Venezuela: Voters Repeal Presidential Term Limits

[Kuciwalker]

I prefer disapproval voting. You indicate who you don't want in the office at all, and the one tolerated by most people wins.

That's isomorphic to approval voting.

[Kidlicious]

Chavez Wins: "Socialism" Or Death! by Marc Cooper (who is also a douche)

During the days of the Pinochet dictatorship there was that joke about the Chilean dictator going on a state visit to Bolivia, a long-time rival of his own nation.

At a state dinner, the Bolivian President introduces his Chilean counterpart to Senor so-and-so, Secretary of the Bolivian Navy. Feeling slightly mocked by the leader of the landlocked nation, Pinochet raises his eyebrow and says "You have a Minister of the Navy?"

The Bolivian President doesn't bat an eyelash and responds, "What's the problem? After all, you have a Minister of Justice."

In that respect, if Hugo Chavez wants to call himself a socialist and pretend that the armed forces that currently hold the levers of power in his country and who swear an oath to defend the fatherland, revolution and socialism are the armed representatives of the working class, I suppose that's his right. After all, if Dick Cheney can call himself a defender of democracy, why can't Hugo claim to be a tribune of socialism?

There have been worse characters in history who have claimed the title of socialist. From Stalin to Pol Pot to the younger Mussolini.

But Chavez is hardly in their league. He's much more of a cross between Peron and Fidel with a dash of the Woody Allen character in Bananas. Make that two tablespoons.

I, on the other hand, venture to believe that Mssrs. Marx and Engels had a rather different species in mind when they were theorizing about a post-capitalist world and who might lead it.

But then again, Venezuela is hardly post-capitalist. If what Chavez has got going there has anything to do with the democratic and egalitarian notions that have inspired generations of socialists throughout history, please count me out.

No question that Chavez --utilizing all the state resources of an incumbent that controls ALL branches of the government, much of the media and manipulates the levers of oil-financed patronage-- won a clear victory Sunday in the referendum that will allow him to indefinitely run for re-election when his current term (and his FIRST 15 years in power) expires in 2013.

In broad terms, the vote can be called democratic. More or less the same as what passes for democracy in many places of the world. And Chavez was democratically re-elected president last time out. And, in case, anyone attempts to put some unsanitary words in my mouth, Chavez is the legal and constitutional ruler of Venezuela. Duly elected, lawfully elected.... and so on.

But he is the ruler. As none of the above negates or contradicts the rather obvious fact that Chavez intends to never leave office -- at least, not alive. His usurpation of any pluralism, of any semblance of debate and consensus in the most important levels of government is something that merits no celebrations and certainly bodes nothing very uplifting about the Venezuelan future.

Legal or not, democratic or not, Chavez is bent on and has effectively already achieved one-man rule. And that, brother, ain't got nothing to do with socialism.

Socialism should mean more democracy, not less. More transparency, not less. More distribution of power, not centralization in the hands of an ego-maniac who lends himself to five hour Sunday TV spectacles and who refers to any and all critics as "squalid...terrorists...and fascists."

No question that when Chavez initially came to power, his opposition was led by rather doltish and corrupt representatives of a corrupt and discredited oligarchy. What a gift to a demagogue like Chavez!

But things have changed in Venezuela in the last five years. The opposition has broadened and deepened, now extending far beyond its original right-wing and sometimes hysterical base. There are plenty of democrats, centrists, and even leftists (and socialists) in what is now a much more mature and pluralistic opposition.

And it's now their move. They have a limited historical window in which to pull it together and forge a credible, progressive, and attractive alternative to the brutish Chavez. Either that, or they should be prepared to have their grandchildren listening to Chavez rants and raves thirty years from now.

P.S. I am now going to contradict what I just wrote. I am willing to bet real cash that Chavez will not make it for another decade. He has given far too much power to the Venezuelan military and that will be his eventual downfall. The world economic recession and the plummeting price of oil, Chavez' failure to invest in a diversified economic development program, rampant corruption (and a horrific murder rate), will inevitably -- and probably sooner rather than later - lead to massive discontent. I would guess that such popular disillusionment (of the sort that usually lends itself to a yearning for an iron fist) will kick the doors wide open for a military coup by one or another general not anxious to go down with Chavez' dingy. This seems a more likely end to this story than an opposition victory anytime soon. I would not cheer nor support such a coup. It would probably produce something worse than the status quo. I just find it the most likely of outcomes.

If the worst that can be said about him is that he's a demagogue and that he didn't invest in diversifying the economy then so be it. Venezuela needs a demagogue right now. And diversifying the economy means taking food away from his people. Most of the oil proceeds have gone to ease the suffering of his people. That makes him a hero in my book especially since he seems to have the power to make himself and others very rich at the expense of his people.

[Barnabas]

It is true that Chavez has not developed the country.

Why doesn't he use all those billions of dollars from the oil industry or wind farms to make the country less dependant on oil?

Perón didn't have all the money Chavez has but he did much more to develop and industrialize Argentina.

Chavez gives money to the poor, that is true. But Venezuela has not become less oil dependant under Chavez.

That is sad because Venezuela has a golden opportunity to advance all these past years with super high oil prices.

[Kidlicious]

It is true that Chavez has not developed the country.

Why doesn't he use all those billions of dollars from the oil industry or wind farms to make the country less dependant on oil?

Perón didn't have all the money Chavez has but he did much more to develop and industrialize Argentina.

Chavez gives money to the poor, that is true. But Venezuela has not become less oil dependant under Chavez.

That is sad because Venezuela has a golden opportunity to advance all these past years with super high oil prices.

Because making the country less dependent on oil revenue doesn't necessarily help his people. If he loses power and a right wing government takes over all of that investment will be lost.

[Felch]

Because making the country less dependent on oil revenue doesn't necessarily help his people. If he loses power and a right wing government takes over all of that investment will be lost.

Seriously? You think that diversifying an economy is not a fundamentally good thing? Monoculture economies are far more prone to boom and bust cycles. Boom and bust cycles don't hurt the rich very much, but the poor are crushed by them. With the oil price as low as it is, his investment will be lost.

[Felch]

That's isomorphic to approval voting.

Mathematically perhaps. But psychology plays a big role. People who do telephone polling have to be very careful about how questions are worded. Asking who someone approves of versus who they disapprove of may seem to get the same results, but I'll gladly wager that it won't.

Your mathematical models are rational. People are not rational.

[Kidlicious]

Seriously? You think that diversifying an economy is not a fundamentally good thing?

Nothing is good for the people unless they get something for it. There's no telling what the government will be when the investments start to pay off.

[Felch]

Do you have an example, because otherwise this doesn't really seem like a terrible thing for a politician.

Demonizing his opponents is Chavez's standard operating procedure. No matter what the issue, he ignores criticism and resorts to childish name calling. He goes on state television for hours at a time to do this. In other words, he is a megalomaniac douche.

[Felch]

Nothing is good for the people unless they get something for it. There's no telling what the government will be when the investments start to pay off.

They do get something from it. They get a cushion from a drop in oil prices. They get a stable economy. They get jobs. After all, you can only have so many people working on oil rigs. You need people to work in factories and mines and farms and law firms and department stores and everywhere else.

[Kidlicious]

They do get something from it. They get a cushion from a drop in oil prices. They get a stable economy. They get jobs. After all, you can only have so many people working on oil rigs. You need people to work in factories and mines and farms and law firms and department stores and everywhere else.

So you expect them to live in extreme poverty so that the economy is stable in the future and they have jobs, but they will still be in extreme poverty? Doesn't sound like a good deal to me.

[Felch]

They won't be in extreme poverty if the economy is diversified. They will be in extreme poverty if the economy is not diversified. Look at Detroit or London. Putting all your eggs in one basket, like cars or international finance, leads to all hell breaking loose once the boom ends. Venezuela is like those two, except instead of a city, it's an entire country.

This isn't rocket science here. Diversified economies are healthier than non-diverse economies. They're better able to weather economic storms. In other words, if they diversify the economy, the people won't be in extreme poverty.

This isn't some radical right-wing notion. The USSR diversified an agricultural economy and made it stronger by focusing on industrialization. Russia and the other former Soviet republics benefited from that particular policy. If you doubt me, ask onodera.

[Kidlicious]

This isn't some radical right-wing notion. The USSR diversified an agricultural economy and made it stronger by focusing on industrialization. Russia and the other former Soviet republics benefited from that particular policy. If you doubt me, ask onodera.

USSR is case in point. Yes they diversified, but the people lived the same way they always had.

[Felch]

I'm a Libertarian. To me, a Communist is something you'd call someone you absolutely hate. But even I know that the USSR brought Russia from a backwards ass pseudo-colony of Western Europe, and turned it into a world power.

Were the people as well off as in the West? No, of course not. Communism limits economic growth, even Marx understood that Capitalism is necessary for growth to occur. Were the people a damn sight better off than they were under the Czars? I'd say yes. But ask a Russian.

[chequita guevara]

Despite the claims by Marc Cooper, Chavez had been making moves to diversify the country's economy. Insanely high oil prices only lasted a couple of years, hardly enough time to transform the economy.

[Kidlicious]

I'm a Libertarian. To me, a Communist is something you'd call someone you absolutely hate. But even I know that the USSR brought Russia from a backwards ass pseudo-colony of Western Europe, and turned it into a world power.

Were the people as well off as in the West? No, of course not. Communism limits economic growth, even Marx understood that Capitalism is necessary for growth to occur. Were the people a damn sight better off than they were under the Czars? I'd say yes. But ask a Russian.

You just totally and pitifully contradicted yourself. I can't even respond with anything except to say that not everyone seems to care about nationalism like you do. Why should a peasant care?