Democracy and Enabling Acts

[everythingsxen]

Poll question: Democracy and Enabling Acts

I have seen quite a few people lately commenting on Chavez' new powers to rule by decree, applauding it as a triumph of democracy.

I personally oppose anyone being given such power and would generally think anyone who believes in democracy would oppose it as well...

I would like to see some numbers though...

[everythingsxen]

1. kick

[everythingsxen]

2. Kick - redux

[mmonk]

3. Whenever a person is given "special powers"

that country is no longer a democracy, whether it be Venezuela or the U.S..

[TSIAS]

4. kick

[originalpckelly]

5. I think the there are two other main problems with Chavez:

1. Personality cult: he has combined his authority of the societal/popular culture branch of life's separation of powers with his governmental power. He is a socialist, so he seeks to combine the power structure of the government with the economy. He's got 3 out of 3 or 4 branches of main power in life under his control, that doesn't bode well. (The fourth branch of power is dependent upon the way Venezuelans view religion's role in their lives.)

(A little theory of power I've been working on, which divides power into three or four groups:
1. government - hardest power
2. economy - 2nd hardest power
3. religion - hard power (only applies in religious cultures/nations, and in nations where religion is not thought of as a personal matter a part of popular culture)
4. popular culture - least hardest power, but also the most democratic power because it inherently relies on the likeability of a person.

Most dictatorships have personality cults, command economies, and either work with or suppress religion.)

2. His revolution appears to be fully or partially based upon feelings of vengeance against those people who've oppressed Venezuela economically/governmentally.

The rule of law is the most important part of a revolution, people should be compelled to revolution by a lack of adherence to the rule of law in an absolute sense. It may be lawful in a country to restrict freedom of speech, but there is a provable right to freedom of speech in almost all circumstances. The Venezuelans have suffered a long time and deserve to have real true democracy and freedom, but unfortunately their revolution seems to have a number of fatal flaws, this being one of them. Their absolutism shows they have an anything goes/vengeance attitude. They don't just want to be free of their oppressors, they seem to want to punish them.

[originalpckelly]

6. And by the way, I think this whole "don't run a war by committee crap" is wrong...

if people are in danger, they will do what they must to protect themselves. The nominal role of a civilian government in making war is only to approve of a military's plan of war. So long as the actual battlefield decisions are not made by a committee, but a general who hears dissent to improve his/hers plan(s) of attack, I think that war or emergencies should be in the hands of a democratic body, in other words the commander-in-chief ability should not be held by one person.

So I guess that would put me down in the category of "not even in a case of emergency".