Originally posted by RagnorakWouldn't such a proposal simply be vetoed by them? 😕
The UN is pretty worthless when 1 country can veto anything. The u.s. have vetoed anything which is critical of Israeli war crimes, or critical of itself. It is by far the most common vetoer of resolutions in recent history. http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/membship/veto/vetosubj.htm
The veto system needs to be revised, requiring multiple vetoes to block a resolution.
D
Originally posted by PalynkaSurely if 1 chooses not to excercise their right to run, or to vote, that is that person's own responsibility.
Just because democracy relies on votes, doesn't mean it's democratic to have a vote on everything. Especially when the opposition is in boycott. This is not the time for such a change, and it is a clear signal that he values himself more than the ideas or the party he supposedly represents.
His use of government funds for campaigning purposes are also evi ...[text shortened]... audit of the electoral register.
Do you even have an idea of why there are mandate limits?
I don't know why there are mandate limits. Please educate me some more.
Have you got links to Chavez using government accounts for campaigning and the electoral council accusation? In the recent U.S. (THE greatest example of democracy, apparently), there were no paper ballots with the computerised ones.
Tell me Palynka, which is more an attack on democracy? Sponsoring a coup to oust a democratically elected president, or putting a referendum to the people?
D
Originally posted by RagnorakHere's one.
Have you got links to Chavez using government accounts for campaigning and the electoral council accusation? In the recent U.S. (THE greatest example of democracy, apparently), there were no paper ballots with the computerised ones.
http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=7194553
1 edit
Originally posted by RagnorakThe simplicity of the world when it suits us.
Surely if 1 chooses not to excercise their right to run, or to vote, that is that person's own responsibility.
They chose to boycott it (quite different from merely choosing not to vote) because they felt the conditions for a fair referendum weren't set.
I'm not arguing if they were right or wrong to suspect it, but such constitutional changes wouldn't be adequate under such political instability.
Originally posted by PalynkaI didn't, but now I do.
Sponsoring a coup. Do you know that Chavez also did this before?
Interesting stuff. It seems Chavez attempted his coup against an authoritarian who was trying to steal from the Venezuelan people and give to large multinational corporations. I'm not surprised to see a supporter of the IMF policies, Perez, kill 3,000 of his own people.
The coup against Chavez was largely due to his policies regarding oil output and nationalisation. He had performed very well in the social reforms which he had promised...wiki: "inflation fell to 13.4% the lowest in 14 years,[34] while economic growth was steady at four percent.[26] Chávez's administration also reported an increase in primary school enrollment by one million students."
Personally, I'd view the first coup as more valid than the second, because the first coup was against somebody who didn't allow his people to protest. I don't see a coup for the reasons of removing an undemocratic, authoritarian leader as being an attack on democracy, as such That's just my own opinion.
D
Originally posted by RagnorakI'm not surprised to see a supporter of the IMF policies, Perez, kill 3,000 of his own people.
I didn't, but now I do.
Interesting stuff. It seems Chavez attempted his coup against an authoritarian who was trying to steal from the Venezuelan people and give to large multinational corporations. I'm not surprised to see a supporter of the IMF policies, Perez, kill 3,000 of his own people.
The coup against Chavez was largely due to his policies ...[text shortened]... rian leader as being an attack on democracy, as such That's just my own opinion.
D
Interesting opinion. How do you connect the IMF to brutal repression, by the way?
And note that Perez was against the IMF in his first presidency. Ironic, don't you think?
It seems Chavez attempted his coup against an authoritarian who was trying to steal from the Venezuelan people and give to large multinational corporations.
Similar accusations of corruption are being made on Chavez himself. Is it only stealing from the people if he gives it to "large multinational corporations"?
(there's even a Venezuelan on this thread claiming he's corrupt and transferring money abroad)
As for his policies, I'm not attacking them. 'El Presidente' is no guarantee of good or bad policies, but neither is democracy. There's more to this than policy. I don't believe in benevolent dictators, though, and I hope he doesn't go down that route. It's looking shady, though.
Originally posted by PalynkaDo you not think that such instability is what the opposition want? From the link you provided above, it sounds as though it is. From what I can read, it seems like he is doing a good job, and its the opposition's fault that they are all over the shop, and unable to provide a worthy opponent.
The simplicity of the world when it suits us.
They chose to boycott it (quite different from merely choosing not to vote) because they felt the conditions for a fair referendum weren't set.
I'm not arguing if they were right or wrong to suspect it, but such constitutional changes wouldn't be adequate under such political instability.
"So the first decision the opposition faces is whether to take part at all. A vocal minority argues for a boycott—partly because of worries that many opposition voters will anyway shun what they see as a farce. Even opposition politicians who want to take part have warned the electoral council that, if it does not heed their demands for fair play, the president could be left to compete against himself. In response, Mr Chávez has threatened to hold a simultaneous referendum to remove the constitutional limit of two consecutive presidential terms."
As far as I can find out, the only institute which said that the elections weren't fair was the Carter Institute, based in America and started by President Carter.
I just read your economist link, I read John Pilger's report (http://www.johnpilger.com/page.asp?partid=269) on the country, Chomsky's views (http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20051208.htm) and I read Wikipedias information on the coups and on Chavez in general. We could conjecture on what is really happening there, with links and counter links for days, but I can only equate what I saw in Bolivia with what sounds like is happening in Venezuela.
The leader in Bolivia, El Gringo as he was know locally, was more eager to appease foreign investors (Bechtel in Cochabamba, for example) and lining his own pockets (by exporting the gas to be refined in a factory in Chile (Historical enemy of Bolivia), which he had a holding in) and appeasing the u.s. (for example by spraying the coca growing regions, despite the fact that coca chewing has been a tradition in Bolivia since before the Incas), than looking after his own people.
The same seemed to have been happening in Venezuela. The parralels of oligarchs lining their, and foreigners, pockets while forcing their people into poverty seem incredible. I salute any leader who is trying to reduce dependence on an exploitive and aggressive country like the u.s. This can only be good for the people, as can already be seen in countries like Bolivia and Venezuela.
I have stated elsewhere that I think all politicians are liars. Whether they lie to help their people, or themselves is what decides a good politician in my opinion.
D
Originally posted by PalynkaIMF policies are always geared at the extraction of a country's money to foreign multinationals. These policies are not normally tolerated by the people who are being bled dry, and so there is normally a protest, which if the leader of the country wants to retain control, will need to be put down.
[b] I'm not surprised to see a supporter of the IMF policies, Perez, kill 3,000 of his own people.
Interesting opinion. How do you connect the IMF to brutal repression, by the way?[/b]
Examples of IMF policies exploiting poor people and leading to violent clashes between civilians and state are the
Cochabamba water crisis of 2000... 6 dead (including children) and hundreds injured at the hands of the government forces
http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/bolivia/timeline.html
Argentinian collapse 2001... 26 dead
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0127-03.htm (I also spoke to scores of Argentinians while there in 2003)
Bolivia Gas War of 2003...
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/IMF_WB/IMF_Bolivia_Crisis.html
Brazil has serious social problems and an enormous rich-poor divide. Police regularly kill poor people. The country isn't helped by the near $1 billion owed in interest to the IMF yearly.
I have only included examples of countries where I have had direct contact with the people.
There are loads of examples of IMF "assistance" leading to political and social meltdown, often culminating in horrific and bloody conflict between government and a populace sick of being exploited.
http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/SAP.asp
D
Originally posted by PalynkaUh, Bush is thinkin of allowing himself to run for a 3rd term because he lost the popular vote in his first term. Nothin like a little rule bendin..yeehaw!
Are we talking about the same Chavez that has said he's thinking about a referendum that is intended to change the constitution so that he can have more terms than those allowed by the current one?
Very democratic. If it wasn't attacking the foundations of democracy.