Hugo Chavez Gobbles Up Power
As Cuba’s Fidel Castro lies dying and journalists — and diplomats — wonder what will come next, one thing is becoming clear:
As the 1950s-1960s self-styled “revolutionary” passes from the scene, it seems likely that in journalistic, political and some diplomatic circles he will perceived to have been replaced by Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, who has used his whopping election victory to gobble up more power. The BBC:
Venezuela’s National Assembly has given initial approval to a bill granting the president the power to bypass congress and rule by decree for 18 months.President Hugo Chavez says he wants “revolutionary laws” to enact sweeping political, economic and social changes.
He has said he wants to nationalise key sectors of the economy and scrap limits on the terms a president can serve.
Mr Chavez began his third term in office last week after a landslide election victory in December.
The bill allowing him to enact laws by decree is expected to win final approval easily in the assembly on its second reading on Tuesday.
Venezuela’s political opposition has no representation in the National Assembly since it boycotted elections in 2005.
Chavez is insisting his country is still democratic – that assertion is not (to be charitable) shared by all. The site VCRISIS:
No more pretenses, no more posturing, none of that. The all-chavista assembly approved yesterday in first ‘discussion’ -as if they discussed orders from the dictator- an all-encompasing enabling law, which in practical terms means that Hugo Chavez will govern by decree, ruling on nearly all aspects of the country for the next 18 months. The good thing about this is that from now on, in the literal sense, without hesitation or remorse, we can indulge in calling coupster Chavez as many times as we want a “democratically elected dictator”â„¢, as he always wanted to be. It’s official now. Also great to be able to describe Venezuela in its appropriate context as a non democratic country, ruled -by decree- by a militaristic dictator as some of us have maintained for years now.
Edward Ellis, Summer Reality Tour coordinator for the NGO Global Exchange www.globalexchange.org in Merida, Venezuela, writing in the Buffalo News sees it differently:
It is obvious to anyone watching closely that Chavez is not a dictator. He is, however, bombastic and his recent announcement that the government plans to nationalize private companies must be understood within this context. Despite the bluster, history and common sense show there will be no expropriation of private companies in Venezuela without fair remuneration.For those who fear Chavez’s rhetoric indicates a hostility to private enterprise, I recommend a slow drive down any Caracas thoroughfare. Screaming billboards advertising everything from Smirnoff Ice to private banks will set free enterprise hearts at ease.
Proponents of the authoritarian thesis also point to the government’s refusal to renew the license of a Caracas-based TV station because of its critical stance toward the president. This proposition, quite honestly, is laughable.
The vast majority of media outlets in Venezuela deride the president and his administration daily. The reality is that the station in question was implicated in the planning and execution of a coup attempt against the government in April 2002 that left 19 innocent civilians dead.
But part of what’s happening is the passing of a key ACTOR from the world stage — and a new one seamlessly assuming his old role.
Castro was larger than life. He constantly thumbed his nose at the United States and a succession of American presidents (and his Cuban exile enemies in Florida). Chavez seems to be quickly filling the void (Castro is alive but now effectively gone from the world political stage).
It’s sort of like watching the old TV show “Bewitched,” as another actor assumed the part of Darrin.
Chavez does not intend to quietly stick to running his government. He’s making his feelings known, not just in his policies and use of his electoral clout but in his peppery statements. For instance yesterday he lectured Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid:
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, a fierce critic of President Bush, focused Friday on a new American target: newly named U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.Chavez took issue with comments Reid made just hours earlier to the National Press Club in Washington, citing the Venezuelan leader as among the threats facing the United States in 2007 because “Chavez and (Cuba’s Fidel) Castro want to put their leftist marks on young democracies.”
Chavez, in Brazil attending a summit of 10 South American leaders, said the Nevada Democrat got it wrong.
Instead, Chavez declared he wants to “put the leftist stamp on the people, those who the imperialist gringos don’t want or can’t understand because of fear or ignorance.”
“I think this leftist stamp in Latin America is going to spread throughout the world because the only the left can provide the transformation we need,” Chavez said.
Will Chavez be the early 21st-Century’s new Latin American “Castro?” A key difference is that due to its oil, the U.S. needs Venezuela far more than it needed Castro’s tiny, Soviet-client-state Cuba — and the oil gives Venezuela significant clout.
So it may be too early to tell. But if Chavez starts puffing cigars in front of reporters, it might mean something…
20 Responses to “Hugo Chavez Gobbles Up Power”
Yawn. In a time when Bush claims extraordinary executive powers and doesn’t even try to pretend he’s observing the laws anymore, where billions of taxpayer dollars are regularly handed out to already obscenely wealthy corporations, why care about the democratically elected president of a small Latin American state, who also tries to enhance his powers and who wants to expropriate obscenely walthy corporations? It’s har d to decide who’s worse, but very easy to chose the more important and more dangerous guy of those two.
LOL…great line, Joe!
I don’t like Chavez, but, wasn’t he democratically voted in? Venezuela es a sovereign nation. We can dislike their politics, we can say how bad it is for them to have Chavez, or how bad it is for us, but unless it’s clear that opposition is impossible, there’s not much we can fairly do. I’ll bet that the elections were less than squeaky clean, but that probably goes for every single third world nation, and we aren’t complaining about all of them. If the populace is allowed to vote and votes for Chavez while having other options, well, sorry. There seems to be a lot of speculation about “Is he dictator yet?” because the minute he is one he can be openly opposed. Right now it looks like he has the votes of a majority of his country, so he’s a democratically elected leader, albeit one we don’t like very much.
Chavez passes Patriot Act…
Why does Chavez emulate Bush’s power grab (signing statements, Patriot Act, etc.)? Probably because power still corrupts and absolute power still corrupts absolutely. Although nationalizing the energy sector is a fantastic idea, such “nationalizing…
Some crucial questions that have to be resolved:
1. How should we react to democratic processes that result in election of governments that we believe are antithetical to human rights and freedom? Is such a result still legitimate?
2. Should an international body like the UN formulate the requirements of a just society? Should the international community have veto power over the voters of a country, if it believes that the voters were misguided? If there were conditions that made it impossible for a populace to make an informed decision, or if there was coercion in the election process?
3. If we answer yes to #2, then what steps should the international community take? Does this legitamize either invasion or covert operations to depose a leader? Would such steps be more immoral than imposing sanctions, which ultimately hurt the populace more than they hurt the regime?
4. To what degree can the international community reach consensus on these issues? To what degree would the leaders of the international community be able to uphold their own ideals within their own soveriegn nations? And what happens if one or more of them don’t do so? Who decides if there is a violation serious enough for a nation to lose it’s status of moral high ground?
Some things to consider, and if we choose not to do so, then we have to accept that there will always be Castros, Saddams and Chavezes.
The line about the analogy to replacing one Dick with another is good snark, but as I wrote on my blog, the real value in your post is that blurb from Edward Ellis, Joe. Very nice find.
…why care about the democratically elected president of a small Latin American state, who also tries to enhance his powers and who wants to expropriate obscenely walthy corporations?..
Why not relocate to Caracas and help build the New Socialist Paradise? But remember (if you do go and become disillusioned) you won’t be able to excoriate Chavez as you are now doing to Bush.
egnimatiCore:
Very true, and Gray’s comment (#1 in this thread) proves your point.
Chavez isn’t the only Leftist elected in Latin America. I guess Democracy is bad when W doesn’t get his sycophants he demands. Maybe AG Gonzalez has dual citizenship…….
Rudi,
But what do you think about my comment #5? Do you think that a democracy that results in a dictatorship is still legitimate?
So when is a UN coalition going to invade the United States?
Well, Chris, that’s the point I’m making: unless and until everyone agrees on drawing lines of what is legitimate and what isn’t, everyone can draw equivalencies according to their own discretion.
[...] UPDATE: Others: Captain's Quarters, TMV, The Liberty Papers, Never Yet Melted, Stuck In The Middle, Dr. Sanity, [...]
Consider why Chavez was elected. Venezuela succeeded in having immense wealth from its oil resources and doing nothing for the majority of its population, which lives in poverty. In other words severe economic inequality led to a populace willing to elect someone like him since he promised to improve their economic lot. Would the U.S. be immune to this if the current growth in inequality and trends that can reinforce it (Increasing growth in the expense of attending college and cutbacks in grants to help with it among other things.) were to actually continue for a couple of generations?
Was it Wittgenstein who said that if the lion could speak we couldn’t understand him? It’s hard for me to comprehend how Americans don’t realize that they’ve won history’s lottery ticket.
Can you think of another country or era where the common man has had such a blend of economic opportunity and security, along with the personal freedom to pursue happiness?
“Consider why Chavez was elected. Venezuela succeeded in having immense wealth from its oil resources and doing nothing for the majority of its population, which lives in poverty.”
So their answer was to elect someone who will ensure that Venezuela no longer has immense wealth while doing nothing for the majority of its population, which lives in poverty?
Brilliant!
The elections in Venezuela are more open than our Moderate friends in the ME. Let the Venezuelans decide what they want. They have more of a voice than the Egyptians. Our friends in Saudis Arabia…..
“So their answer was to elect someone who will ensure that Venezuela no longer has immense wealth while doing nothing for the majority of its population, which lives in poverty?”
Now, come on. Say what you will about Chavez (I’m critical about his latest decisions, too), but at least he tries to improve the lifes of the poor. Under him, many barrio residents experienced medical support for the first time in their lifes. And PDVSA isn’t exactly heading towards bankruptcy, too. Imho the difference between large, bureaucratic oil corporations and their nationalised counterparts isn’t so huge as some like to paint it. Coming back to the main point: Venecuela is a democracy (if you sy it isn’t, then the US isn’t one, too). The majority of voters is pure. The elitist leaders of the past did abysmal jobs at fighting poverty. Chavez success in the elections and his broad support should come as no surprise. Maybe there are others, who would be better at doing his jobs, but that’s true for George II., too. Imho Venecuelan voters aren’t more stupid than their US counterparts.
I didn’t say it was going to work, I just said that that is what put Chavez in office. The previous officeholders did nothing for the majority of the population so they decided it was time for a change. As Gray pointed out, Chavez has actually done some of what he promised which puts him ahead of his predecessors and explains why the things he’s doing wrong don’t hurt him enough in public opinion to make a difference. When a huge number of the populace lives in abject poverty any improvement looks like a very good thing.
Weightman,
Was your comment aimed at anything in particular?