http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-12024935
Venezuela's parliament has granted President Hugo Chavez special powers to deal with the aftermath of devastating floods.
"Mr Chavez will be able to pass laws by decree, without needing the support of congress, for 18 months.
His critics say the move will turn the country into a near-dictatorship.
They accuse him of taking advantage of the floods to strengthen his grip on power before a new congress is sworn in in January.
This is the fourth time Mr Chavez has been given such authority since he came to office almost 12 years ago.
He had asked to able to rule by decree for a year to address the emergency caused by floods and landslides that have killed around 40 people and left 140,000 homeless.
But the National Assembly extended the period to 18 months.
The head of the Assembly, Cilia Flores, said lawmakers were responding to the demands of flood victims."
"Opposition groups say the timing of the "Enabling Law," as it is known, is deeply cynical.
The current parliament, which is dominated by the president's supporters, is in the last few weeks of its session.
A new congress will begin sitting in January with many more opposition members following elections last September, which would have made it more difficult for Mr Chavez to pass laws.
The opposition fear Mr Chavez will use the powers to move Venezuela closer to a left-wing dictatorship.
Newly elected opposition congressman Julio Borges said the enabling law had one single aim: "to give more power to the government and take power away from the people".
But the opposition would keep fighting to make sure the "Cuban project" would fail, he said."
.....
Perhaps now it is the right time for Chavez to be deposed before he achieves what he truly wants.
Originally posted by generalissimoHe cant be all bad. Obama seems to like him pretty well.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-12024935
[b]Venezuela's parliament has granted President Hugo Chavez special powers to deal with the aftermath of devastating floods.
"Mr Chavez will be able to pass laws by decree, without needing the support of congress, for 18 months.
His critics say the move will turn the country into a ne ...[text shortened]... t is the right time for Chavez to be deposed before he achieves what he truly wants.[/b]
Originally posted by generalissimoEnabling Acts are allowed by the Venzuelan Constitution.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-12024935
[b]Venezuela's parliament has granted President Hugo Chavez special powers to deal with the aftermath of devastating floods.
"Mr Chavez will be able to pass laws by decree, without needing the support of congress, for 18 months.
His critics say the move will turn the country into a ne ...[text shortened]... t is the right time for Chavez to be deposed before he achieves what he truly wants.[/b]
"Deposing" elected Presidents isn't.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraProbably. Virtually every President they've had in the last 40 years has at one time or other been granted powers under an Enabling Act; Carlos Andres Perez issued approximately 3000 decrees under Enabling Acts (Chavez has issued about a 100 under the previous ones he was granted).
I guess Venezuela's constitution is broken, then.
Originally posted by no1marauderFunny, no one seemed to care in the slightest when Carlos Andres Perez issued all those decrees. But when Hugo does it, well, then that's a different story.
Probably. Virtually every President they've had in the last 40 years has at one time or other been granted powers under an Enabling Act; Carlos Andres Perez issued approximately 3000 decrees under Enabling Acts (Chavez has issued about a 100 under the previous ones he was granted).
Originally posted by rwingettDoes that imply that they should have cared when Carlos Andres Perez did, or that they shouldn't care now that Hugo Chavez does?
Funny, no one seemed to care in the slightest when Carlos Andres Perez issued all those decrees. But when Hugo does it, well, then that's a different story.
Originally posted by generalissimoSurely opposing inequality of wealth is ample justification for fostering inequality of political power?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-12024935
[b]Venezuela's parliament has granted President Hugo Chavez special powers to deal with the aftermath of devastating floods.
"Mr Chavez will be able to pass laws by decree, without needing the support of congress, for 18 months.
His critics say the move will turn the country into a ne ...[text shortened]... t is the right time for Chavez to be deposed before he achieves what he truly wants.[/b]
Originally posted by IshDaGeggBoth. The fact is, though, that you couldn't care less how the Venezuelan constitution is set up, or what executive powers are embedded in it. You've simply latched on to the talking point of 'decrees' that are being bandied about in the mainstream media as a way of opposing Chavez's policies. The fact that the Venezuelan constitution allows for rule by decree may or may not be a good thing, but either way is remains so independent of the subsequent policies being decreed.
Does that imply that they should have cared when Carlos Andres Perez did, or that they shouldn't care now that Hugo Chavez does?
Originally posted by rwingettBoth?
Both. The fact is, though, that you couldn't care less how the Venezuelan constitution is set up, or what executive powers are embedded in it. You've simply latched on to the talking point of 'decrees' that are being bandied about in the mainstream media as a way of opposing Chavez's policies. The fact that the Venezuelan constitution allows for rule by dec ...[text shortened]... d thing, but either way is remains so independent of the subsequent policies being decreed.
So, you are asserting that the fact that they didn't care when Carlos Andres Perez ruled by decree, but do care now that Hugo Chavez rules by decree, implies *both* that
(a) they should have cared when Carlos Andres Perez ruled by decree;
(b) they shouldn't now care now that Hugo Chavez rules by decree.
This implies that you have no overall view about whether it's good or bad that single person rule by decree. It all depends on the person doing the decreeing, and what they decree.
Well, I disagree. I think rule by decree is a huge liability. By and large, history backs me up.
Originally posted by rwingettSo you agree that opposing inequality of wealth is ample justification for fostering inequality of political power?
Inequality of wealth directly fosters inequality in political power. A healthy democratic system requires a certain amount of egalitarianism.
Originally posted by IshDaGeggThen you should have said something before. The fact that these decrees only bother you when the wrong person wields them indicates strongly that the matter is of no real concern to you. You only bring them up in an opportunistic fashion.
Both?
So, you are asserting that the fact that they didn't care when Carlos Andres Perez ruled by decree, but do care now that Hugo Chavez rules by decree, implies *both* that
(a) they should have cared when Carlos Andres Perez ruled by decree;
(b) they shouldn't now care now that Hugo Chavez rules by decree.
This implies that you have no overal ...[text shortened]... l, I disagree. I think rule by decree is a huge liability. By and large, history backs me up.