Venezuela's Chavez granted power to rule by decree

Venezuelan legislators have voted unanimously to grant leftist President Hugo Chavez the power to rule by decree for 18 months.

The move comes a week after he began a second six-year term, vowing to seek to become president for life.

Legislative president Cilia Flores says the Bill authorises Mr Chavez to "rule by decree ... with the force of law".

"We welcome this enabling law, with the support of the National Assembly, which backs our leader," she said.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200701/s1830204.htm

Not good at all.

When in history has such a turn of events EVER been a good thing?

I am you would say a fan of Chavez you could say.

But they are changing out to a more socialist economy, he needs the power to tweak the system there.

Beyond that I am on a wait and see basis that he uses his newfound power for good, all countries have their own path to make, and some will be different then ours.

What more power could he need?

I'm neither a Chávez fan nor a Chávez basher... He has done a lot of good, but I hate his authoritarianism. I hope he doesn't screw this up.

You can make reasonable arguments for and against the limited rule by decree that the national assembly granted president chavez, however when you claim "he has a 100% majority in congress" your argument falls apart as that is simply a false assertion.

Chavez's party has a 60% majority, not a 100% majority.

proving your claims, whether it is 100% or 60%.
I personally am not a good searcher, and gave up after 10 minutes.

His party got 60% of the seats, but ALL of the parties that are represented are Chavistas, they all had Hugo Chávez as their Presidential candidate, and for that reason they are all part of the ruling coalition.

Link for you:

"Chavez allies currently hold 86 seats in the legislature. The chief of Chavez's party, the Fifth Republic Movement, told reporters Sunday that preliminary figures indicated that his party had won 114 seats and that the remainder would be split among allied parties."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/04/AR2005120400969.html


Do ALLIED PARTIES say anything to you? He indeed has a 100% majority, not 100% his party but 100% of allies who will approve all of his proposals easily.

not with him.

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elecci%C3%B3n_Parlamentaria_de_Venezuela_(2005)

"Resultados

El oficialismo ganó la totalidad de los escaños del parlamento con sus coaliciones electorales Bloque del Cambio y MVR-UVE (llamada esta última coloquialmente "las morochas") siendo 114 curules para el MVR que es el partido de Chávez y los 53 restante para el resto de formaciones oficialista. El resultado como se mencionó es debido al retiro de los candidatos de la oposición."

Translation:

"Results

Chávez supporters won all the seats in parliament with their coalitions Bloque del Cambio y MVR-UVE (popularly called "las morochas"), with 114 seats for MVR that is Chávez's party, and the other 53 going to the other ruling parties. This result, as was mentioned, is because the opposition candidates withdrew."

for Hugo Chavez' alleged "authoritarianism"?

BUT, I also know that this is a fully constitutional measure. And it is important that the transformation to a new social system be achieved quickly, before the enemies can strike.

I believe the most famous "Enabling Act" of the 20th century
was every bit as "constitutional" as this one, y'know?

Hitler's decrees were not constitutional. The communist and social democratic deputies were unconstitutionally stripped of their parliamentary immunity. Without that act, there could have been no NS dictatorship. Furthermore, Chavez is an anti-fascist and sometimes democracy can allow for no space for such fascist forces.

What Hitler did after that violated the Constitution, but it really didn't matter as long as the "temporary" dictatorial powers were in effect.

Furthermore, Chavez is an anti-fascist

Yeah, so was Stalin. Fascists aren't the only ones who can be authoritarian.

By giving Hitler the emergency powers without restraint the Reichstag constitutionally gave Hitler all the power he needed.

<clips>

Caracas, January 17, 2007 (venezuelanalysis.com)— Venezuela’s National Assembly approved a resolution yesterday, according to which the legislature would declare emergency sessions for the approval of an “enabling law,” which will allow President Chavez to pass law-decrees on specific issues in the next 18 months. The National Assembly (AN) will begin deliberations on the law tomorrow.

Chavez had asked the AN for an “enabling law,” during his swearing-in ceremony last week, saying that such a law is necessary to accelerate the process of creating 21st century socialism in Venezuela. Chavez presented the AN with the proposed law last Saturday.

The proposed law, for which there is express permission in Article 203 of Venezuela’s 1999 constitution, would allow Chavez to pass decrees that have the legal standing of laws in ten different areas. The last time Chavez was allowed to make use of this provision was in 2001, when he passed 49 law-decrees. Previous presidents, such as Carlos Andrés Perez in 1976, were also given temporary authority for such laws.

The ten areas in which Chavez will be allowed to legislate are:

1. Transformation of the institutions of the state. Chavez would be allowed to change state institutions so that these become more efficient, include greater citizen participation, and are more transparent.
2. Popular participation. Here the President would be allowed to develop norms that enable citizen participation in public oversight. Also part of this is the “enabling of the direct exercise of popular sovereignty.” Exactly what is meant by this has so far not been explained.
3. Establishing norms for the eradication of corruption. This would also involve changing the civil service system.
4. The creation of norms for adopting existing legislation to the construction of a new social and economic model, in order to achieve equality and equitable distribution of wealth, under “the ideals of social justice and economic independence.”
5. Finances and tax collection. The development of norms to modernize monetary, banking, insurance, and tax sectors.
6. Citizen and judiciary security. The development of norms for updating the systems of public health, citizen security, prisons, identification, migration, and judiciary.
7. Science and technology. Norms for the development of science and technology to satisfy the needs of education, health, environment, biodiversity, industrialization, quality of life, and defense.
8. Territorial order. Norms that establish a new territorial organization on the sub-national level, so as to optimize state action.
9. Security and defense. Norms for enabling the co-responsibility of state and organized communities by establishing a new functioning of the institutions of security and defense of the nation.
10. Infrastructure, transport, and services. Norms that support the use of the human and industrial potential and the existing infrastructure to improve transport systems, public services, home construction, and telecommunications, among others.

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news.php?newsno=2195

....can he spread and declare war unilaterally like bushco?

feel that since the coup, he has surrounded himself with loyalists and ideologues. hat happens is a product of the entire mix.

Now, who can blame Chavez for seeking loyalty when a large part of his military joined a coup against him just a few years ago? But bad things happen from developments like this. This is not good.

Research before knee jerk remarks is always the best policy. Chavez and other presidents have been granted this type of law before.


...Enabling laws are those enacted by a three fifths vote of the members of the National Assembly to establish the guidelines, purposes and framework for matters that are being delegated to the President of the Republic, so that he may issue Decretos con Fuerza de Ley or D.F.L. (Delegated Laws or decrees with the rank and force of law). The Assembly may thus delegate to the President the power to set norms with the status of law on specific matters. They are issued by the President by means of that delegation of competence from the Assembly. The President (the delegate) would not normally have competence to sanction that law, but has acquired the power to do so. Most of these decrees deal with economic or fiscal regulation, support and control of enterprises, scarcity of natural resources, and politically related issues.

dick heads too, duh!!

Your command of the English language and your knowledge about LatAm is very impressive!! :sarcasm:
:rofl:

que vos sabés de americalatina?

..."knee-jerking" is pretty much the only exercise I get anymore!

The description in the original article of "rule by decree" was a bit overstated.

And they never granted such sweeping powers; neither were they called upon without there being some sort of special situation. What sort of emergency situation does Chávez use to justify this move? It seems more like he got up one day and said "I think I want to rule by decree".

I don't think it was the General Assembly's idea.

fairly reported on Chavez.

Junior's lapdogs throughout. So, on balance, what is the material difference?

It is independent, although Howard has moved to make it less so in the
past years by stacking its board with conservatives.

It is still definitely to the left of most of our other media outlets,
and can generally be trusted to provide a more balanced view, especially
on politics and current affairs.

and inflammatory. Chavez was given a mandate for a specific task and for a specific period of time. Not quite the same thing, is it?

and I find it a bit worrying, but I'll wait and see.

As for the ABC - they're not taking a stand either way - if they came
out too strongly in favour of Chavez, the Howard Government would be
out in force, banging the drums against them. They have to tread
carefully until Howard goes - he's already decimated the public funding
they need to keep running, as punishment for their so-called left-wing
bias.

He declared himself dictator to get power over and above that of the president's office, but incredible as it may seem, he used his unilateral powers mostly to create beneficial social changes. He gave women the vote, instituted a new Turkish alphabet more suitable to the nature of the language, and generally did away with Sharia laws and religious courts. He is practically worshiped in Turkey today and just goes to show that one time out of millions, a leader will seek absolute power in order to improve the lot of their people.

Moved Turkey into modernity. A truly great man.

Dictators on the left or right -- doesn't matter. It's never a good thing.

This never works - you need balance of power

In hindsight, it probably would have been better for Russia had Gorby held on to his power for a while longer.

Even still, the caution and skepticism you're expressing is an appropriate response. Not many people can walk away from dictatorial power when they should.

He already had that power when he came into office, he just moved too far too fast and the Soviet Union came undone.

thats right, I'm a newbie to this board from the midwest. The way I see it, he declared himself emperor for at least the next 18 months and aboloshed all opposition views,peacfull views or otherwise, his word his law .Opposition has a gag order on his actions until the 18 months expire ?
....then what does he do ?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

to achieve defined goals.

I don't understand the analogy to rome.

n/t

Which legislation passed then didn't you like?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2693436&mesg_id=2694947

of the "insult" laws. to name a couple.

:cry:

read the laws.

I do read the laws. Doesn't say a thing about "limiting comment and speech".

Any more wisdom you want to impart to us, professor?
:rofl:

<clips>

(Venews.com reproduced by BBC Monitoring Service) - "The approval of articles 5, 8 and 9 in the new Law of Social Responsibility in Radio and Television will clarify the definition of informative education and cultural programmes in state and the private media (…)

(…) Articles 8 and 9 regulate all things related to publicity, ads and promotions, as well as restrictions and control over advertising time... which will be limited to 15 minutes per hour of programming... in view of many complaints from the public about continuous ads during shows.

Santos Amaral also said that content will be regulated so that sex and violence, for example, will not be transmitted during children's TV hours. Furthermore, article 9 prohibits any type of advertising for alcoholic beverages and cigarettes at any time; subliminal or covert publicity will be regulated as well.

The AN deputy says that discussion of articles 6 and 7 on other elements, schedules and schedule restrictions respectively was deferred since the AN is looking for greater consensus from all sectors via the Technical Table, of pro-government and opposition legislators, which meets each Wednesday at the National Assembly".

http://www.venezlon.co.uk/newsletter/oct2004/oct/23.htm

can you post the "insult" law too Jimmy. and I'll give you extra credit for an essay on the "benefits of rule by decree".

no me vas a responder en castellano? por que no??

want to read as well. Very impolite to speak in a language most others don't understand. :hi:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Oye Che, y vos, que mierda te importa lo que pasa en Venezuela? No seria mejor que te preocupes de tus pobres infelizes compatriotas?
:evilgrin:

Eduardo Dimas, in his recent economic outlook for Latin America in 2007 stated pretty much the same thing. Interesting reading especially the outlook for the USSA, which the US propaganda machines always try to paint as rosy.

<clips>

In 2006, Latin America's gross domestic product (GDP) grew by 5.2 percent and, although the increase varied substantially from one country to the next, the growth marked a tendency that has repeated for four consecutive years. For 2007, both the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC/CEPAL) and the World Bank (WB) predict a GDP growth of about 4.5 percent, a rate acceptable from any point of view, so long as the poorest countries experience above-average increases, which is hard to expect.

The countries with the greatest GDP increase were Cuba (12.5 percent), Trinidad & Tobago (12), Antigua and Barbuda (11), the Dominican Republic (10), Venezuela (10), Argentina (8.5), Panama (7.5), Uruguay (7.3) and Peru (7.2 percent.) The countries with the weakest performance were El Salvador (3.8 percent), Nicaragua (3.7), Brazil (2.8), Guatemala (2.5) and Haiti (also 2.5 percent.) The rest of the Latin American nations experienced growth rates that range between the two extremes.

According to ECLAC and WB economists, the reasons for the growth were the high price of raw materials exported by Latin America, an increase in the domestic demand -- something that varies widely from one country to the other -- and a favorable global context. Others say the most important element was "the adoption of autonomous economic decisions that were counter to the neoliberal policies and market policies imposed by the major centers of world power."

That was the case in Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Argentina and, to a lesser degree, Brazil, which has not freed itself from the neoliberal framework left by the administration of Fernando Henrique Cardoso, a government characterized by the privatization of natural resources and services, and high rates of bank interest (between 14 percent and 17 percent), a real cash drain that could be invested in the country's development.

...What remains to be seen is if 2007 will permit a continuation of the economic growth in Latin America and the Caribbean. If this does not happen -- and probably won't -- we can predict some social tremors. It is feasible to foresee a radicalization of the nationalist and progressive processes and, as a countereffect, an increase in the repressive actions of the Empire and the oligarchies to hold on to their privileges.

In addition, don't dismiss the possibility of coups d'état, as evidenced by the policies of the current U.S. administration and its intentions of wiping out "the leftist trends" in Latin America. Time will tell. As always, I invite you to meditate.

http://www.progresoweekly.com/index.php?progreso=Eduardo_Dimas_ant&otherweek=1169186400

From the article:

According to the ECLAC report, unemployment dropped from 9.1 percent of the active work force in 2005 to 8.5 percent in 2006, a figure much higher than the 6-percent average in the 1980s. World Bank data also show that Latin America and the Caribbean "have achieved the best social performances in the past 25 years." None of the economic reports take into consideration the informal sector of the economy, which provides living wages for between 18 and 20 percent (and even 30 percent) of the active work force, depending on the country.



Nevertheless, the World Bank says, there are still 205 million people in the region who live below the poverty line; 79 million of them live in abject poverty. The ECLAC states that 208 million Latin Americans live in poverty; 80 million of them live in abject poverty.



The differences between those figures are small, but they don't take into account the pain, despair and other reasons why almost 40 percent of the population of Latin America live in the worst of all possible worlds. In 2006, Latin America continued to be the region with the most unfair distribution of wealth in the world. Ten percent of the richest people own 48 percent of the wealth; in countries like Chile, Mexico and Brazil, the distribution of wealth has become increasingly more unfair.



Perhaps that is the reason why, throughout 2006, there was an increase in the regional tendency to elect leftist governments (left-leaning, at least) that oppose the typically neoliberal prescriptions of the 1990s. The element all those governments share is that their reason for existing involves their sovereignty, the recovery and use of natural resources and economic independence. This indicates that the neoliberal model has ran out of strength, although its sequelae will remain for a long time, including on the ideological level.
(snip)

Thanks. Great article.

So, that means that you're, in theory, happier with the legislation initiated by Chavez then you are by the legislation initated by the legislature. Why don't you love the special powers?

Try again.

:hi: Very enlightening

and it actually worked, until Grachus, Sulla and Caesar:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictator

and;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_republic#Beginning_of_the_end

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

"power drunkard".

Hugo Chavez Bio http://www.answers.com/topic/hugo-ch-vez As we all know, Without checks and balances,this is not good for Venezuela
or the world!

It's just amazing.

in Venezuela you can go to jail for "insulting" the president, vice president, and members of the royal Venezuelan government. Repeat after me: Bush is an asshole!!! Bush is an asshole!!!

And there are no shortages of insults.

Entiendes?

So you can rest easier knowing that the people of venezuela can bounce chavez out of office anytime they choose.

Democracies are not good, per se; bridled democracies are good. One common term for a bridled democracy is a 'liberal democracy'. The purer the democracy, the more easily it degenerates into majoritarianism.

Majoritarianism is bad. Populists love it, and many hateful and immoral acts and policies have been carried out with the support of the majority; the acts and policies are, nonetheless, hateful and immoral. Majorities frequently don't care about how a minority is abused, since it doesn't affect them; and they frequently revel in the abuse if they believe themselves to have been wronged, or are envious, or believe something good will come their way as a result of either the abuse or supporting the abusers. I have in mind not Venezuela, but Russia in the '20s and Germany in the '30s.

Provisions for recalls rely crucially on majorities.

All Democrats should loath majoritarianism. Many Democrats, and even some self-proclaimed liberals, do not; they aren't liberal democrats, whatever their formal party affiliation and self-designation. They seem to understand the evils of majoritarianism clearly when they're not the majority; but this faux understanding apparently results not from liberalism, but from their will to power's being thwarted when they're in the minority.

The majority should be constrained from acting when numerous and sundry rights are at issue. Super majorities should frequently be hobbled ... still able to advance their agenda, but only slowly.

:applause:

it causes a moderation in positions. After having had no representation at the nation level with any power whatsoever for a period of four years, we know full well what it's like to be in the nearly powerless minority.

Don't call it majoritarianism, call it what it really is, tyranny of the majority.

Now, as it stands in America, the Republicans still have a position of power to negotiate from, but if they should lose that and we should keep Congress, I think we ought to consider introducing a minority bill of rights, for our own good.

My point is only that claims that Chavez is a stalinist dictator are absurd given the bolivarian constitution with its recall provision that was one of the key initial reforms of the venezuelan political system implemented by non other than Chavez and his party. Discussion of majoritarianism are irrelevant to that.

The fact is that Chavez has increased, not decreased, democracy in Venezuela.

Thanks.

To Their Oath Of office? I don't just mean the White House,either? :kick:

but I don't know. It might just degenerate into more partisan bickering. I actually proposed something like that in GD, and you'd be surprised how the good the argument is against it, someone pointed me in the direction of thinking about how Bill Clinton would have faired, and it all made sense then.

"I'll drink to that " !

For some that's enough to equate Chavez to Bush.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Is he grooming his sons to take over the way George sr has ?

It's kind of like the claim that "eventually" Trickle Down Economics will benefit everyone.
It takes forever to materialize.

I've avoided the Chavez threads on DU - this is the first one I've posted on. I have to say, the guy has always caused a nagging feeling in my gut. He seemed likeable and charismatic. He was larger than life - someone who you could admire and look up to. Yet there was always something - he reminded me of the depictions of Julius Caesar. The people love him, and yet under his populous rhetoric is a very real desire to consolidate power.

It seems that Hugo has taken his first steps toward becoming a Dictator. I would congratulate him on his "success" if I didn't find it so morally objectionable. This can only end badly.

Hugo's up to *NO GOOD*. Ack!

Chavez got something Bush never could.

for us in the USA anyway, Venezuela is not so fortunate.

bUSH HAS MORE POWER THAN cHAVEZ DOES. hE HAS HAD THIS POWER BEFORE AND SO HAVE PREVIOUS PRESIDENTS THERE. gIVE IT A REST.

i dont recall a single president that virtually eliminated the power of the legislative and judiciary bodies for an extended amount of time. this is a huge power grab, the one that ive predicted in all my posts about hugo. This new power affords him an oppurtunity. To be a benign force of positive change or a negative influence on world politics and another voice rousing hatred against the united states. Which regardless of current administration/policies, I'm not a fan of. I live in this country and just because i think bush and his ilk are despicable doesnt mean i want half the world hating me for the country i call home, chavez is a big part of that unfortunately

is the Australian Broadcasting Company, and a network in none other than Australia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Broadcasting_Corporation

It's the public television of Australia and is in no way connected to ABC of America. (It's partner might be considered the BBC of the UK.)

:bounce:

:)

Chavez supporters don't make up 100% of the national assembly.

And as I understand it, this "rule by decree" is limited in scope.

even his right wing opponents allowed this. We may not want it here..but it is standard there and has never ended democracy. My God, you people fall for the MSM and right wing hacks who post here easily.

Remember the opposition decided to boycott the elections, so they have no representation.

have been given by a Democratically elected National Assembly, to a democratically elected President--all holding power as a result of elections that are closely monitored by numerous international observers, including the OAS, the Carter Center and the EU. So this is the will of the people of Venezuela that we are talking about; not something that Chavez has "grabbed" but something that has been GIVEN to him, democratically.

It reminds me more of FDR than of anything else. The country wanted and needed FDR to take strong control of the economy after the uber-rich had destroyed it--and, yes, the uber-rich did nothing but revile him for it, including calling him a "dictator." Some of his programs were very similar to Chavez's--government subsidies for the poor, vast government job creation, vast infrastructure improvement (schools, hospitals, bridges, roads), and "safety nets" of various kinds, such as Social Security. It was over Social Security that he tried to "pack the Supreme Court"--which the fascists have never gotten over. That "dictator" Roosevelt! HE was a "president for life"--dying in his FOURTH term in office as President of the US. Are the anti-Chavez dittoheads at DU willing to call FDR a tyrant? Try that here.

What do these powers propose, that Venezuela's National Assembly has voted for Chavez? Torture? Suspension of habeas corpus? Military rule? Unjust war? Ripping up the Constitution? The end of elections? A shutdown of the National Assembly? Banning Venezuela's lively political debate? Banning demonstrations and public protest? No, these are mostly ECONOMIC measures; some call for MORE citizen participation in the government and the economy; and some attack corruption, an endemic problem in Venezuela with a long history. Strong measures are needed. That is something far different from being a "dictator." Bush is a dictator. Even now he is sending more US soldiers to die in Iraq, in a war that 70% of the American people want ended now. Chavez is not a dictator. He is RESPONDING to the wishes and needs of the people who elected him.

These reforms are being undertaken against a noise machine of opposition from the Bush Junta and all of its war profiteering corporate news monopolies. It is no surprise that they would be hostile to a strong leader enacting policies that benefit the poor. It puts them all to shame, and it interferes with their greedy profiteering in South America. Why aren't OUR resources being used for OUR benefit? Why are we being bled dry for a corporate oil war, and stripped of our Constitution? Ah, there's the rub! They don't want us to know that government can be good and can benefit everyone. So they write all this crap, and whatever Chavez does--no matter how much it reflects the will of the people of Venezuela--they twist it into him being a "dictator." The corporate news monopoly writing about Chavez--no doubt copied from Bush's State Department--is so bad it is insulting, and anyone who believes this crap has little self-respect, in my opinion, as well as damned little respect for the people of Venezuela.

Strangely enough, FDR was almost a victim of a military coup.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/051118.html

Appalled at the idea of becoming the first U.S. dictator, Butler confided in journalist Paul French, who met with MacGuire and confirmed the outlines of the plan. A House committee got wind of the plot and held hearings. After taking testimony from Butler and French, the committee summoned MacGuire, who answered evasively. Robert Clark was never called; testimony by his attorney was limited to financial dealings with MacGuire. The big names who'd been implicated (for example, the J.P. Morgan and du Pont interests) denied everything or kept mum. Press coverage was dismissive--Time ran a story headlined "Plot Without Plotters." The committee issued a report saying Butler's story checked out, but few paid much attention. With that the matter died.

IN 2007 VENEZUELA USHERS IN NEW PLANS FOR THE NATION
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez was sworn in for his third time last week as the democratically elected President of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. Elected with an overwhelming majority in December, President Chavez recently announced some new and interesting plans for the country. Coined the Simon Bolivar National Plan, Chavez plans to nationalize sectors of the nation's electrical and telecommunications companies. Like other governments in Latin America, Venezuela has committed itself to natural resource nationalism, or the control of key industries whose record of privatization has led to diminished growth over the years. Towards this end, the National Assembly gave its preliminary approval to the "ley habilitante" or enabling law yesterday, which if passed next week, will enable the President to pass through economic reforms by decree.

NATIONALIZATION THROUGH COMPENSATION
Although financial markets were caught a bit off guard by the nationalization news, they reacted as many economists predicted with associated stocks dropping. Unfortunately, most news outlets omitted the fact that in the past the Venezuelan state has paid for all the companies it has aqcuired and will continue to do so at fair market value. In fact, Ricardo Sanguino, head of the National Assembly Finance Committee, stated that the nationalization plan will involve compensation rather than expropriation." Read more news on this.

POLL SHOWS VENEZUELAN'S ARE HAPPY WITH THE DIRECTION THEIR COUNTRY IS HEADED
Despite the press' adamant claims to the contrary, the most recent annual poll carried out by the Chilean polling firm, Latinobarometro, found that Venezuelans are more optimistic about the economic outlook in the year ahead than any other country in the region, they are less likely than most Latinos to worry about unemployment, and are far less likely than any other country in the region to blame unemployment on "inadequate government policies". View the full poll results.

DEFAMATION CAMPAIGN CONTINUES
Despite this, many media outlets including the Washington Post, Washington Times, and Wall Street Journal have amped up their attacks against Venezuela and President Chavez, branding him a "menace" and even a possible threat to the security of the United States.

* According to Ricardo Sanguino, the head of the National Assembly Finance Committe, the nationalization plan will involve compensation rather than expropration. ``Confiscation, expropriation are banned words in our dictionary,'' said Sanguino. ``We will be tough but fair negotiators. There are legal mechanisms in the Constitution that give support to our plan." Some American companies including Verizon and AES hold stakes in the affected Venezuelan electrical and communication companies. Although Washington seems concerned, as evident from White House press secretary Tony Snow's remarks that Venezuela is making a mistake, average Venezuelans appear to think differently according to the Associated Press. Read the full story.


* An Associated Press-Ipsos poll conducted three weeks before Chavez was re-elected on Dec. 3 found that 62 percent of those asked supported nationalizing companies when in the national interest.


* A recently released annual poll, carried out by the Chilean polling firm Latinobarometro and based on 20,000 face-to-face interviews in 18 Latin American countries, found that Venezuelans tend to be far more optimistic about their economy than other nations, participate more in the political process, and are more likely than most other Latin Americans to be happy with the direction their country is headed. Read the poll.


* Last Saturday President Chavez announced that private oil companies would be able to own a minority stake in the Orinoco region's oil projects. While speaking to the National Assembly he said that British Petroleum PLC, Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron Corp., ConocoPhillips Co., Total SA and Statoil ASA would all be able to keep a stake in the projects as partners. Since last year the joint ventures have saved the state $6 billion, said Chavez.


* Chavez' use of oil revenue to fund his government's social programs has not come at the expense of investment in oil exploration and development. In fact, on top of its programs for the poor, which have directly benefited more than half of the population, Venezuela's state owned oil company-PDVSA last year committed 48% of its budget to exploration and production (E&P). In fact, PDVSA has put aside nearly $60 billion over the next 5 years for investment, which includes refining and exploration. Venezuela continues to be more open to private exploration and technology investment and development than other states with nationalized oil companies such as Mexico and Saudi Arabia.


http://www.rethinkvenezuela.com/index.html

Especially important is the nationalization through compensation. It has always been a tool the uninformed reach for in claiming leftist country's "take" property from others. It's only the people who take the time to read who are aware they always get compensated fairly.

Corporate media always keep the facts about compensation a closely guarded secret, in order to keep the lie alive.

They are not neutral but I always find their updates informative in a way I can't access otherwise.

/typo

You are familiar that in Rome they used to do this same sort of thing for a period of 6 months, and that it eventually brought the fall of the Republic, and the start of the empire, right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_republic#Beginning_of_the_end

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_dictator

But not to the extent that they would give him "rule by decree."

Even with large Dem majorities in Congress (the kind RWers can only dream about), Roosevelt still racked up a whopping 600+ vetoes in 12 years.

It should be noted that Chavez's prior history isnt an iron clad blueprint for how he will continue to rule in the future ....

I am a Democrat who believes in Democracy .... I rely on Jefferson, Paine and Franklin (et al) to inform me when I consider the inherent problems of an Executive ruling exclusively by edict, and I would reject, therefore, insinuations that my discomfort with this path taken is caused by indoctrination by the main stream media ....

Hell ... I dont even WATCH national news or talk shows .... But I do read history ....

This is unitary rule by an Executive unfettered by a balance of powers ... I dont care if he is Mother Teresa and promises me fresh cookies : This is problematic ...

Once again, another Congress abdicates its responsibility. And though there have been many comparisons of Chavez to a dictator, let's remember that over 20 different political parties (some who have been very anti-Chavez in the past) voted for this.

We can thank the current administration for this as well. I don't think there can be any doubt that after our support (monetarily and militarily) of the coup against Chavez, he's decided he will take no more chances or try to dialogue with the opposition any longer. This is unfortunate.

There can be no doubt that Bush, Rice, et. al. have exercised some of the worst foreign policy in the history of our country. The entire Middle East region has been destabilized. Iraq is in the middle of a civil war. We're on the brink of war with Iran. Our current allies are hard to come by. And in case no one has noticed, most of Latin America (with the exception of Mexico, which I think it very close) has taken a sharp turn left and is united against US.

Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Venezuela are all taking a step back from neoliberal, capitalistic leaders. Two of these countries (Chile and Venezuela) are among Latin America's seven principal economies. Uruguay elected the first center-left President in its history.

Our relations not only with Venezuela, but Latin America are in serious jeopardy.

Bachelet is still pushing for new free trade agreements and economic liberalization. However, she is also taking care of the poor and expanding social programs... that is certainly more socialistic (and human!) than previous policies, but the neoliberal element is still there.

Jesus. This is where we draw the line between the socialist/Marxist fanatics who see literally everything through the twisted haze of their political ideology, and the people who are still in touch with reality and are able to objectively recognize history repeating itself.

(without a 18 month limit, so it seems)


France
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decree

Greece
http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/labour_law//directive9445/9445elen.htm

The Philippines
http://www.ntc.gov.ph/laws/pd-1986.html

Venezuela prior to Chavez
http://www.law.nyu.edu/centralbankscenter/texts/Venezuela-Presidential%20Decree.html

Indonesia
http://www.kbri-canberra.org.au/regulasi/keppres432003e.htm

The Palestinian Authority
http://www.elections.ps/template.aspx?id=112

Egypt
http://www.bibalex.org/English/aboutus/orgnization/decree.htm

Mozambique
http://www.ine.gov.mz/Ingles/o_ine/legislation/decree

USA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classified_information_in_the_United_States

First, France:



In other words, it ain't what Chavez is doing.

In the USA, I'm assuming you are referring not simply to the current classification system used by the government but the broader practice of issuing executive orders. Executive orders are in no way sanctioned by the US Constitution, and they are blatantly unconstitutional if they directly contradict acts of Congress. There is no constitutional way for a President to pass laws by "decree". In fact, the Supreme Court has already ruled that not only does the President have no legislative power, but the Congress is Constitutionally enjoined from giving him that power. In other words, the Congress could never do what was just done in Venezuela.

The example you cite in the Philippines was a case where martial law had to be declared in order to prevent a region of the country from descending into armed anarchy.
http://www.thejakartapost.com/aceh/acehlatestnews2.asp
Apparently, the army committed terrible atrocities while the region was under martial law. Not a good example if you are defending rule by decree.
http://hrw.org/doc/?t=asia&c=aceh

As for countries like Egypt and the PA...well, you're not really helping your cause if you have to cite governments like those.

So before all of you get on the 'Chavez is the next Joe Stalin' bandwagon that our controlled media is trying to put you on, please keep in mind that should Chavez do anything too unpopular with his limited power of decree, he can be bounced right out of office.

Take a big chill pill and keep in mind that the washington consensus of neoliberal and neoconservative elites are trying to destroy the emerging independent democratic socialist movement in latin america. Keep that frame of reference in mind and question everything you read or hear about what is going on with our southern cousins.

This is very bad news indeed.

all the reporting on Venezuela from BushCo and their lapdogs. :shrug:

Which is not to say this is good news at all.

and for a limited project.

There is no real comparison to Bush's signing statements which spit in the fact of ours, is there?

It's more corporate media spew.

I can understand it. There are serious, deep-rooted problems in Venezuela Chavez is attacking. This is a revolution - a real revolution - like the US had at one time. It's like the US following the Civil War during reconstruction. Radical measures are called for. The important thing is that the constitution is upheld and there remain democratic checks - this is the case. I wish success to the Venezuelan people's struggle.

and in some cases are far more important.

of this legal move, instead of jumping into characterizing it as "no good"?

Some of us blame Bush for invading a country against the will of Iraqis, but don't even attempt to find out what Venezuelans think about this move.

I'm sure American bloggers who live in a country in which the poverty line income would amount to several times the salary of probably most Venezuelans would probably benefit from dialogue with Venezuelans about this issue.

That's their very claim to authority, right? They play up public passions and prejudices in order to seize their rightful place in power...so they can put things straight.

Personally, I fear the pitchfork-wielding "mob" and their demagogic henchman much more than i fear a single despotic tyrant.

Chavez does.

:)

I feel terribly sorry for those poor people in Venezuela, life is so unpredictable in a country where people feel violence is an appropriate way to solve political problems.

Life is so predictable when the United States feels its appropriate to manipulate your elections, assassinate your progressive leaders and hire contractors to detain, disappear, torture and kill dissenters.

:hi:

/language

is always wrong.

If I could see the removal of Bush and the restoration of our own imperfect system which is the single cause for having emergency powers in a time when a global war for oil is going ahead. That single justification removed and another president, perhaps still unfavorably inclined toward Chavez, I could theoretically critique his actions, as pompous, misinformed and wrong as I might well be. Lincoln's powers were NOT a good thing for democracy. All incursions by the executive set a haunting precedent even is simply increasing immense power to the president that dangerously waits for the wrong guy at the wrong time(aka Dimson).

In the long run it is not a good thing. At this time it is not only necessary but very likely not extreme- in practice. Going the other way and saying this accretion of power is a good thing proves this danger even more. Chavez has held to the rules of democracy and with a will as diametrically opposed to Bush and soft-pedalers in too much national political leadership. Without him, unfortunately, democracy itself and his nation hang on a thread under assault. The situation must be rectified and leadership broadened and strengthened. That will take time and removal of the causes(economic injustice, entrenched tyranny disposed opposition in collusion with the same outside powers that would have ANY nation mobilizing and reacting strongly, a basically a new system for the politically dispossessed and disenfranchised, poorer citizens. The Age of Enlightenment was no good in reforming the heads of states
in beneficent rulers and wars multiplied from those heads. Popular representative democracies(revolutions) began to change that. It is what is under Chavez that is critical and that any of his moves don't get into the top level diplomacy and war gaming no peoples among any nations neighboring and involved want at all. If his people are fans of the method and the man and unempowered in new ways, it is not a good thing.

Other peoples are in similar binds like Israel for example. As a popular democracy, even with weak or mediocre heads of state, severe pressure is not helping them be "ideal". They are doing remarkably well
considering yet the situation alone and bad(necessary?) choices give rise to a lot of just criticism. The small detail of the entire nation being a reaction to genocide and anti-Semitism has been neglected for the long term danger it forcibly chose: to slant the national policy in a way that fights fire with fire. Being enthusiastic and radically committed to the nation has let the serpent into the garden many times. Humanity has such is snake infested enough. Big fundamental issues are worth putting into a broad diagnosis before offering a snake oil "cure".

That's wonderful news...(sarcasm). And he cited the ideas of Lenin, too.

What ideas were those? A new "Red Terror"? Formation of the Cheka? When do the mass executions start?

S.America's long tradition of authoritarian dictatorships continues.

I'd trust Chavez further than I'd trust him.

He has done this before, for a limited period of time, and so have
others less well-intentioned.

"The proposed law, for which there is express permission in Article 203 of Venezuela’s 1999 constitution, would allow Chavez to pass decrees that have the legal standing of laws in ten different areas. The last time Chavez was allowed to make use of this provision was in 2001, when he passed 49 law-decrees. Previous presidents, such as Carlos Andrés Perez in 1976, were also given temporary authority for such laws."

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news.php?newsno=2195


I'd rather see him not provoke his enemies in Washington into taking
more drastic action against him than they have in the past, but I
believe he has the good of Venezuela and its people at heart, and I'd
give him the benefit of the doubt.

As an admirer of what he's achieved so far though, I'd prefer to see
him continue down a strictly democractic path, for his own sake as
well as the country's.

Good grief, whenever a person abolishes term limits, after he was one of the people who supported them, it shows how little concern he has for the things he says.

but quite another to abolish democratic elections, which he hasn't
shown any sign of doing at this stage.

Given the country's history, if Chavez is prohibited from running again,
who would they get?

were U.S. backed. When they were in power the left was the anti-authoritarian rebel movement. They've finally- thank God- gotten rid of the authoritarians-not-totalitarians or whatever the fuck Reagan called them. Now that they're the leaders and not the rebels, well, power changes everything. I just hope that the rising anti-imperialist movement can avoid making the same mistakes America made when we went from demanding an end to colonialism to taking an empire.

that Chavez is like the U.S. puppet dictators? Because that doesn't really make any sense. There are plenty of arguments against him that DO make sense, but not that one. I mean, overstepping his bounds and taking power that should belong to Congress isn't really comparable to committing genocide.

and do some research?

I suspect that Chavez meant that the Bolivarian (Socialist) Revolution, although begun in Venezuela must spread to other countries. That's also what's meant by "Permanent Revolution", that the revolution achieved in just one country would eventually be overthrown by the forces of evil -- Capitalism. I tend to agree with him and hope that Socialism will triumph throughout South America -- it would be a good start.

Chavez is a HIGHLY educated man especially when it comes to political theory. He is prone to use these terms to describe the gist of what he's doing, not necessarily the exact substance of his theories and practice.

----------------------------------------------

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_Trotsky

"Trotsky considered himself a "Bolshevik-Leninist", arguing for the establishment of a vanguard party. He considered himself an advocate of orthodox Marxism. His politics differed in many respects from those of Stalin or Mao, most importantly in his rejection of the theory of Socialism in One Country and his declaring the need for an international "permanent revolution". Numerous Fourth Internationalist groups around the world continue to describe themselves as Trotskyist and see themselves as standing in this tradition, although they have different interpretations of the conclusions to be drawn from this. Supporters of the Fourth International echo Trotsky's opposition to Stalinist totalitarianism, advocating political revolution, arguing that socialism cannot sustain itself without democracy."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_revolution

"Not only did Trotsky generalise his theory of Permanent Revolution in this essay but he also grounded it in the idea of combined and uneven development. This argument goes, again in contrast to the conceptions inherent within Stagist theory, that capitalist nations, indeed all class-based societies, develop unevenly and that some parts will develop more swiftly than others. However it is also argued that this development is combined and that each part of the world economy is increasingly bound together with all other parts. The conception of combined and uneven development also recognises that some areas may even regress further economically and socially as a result of their integration into a world economy."

would have felt a lot better after reading that anyone-can-edit Wikipedia article.

needs to look at his remarks in Spanish, as it's obvious someone is passing around some bogus material. Don't even consider claiming because it comes from the BBC that it's simply absolutely the truth. Apparently it's not.

]'I don't believe in the dogmatic postulates of Marxist revolution. I don't
accept that we are living in a period of proletarian revolutions. All that
must be revised. Reality is telling us that every day. Are we aiming in
Venezuela today for the abolition of private property or a classless
society? I don't think so. But if I'm told that because of that reality
you can't do anything to help the poor, the people who have made this
country rich through their labour and never forget that some of it was
slave labour, then I say 'We part company'. I will never accept that there
can be no redistribution of wealth in society. Our upper classes don't
even like paying taxes. That's one reason they hate me. We said 'You must
pay your taxes'. I believe it's better to die in battle, rather than hold
aloft a very revolutionary and very pure banner, and do nothing ... That
position often strikes me as very convenient, a good excuse ... Try and
make your revolution, go into combat, advance a little, even if it's only
a millimetre, in the right direction, instead of dreaming about utopias.'
(snip/)

https://www4.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/08/296440.html

At least that's the babel fish of it.

I'm going to have to find out if he was a bomb-tossing yahoo, or what, as I've got no depth of information on the guy. This is the first info. I ran across, and I can't use it, as it's from Wikipedia, and subject to all kinds of "influence" in the seemingly eternal struggle between the truth and the liars:

~snip~
In January 1898, over 200 members of the Union, including Bronstein {Trotsky}, were arrested and he spent the next two years in prison awaiting trial. Two months after Bronstein's arrest and imprisonment, the 1st Congress of the newly formed Russian Social Democratic Labor Party (RSDLP) was held and from that point on, Bronstein considered himself a member of the party. While in prison, he married a fellow Marxist, Aleksandra Sokolovskaya, and studied philosophy. In 1900 he was sentenced to four years in exile in Ust-Kut and Verkholensk (see map) in the Irkutsk region of Siberia, where his first two daughters, Nina Nevelson and Zinaida Volkova, were born.

It was in Siberia that Bronstein became aware of the differences within the party, which had been decimated by arrests in the last two years of the 19th century. Some social democrats known as "economists" were arguing that the party should concentrate on helping industrial workers improve their lot in life. Others argued that overthrowing the monarchy was more important and that a well organized and disciplined revolutionary party was essential. The latter were led by the London-based newspaper Iskra, which was founded in 1900. Bronstein quickly sided with the Iskra position.
(snip/...)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_Trotsky

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I think there are some dipsticks who think it should be an easy matter to launch slurs against people who are still unfamiliar to most Americans and Americans will be ignorant enough to buy their spin.

Luckily for us all, it's going to be a lot easier from now on to find out more, faster, without going out of the house to the library.

People who are tempted to start screeching when they hear the word "Marxist" brandished wildly by right-wingers trying to force opinions on them should take some time to research the conditions which brought Russians to the place revolution was considered absolutely necessary in Russia so long ago, when you were truly screwed if you weren't one of the very few born very wealthy.

On edit:

Why does the image of the writer of your apporea.org article appear only as a silhouette? I wanted to find out more about him.

I remember that the pig candidate that ran against "Napolean" in "Animal Farm" was supposed to be based on Trosky

If he had come to power instead of Stalin the gulags wouldn't have happened. But he also believed that revolutions could be started in neighboring states by the Soviets and the people of those states would just go along with it. As we can see from Iraq, that really doesn't work.

Why? Even George Washington stepped away from power, and Hugo Chavez is no George Washington.

in his fourth term.

n/t

That's all it takes. It doesn't matter WHO it is. No matter how great you think he is or even maybe is.

Absolute power corrupts. It's that simple. Absolute power in one person's hands-not good. Ever. Sometimes I see just as much loss of common sense here as on the other side.

Oh and presidente for life-mmmmmm-now that is scary. Sounds like a dictator mentality.

N/T

and I'll be damned if this one isn't a duck.

lol

on DU ever.

:evilgrin:

I thought Show_Me's comment was clever, regardless of his opinion.

I always assume an argument is weak when it must be supported on crutches of insult. In this reply, there isn't even an argument, just crutches.

I'm here to be exposed to views I don't necessarily agree with. Seems salutary to me.

M.O. of the Chavistas.

to get the authority he thinks he needs, and he's not planning to "preemptively" invade anybody else's country for their oil, so I say rock on Hugo.

Let's see what happens before we go out on a limb, declaring Chavez to be the 2nd coming of Stalin.

"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier...just as long as I'm the dictator..."
--Washington, DC, Dec 18, 2000, during his first trip to Washington as President-Elect

I just pray he (or the media portrayal of him) doesn't make the revolution look bad. I am happy with the leftward swing of the continent and hope it spreads. This will only happen if they set a good example. I am not saying he hasn't; his people obviously love him; but the media knows how to paint everything he does with a sour and biased brush that os accepted at face value by the world at large.

What Chavez is doing in Venezuela is threatening the obscene profits and power of energy and telecom corps with HQs outside of Venezuela, and north of the Texas border, for that matter.

You're not going to get an accurate portrayal of what's going on in Venezuela from corporate media.

Bush has essentially awarded himself dictatorial power with his 'signing statements'...what's the problem with Hugo doing it openly?

bush owns john stewart, foreign policy magazine? His "powers" are available to whomever is in office. Which we can change.

Bush is gone in 08. Lost control of the agenda in mid terms.

Hugo is doing away with term limits and crushing the courts.

The only reason this is an entertaining topic is that there were some who blindly swallowed the angel hugo crap just because of the trash he talks.

My enemy's enemy is not always my friend.

and please don't ignorantly ASSume that I think Hugo is an 'angel'.
The Republicans lost in the mid-terms, but George W. Bush certainly still seems to be free to fuck up the country as he sees fit.
Get back to me in '08, perhaps....

they may be morons but they are FREE to print whatever they like.

WHo's going to pay to maintain the upkeep of the infrastructer ? Well, he did allow those who built up those industries to become limited stockholders. Guess that means they pay to fix stuff that breaks.
what a deal !
How long will that system last?

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1694

The data just released by the Banco Central de Venezuela (BCV) confirm that the Venezuelan economy grew at a cumulative 10.2 percent between the fourth quarter of 2004 and the fourth quarter of 2005. This is the ninth consecutive increase since the last quarter of 2003. Overall, in 2005, the gross domestic product (GDP) grew at 9.3 percent.


You might want to take a little peak at what the Venezuelan economy was like pre-1998, before Chavez's election....

But to answer your question, since the USA is the single largest importer of Venezuelan oil, I suppose the USA will have to pay for it. It's only fair - US/European corporations and their paid proxies within key Venezuelan ministries were largely responsible for the dismal state of the pre-Chavez economies, anyway. The administrations of Carlos Andrés Pérez, Rafael Caldera and Teodoro Petkoff basically sold the entire country to the frikkin' IMF in the '70s, '80s and '90s anyway...


Viva Chavez!!!

which (supplemented by taxes) is what the state uses to maintain the infrastructure, and to provide healthcare, education, housing and food for the poor.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6277379.stm

Mr Chavez approved 49 laws by decree during the first year of his previous term, after the assembly passed a similar "Enabling Law" in November 2000.

It's only being made an issue of AGAIN because he is going forward with more nationalization projects - something the US vehemently opposes...

Besides - WTF else do you call a ShrubCo "signing statement" if not a "rule by decree ... with the force of law"???

Running it into the ground.

Venezuela dismisses US concerns on Chavez

Associated Press
Sunday, January 21, 2007 (Caracas):

Venezuela condemned the US government on Saturday for what it called unacceptable meddling after Washington raised concerns about a measure to grant President Hugo Chavez broad lawmaking powers.

The National Assembly, entirely made up of Chavez allies, said in a statement that it "emphatically rejects" the remarks by State Department deputy spokesman Tom Casey, who on Friday said Chavez's plans "have caused us some concern."

Casey referred specifically to a measure that won initial approval Thursday in the National Assembly and would grant Chavez authority to pass a series of laws by decree during an 18-month period.
(snip)

The National Assembly said in its statement that those remarks were "an unacceptable intervention in our nation's internal affairs" and demonstrated Casey's "crass ignorance" about a process that is spelled out in Venezuela's constitution.
(snip)

Vice President Jorge Rodriguez said the US "expresses worry every time Venezuela exercises its democracy," adding that Washington never objected when past Venezuelan governments approved the same sort of measures.

"The spokespeople of the US government have to calm down," Rodriguez said, suggesting they need some "sort of Valium."
(snip/)
http://www.ndtv.com/morenews/showmorestory.asp?slug=Venezuela+dismisses+US+concerns+on+Chavez&id=99782

I thought he would set an example to Latin American democracies, not destroy democracy in Venezuela.