I Thought Dictators Couldn’t Lose Elections

I Thought Dictators Couldn’t Lose Elections!
December 4th 2007, by Carlos Martinez

Sunday night was a very tense evening for all in Venezuela, awaiting the final results of the referendum while varying rumors about the outcome came every few minutes with the only certainty being that the vote was closer than many expected. I was in front of Miraflores, the presidential palace, at the time the results were released. As one can imagine, there were many teary eyes and bowed heads in what was a particularly perplexing moment for a people not accustomed to losing for a very long time.

The image that appeared on the massive video screens in front of the palace immediately after the results were read was that of an unusually somber faced Chavez. What followed may have been even more unexpected for those in the opposition and weary of Chavez’s unrelenting bravado. In contrast to the lack of diplomacy that many now associate him with, Chavez went on to gracefully concede the election and congratulated his adversaries. This was especially significant considering the closeness of the margin, with 4,504,354 votes against, (50.70%) and 4,379,392, (49.29%) for the YES. Chavez went on to say that he was happy to see the election end peacefully.

While many in the progressive community have been trying to argue that democracy is in fact alive and well in Venezuela for so long now, it has been a difficult argument to maintain with Chavez always on the winning side. Certainly, Chavez’s concession of the vote and his request that those in favor of the SI recognize the results serves to delegitimize those that continue to call Chavez an “aspiring tyrant” as Donald Rumsfeld did in his editorial released yesterday entitled ““The Smart Way to Beat Tyrants Like Chávez” (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/30/AR2007113001800.html)

The opposition response has been jubilant. The irony is thick considering what a response from the opposition might have looked like if the results were switched. There were reports that opposition groups were already found to be printing shirts reading “Fraud”. Something that has been particularly interesting in the last few months has been to see the way the opposition has come to embrace the 1999 constitution as their own, adding to the irony, since many of these same people were vehemently opposed to the that constitution’s passing.

However the opposition has also been forced to recognize that many people did in fact want to see the constitutional reforms pass, leading them towards a new rhetoric. Former Chavez ally, General Isaias Baduel, who came out against the reforms has emerged as a new leader amongst the opposition. Calling for national reconciliation yet continuing to champion inclusion of the popular sectors, he is essentially establishing a more moderate opposition pole. Meanwhile, Manuel Rosales, governor of Zulia State and losing candidate in the last presidential elections has said that he will support the creation of a “Social Fund for the Self-Employed”, one of the articles proposed in the constitutional reform.
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/2958

However, I only feared he was on the path to becoming one, not that he already WAS one.

He certainly is no Dictator, cause as far as I know a Dictator could give a shit either about his country or his people, and Chavez does in both cases... In hindsight, I think he had to many things in his referendum and probably should have stuck with the removal of time limits on his Presidency.

He did this on purpose to make us all think he isn't a dictator.
:sarcasm:

That will be the TRUE test...

what is, is that we see who is "what" after they step down from office. You essentially take the position that the claim that Chavez is a dictator has not yet been disproven or proven until he steps down. I assumed that's what you meant when you said we should withhold judgement until after..." Well, if so, then you could say that about ALL leaders. There are always folks out there who will claim someone is a "dictator" for pure political mudslinging and could easily say that they haven't been proven wrong or right until after that leader steps down.

Did I think this way about Clinton or Carter? Hell no.... Besides, I was too young to even contemplate such a thing about Carter.

First of all Shrub takes away American medical care while Chavez has given it, and Chavez has also established a social net for the poor in Venezuela and a host of other things that benefit his people.... When is the last time that Shrub did anything positive for US citizens in the last 7 years? I would say never....

Both are bad....both have great probability of being very harmful to the US in the long run.

I guess you didn't mean what you have said above.

Actually the people lost this time, but in the long run they may win because this has pretty much sacked his opponents' criticism, including our own idiot-in-charge.

Chavez (aka Dictator -- Just ask scrub and pelosi) secretly organized this election with the sole intention on losing.
This way he could (dictatorially) point to it and say, "See, I'm not a dictator."

Then he'd secretly (and dictatorially) bide his time and then (dictatorially) push his dictatorial reforms in a dictatorial fashion on the populace of Venezuela, Bolivia and Rand McNally -- dictatorially speaking.

Then from there, it would be one dictatorial jump to ruling the world -- in a dictatorial fashion.

on note: In case you couldn't tell...this post was :sarcasm: (dictatorial sarcasm that is)-- sort of.
I could see faux news spinning last weekends election this way.

ON FAUX NEWS:
Was Chavez's defeat really an attempt to 'hornswoggle' people into thinking he really lost, so he could seize full control of Venezuela under the guise of Democracy????