental value in the proposal.

A direct democracy in a poor nation state is scary b/c they whatever the vote for en masse is going to be the outcome...where in the US we do not vote on federal proposals.  Out elected officials do that for us.  Poor people are typically uneducated and vote on emotion derived from propaganda.  Thats what scary...they can and do make the wrong decision.

Is there a risk that elected representatives will represent their own/their network's best interests and be intelligent enough to mask this from the electorate?

It seems that once the US elects officials, they are not very accountable to the people.  They are left to govern even if they govern poorly.

They can always voted out next election in the US...and it happens after they are exposed...if they are exposed.

They do a great job of masking their actions of special interests....thats why they are in office.  Its part of the profession IMO.  A good politician must be able to balance special interests and those of the public and their own career interests simultaneously.

What are his political affiliations?  Apart from wanting to govern forever...is he communist or capitalist or socialist...do his aims fall clearly under one political philosophy? 
It's been said he works to improve the lot of the common people, but there are dissenting opinions.  Have you followed him closely enough to know if that is correct?
Also, do you regard the UK as federal?

He's a socialist economically speaking and a communists politically speaking.  I would say he aims fall relatively clear under Castro and Che's philosophy.

I'm not an expert but I am well informed on the subject and on Chavez himself.  Baldar is prolly the closest person to an expert on Vene and Chavez at IAP.  I know he did a lot of business there and resided there for a few periods of time as well.

What do you mean the "UK as federal?"

Shouldn't it be understood that he accepted the election results, if Chavez had dictatorial aims then wouldn't he refuse the election? As far as I can tell Chavez has upheld his goals and the democratic process as a whole. He resisted the coup in 2002 (likley supported by the CIA), held public and popular elections, started the economic support he promised his people, and (so far) has agreed to step down after this election.

He did well for the people of Venezuela it seems to me

My feeling is that you're right, but I don't have enough background to gauge it. 

There are ways of rigging elections, especially in a country where poverty is prevalent.  Why would he not do that, why risk everything on the will of the people if he is really a crook?  It gives the impression that he is genuinely abiding by the process and has the good of the country at heart.

Neo, I think you didn't give an opinion on that question...do you believe he is for the people or has ambition to be a tinpot dictator?  He plainly wants to retain power but perhaps that is for the best of reasons, that he believes he is the person to improve his country's situation.

As to the UK question, it's off thread, but I have read other conversations where US citizens categorize all political systems by their own experience.  The UK system is vastly different from the US, but it has been argued that the UK government is basically federal.  I wondered what you think of that?

Chavez is an idiot.
Now it's proven.

I'm sure Chavez thinks what he is doing is best, but its not.  He prolly thinks the best thing for Vene. is for him to be in complete and total control...like Castro

You talk about how if he was truly crooked he would have rigged the elections...perhaps he tried and is just too incompetent to pull it off.  Thats just speculation obviously.

I have a feeling we'll be talking about this again in a year or two.

Chavez never should have proposed this reform. If he truly governed with popular support it wouldn't be necessary.

Bit of a sweeping statement there.  :) Can I ask specifically what it's based on?  How is it proven?

Why is that?  What would have differed in his proposals if he had support?  The re-election part?

The success or failure of Castro depends on your viewpoint.  You are in the US, where capitalism is king.  I am in Scotland where socialism is more prevalent. 

Although Andrew Carnegie, the father of capitalism, was Scottish, the system as currently used is not IMO what he envisaged or proposed.  The part about giving back the wealth to improve the lot of the common man has been overlooked...



It is.  I think it may be key though, to what he is.  If we knew the truth about that...


Probably around election time in Caracas.

If he was confident in the popularity of Socialism in Venezuela, there would be no need to undermine democracy the way he is.

I suspect he fears another leader will gain popularity who doesn't share the same Socialist vision he does, and as a result he feels the need to run for election until his death. It seems as if Chavez is attempting to manipulate the system to ensure his continued leadership, while maintaining the appearance of legitimacy, as a petty dictator would.

Why Chavez can't merely inspire other Socialists to follow his example and run for election is suggestive of his ambitions.

Do you think he is ambitious for his own self or for his political cause?

OswaldTheOsprey

He cares more than anything about his political cause, believing however that it is dependent on his solitary actions.

The problem is that any strong, legitimate, and democratic political movement cannot be based on the leadership of a single person. Early American presidents consciensously  adhered to the electoral laws of their republic, readily leaving their positions of power if they performed poorly in the political process (and never running again), though their ideals continued through other members of their party.

Because people are already skeptical of Chavez's legitimacy, viewing him as an aspiring dictator, it would benefit him to adopt a system of greater political participation. He should accept the end of his term in the time designated, and influence others to continue his reforms.

People seem pretty divided about his real motivation.  He gained sympathy after fighting his way through the early problems and because of the economic disadvantage and historic abuses of South American countries by oppressive nations he is an underdog, which also affords sympathy.   

I agree that based on his recent actions a play for dictatorship is still possible, the jury is still out.  It could be suggested that the substantial social improvement reforms offered might have been a carrot proposed to allow him to push through the re-election reform. This failed, but he has in any case gained credibility by his actions.  Astute, from any angle.  Time will tell if this was random or calculated and whether he IS astute or, as one poster suggested, an idiot.

I would not, however, expect him to tailor his actions to suit the views of the international community, for example as suggested in your last sentence, if he genuinely believes there is no one capable of pushing through the reforms he views as essential to his country's welfare.  He may feel the time to do this is after an effective political system is established.  I do not say this is correct though...

Is your own affiliation to capitalism?  For example, what are your views on Castro?  I am trying to establish if your views are biased by influence deriving from your own culture.

You are quite right in your prescription of what Chavez should do. Having said that, it is doubtful he is humble enough to follow it. "An indespinsable man" in his own eyes.

OswaldTheOsprey

There is a very large community of spanish inmigrants in Venezuela. Most of them come from the Canary Islands, that they left in the sixties heading to Venezuela. I've got two cousins living over there that I met for the first time a couple of years ago. One of them is married to a dentist. Her husband has been investing money for years in his business for years.

Now Chavez says that as Health is a very important aspect of life and many venezolanos are poor, prices of private doctors has to be fixed. Now dentists or doctors are not free to charge the amount of money they decide for their services. And this is communism, folks.

There are a lot of poor people in Venezuela. Don't you think that these people would live a better life if Chavez would use the money he is getting from the venezuelan oil in the poors instead giving it to Cuba or Bolivia in order to achieve his nasty socialists plans?

Saludos

Chavez is an egotistical and powermad blowhard. He associates his goodwill with that of his nation.

OswaldTheOsprey

That's very very true OswaldTheOsprey. He's always saying that foreing countries -former spanish PM Aznar among others- are insulting Venezuela when they are only talking about him. But Chavez believes he is Venezuela.
My cousin and her husband are plannig to leave Venezuela to live in Miami, where they hope to create richness, to employ people and for sure to earn as much money as they can, but I'm confident that they would rather prefer to stay at home, to contribute in their own country, Venezuela, but Chavez is ruinning the country.
What a pity!

The ones to pity are the poor Venezuelans. Perhaps they will continue to defy the swine at the next election!

OswaldTheOsprey

I support a Capitalist system accompanied by an advanced welfare state, and am a strong believer in parliamentary democracy. Therefore I am very opposed to Castro's rule, and dislike anything remotely dictatorial.

Well, admittedly even moderate Socialist governments typically nationalize health care. A larger problem is that Chavez is nationalizing heavy industries.

I actually support Nationalization as a preventative to international high finance and multinationalism-globalism in a word. Do not confuse me with marxists as I am a Social Fascist. Nationalism and Social Justice. Putin is a good example of a leader I admire.

OswaldTheOsprey

I suspect I should research Chavez myself to find the answers I seek.

Jabato, is the idea of nationalizing medical care not to improve the lot of the poor?  Is it only your relatives who should have a comfortable lifestyle?   :P

Seriously, I understand people wanting to make money and reach a level of comfort, but it is not more important to provide accesible healthcare for the population?  In the UK we have both private and national health dental care.

Gommi, is there a particular country which currently exemplifies the ideal of what you propose?  Or does it not exist at the moment?

Hmm. Perhaps Sweden. All Scandinavian "social democracies".

Viv wrote:
Jabato, is the idea of nationalizing medical care not to improve the lot of the poor? 

Yes of course, but not at the expense of normal citizens within a capitalistic economy. Is the idea of using the enormous amount of money that comes from Venezuela's oil to invests in Venezuela? I mean, don't you think that that money would help to improve the lot of the poor?

Viv wrote:
Is it only your relatives who should have a comfortable lifestyle?   

Come on Viv!

Viv wrote:
Seriously, I understand people wanting to make money and reach a level of comfort, but it is not more important to provide accesible healthcare for the population?  In the UK we have both private and national health dental care.

In Spain we do have both, private and National health Service, too, it is Venezuela the one who only has private health care services. Chavez should use the money from oil to offer the venezuelan people a national health care service and not only that, he should also use the money to adopt social measures in order to improve the lot of the poor but what's he doing with their oil which means the most important income of the country? He is using it for HIS crazy political dreams, because, what do you think he is meaning when he is proposing socialisms?

Saludos

What do you think he means? Is his grand socialist ideal not to spend on services that would improve the welfare of his people? And if this is his intention, is he failing to do this?

Exactly what I was going to ask.  Nationalizing health care and dental care is going to help his people...that is what he should be doing, is it not?

He should do what you say in re health care and dental care. He swhould also keep his megalomania in check.

OswaldTheOsprey

Agreed.

 Gommi wrote:

What do you think he means? Is his grand socialist ideal not to spend on services that would improve the welfare of his people? And if this is his intention, is he failing to do this?

I apologize Gommi, but I don't get very well the meaning of your words.

I don't understand how he is talking about socialisms when if you have a look at those socialists countries, I mean true examples of socialisms empirically proven, all of them are not in very good conditions, economically and politically talking, so IMO his dream is heading the disaster, the same disaster faced by the USSR or Hungary or Poland or Chechenia, countries that know for sure the "benefits" of the socialism.

I'm still wondering what is the purpose behind the buying of thousands of AK-47

Saludos

Off topic: this morning I was having a cup of coffee in a cafeteria next to my job at 8.00 a.m. Next to me in the bar there were 3 Brits.......................drinking beer!!! What you call a pint over there is called here "una jarra" which from what I remember is a bit more than a pint. They were having the second one!!!!

It does more harm than good for his needed social programs.

OswaldTheOsprey

The poor nations you refer to as "socialist" were all Communist. They had bad economic conditions because they had no private sector and no market economy. Hopefully Chavez is intelligent enough not to nationalize heavy industries.   

If he does not nationalize heavy industry, will they not be his most dangerous enemies?

OswaldTheOsprey

Not at all. It will also generate great amounts of tax revenue for him.

Perhaps. My own view of heavy industry is not so benign.

OswaldTheOsprey

Gommi wrote:
The poor nations you refer to as "socialist" were all Communist. They had bad economic conditions because they had no private sector and no market economy. Hopefully Chavez is intelligent enough not to nationalize heavy industries.   

But what is comunism? IMO just one step foward socialisms. They share the same ideology. I'm not so confidence regarding Chávez intelligence, because he is attacking the private sector rightnow. Did you hear what he said about Spain? "If the spanish right wing party win the next March 2008 elections in Spain, spanish business and enterprises in Venezuela are gonna face problems".

Saludos

I'm glad, he was a few peices of paper away from instilling an autocracy.

Laughable.

Venezuela is much more corrupt than Mexico.  Pemex revenues continue to drop precipitiously as money if funneled from reinvestment for purposes of efficiency to cover an overreaching national government which uses the excess cash to patchwork bad policies (not change them).  Venezuela will do much worse and already has.

Consider this:


Provea report (http://www.derechos.org.ve/publicaciones/infanual/2006_07/index.html)

Now that is with the massive increase in oil prices and revenue.  So we see Chavez with more money than he can possibly spend, still failing in his "Bolivarian solution".  Its a joke really.  Some of you leftists should be ashamed of yourself for supporting him, as if you didn't know it would be a power grab.

Do you attribute these failures to corruption or mere bureaucratic incompetency? As I mentioned, Chavez is making severe errors in policy, such as his nationalization of industries, which is certainly denying the government potential revenues.

It is Chavez's personal dishonesty and desire to set himself up as a dictator that is reflected in how he ignores his own country's problems.  He feels he doesn't really have to respond beyond an odd speech, just like Castro.  I believe he forgot that Castro did away with free elections, whereas Chavez only controls almost all the media prior to elections (there is a difference, though it isn't much).  Look to Chavez to decare a national emergency in the near future and take upon himself the powers denied to him by the election.

This would be the ultimate loss for the country.

The press must be free in a democracy!

Freedom of the press belongs to those that own the presses.

OswaldTheOsprey

Indeed, however the government need not regulate what information can be conveyed. Especially during an election, it is tyrannical for freedom of expression to be restricted in any way.

You are probably right as to Chavez' impulses.

OswaldTheOsprey