|
...one of which was lifting term limits, and another of which was equal rights for women and gays. Venezuela is a Catholic country, with a particularly rightwing (and political) clergy. The equal rights amendment may have sunk the whole package. Most of the amendments were on economic issues. Even with an equal rights amendment included, the 69 amendments only lost by 50.7% to 49.3%. Thus, the issue of term limits was hardly settled.
Chavez continues to be very popular, no matter what shit our corpo/fascist media throw at him. So there is really no reason why he shouldn't run again, if the voters pass this referendum--which is on one issue only, term limits for president and other offices. And it is perfectly fair that this and other issues which lost on such a close vote before, should be brought up again. Why not? That's how democracy works. This is especially true since the 69 amendments muddled the issue. I'm glad they're voting on it again. I think it would be good to have a clear answer on this matter from the people of Venezuela.
Some democracies have term limits. Some don't. We didn't, until the 1950s. Our Founders thought term limits were undemocratic. The people should be able to vote for whomever they want for president or other offices. I think the situation in Venezuela is very similar to FDR and the "New Deal." FDR introduced fundamental changes to our economic and political systems, as a result of the consequences of highly irresponsible behavior by previous rightwing (Republican) governments, which resulted in the Stock Market Crash of 1929, the failure of the banking system and the Great Depression. Millions of people were out of work and homeless. Many were starving. The "Dust Bowl" made everything worse by decimating the farming industry. The people voted for FDR because he promised to turn things around. They voted for him again because they wanted him to continue the "New Deal" programs. And they voted for him a third, and then a fourth, time, because they approved of the "New Deal" and also wanted his leadership during WW II. He ran for and won four terms in office, and died in his fourth term (he was 'president for life'). And all the while, the rightwing press called him a "dictator" and a "communist" and on and on.
Chavez faced a very similar situation when he was elected president of Venezuela. The people wanted and needed fundamental economic and political change, due to the incredible mismanagement of their economy by previous rightwing governments, in which an oil rich country benefited only the rich, leaving millions poor--and without proper schools, no medical care, shantytown housing and many other deprivations. This mismanagement was exacerbated by the "shock doctrine" economics imposed by Washington DC and the World Bank/IMF loan sharks, which was hitting many other South American countries as well. The whole region was suffering a Great Depression, yet it was rich in resources.
The Chavez government has not only addressed fundamental poverty problems, with both short term and long term solutions, they have re-negotiated Venezuela's oil contracts, to change a 10/90 profit formula, which favored the multinationals, to 60/40, favoring Venezuela and its social programs. Chavez has also been visionary in creating institutions like the Bank of the South--to kick the World Bank out of the region--and inspiring and supporting the creation of a South American 'common market, UNASUR, formalized last year. While doing all of these things, Chavez has put aside $40 billion in international cash reserves, as a cushion against fluctuating oil prices, and a brace against the U.S.-induced economic Financial 9/11 this last September.
While there is now hope in Venezuela, improved poverty statistics, phenomenal economic growth up until last year (when it went down everywhere)--most of Venezuela's growth in the private sector (not including oil)--greatly improved education statistics, and many forward-looking projects in motion, there is still much to do. Further, Venezuela is still faced with the threat that its fascist elite--who, like our fascist elite, is immensely greedy and irresponsible--will join forces with private armies, out of power Bushwhacks, entities like Exxon Mobil, and rightwing death squads and other bad elements over the border in Colombia, to try, once again, to destabilize Venezuela and topple its democracy.
For all of these reasons, the Venezuelan people might want to vote Chavez a third term, or even a fourth--as we did FDR. There is no reason why they should not have that choice. And we will find out if they want to have that choice, next Sunday, when they vote on lifting term limits.
As to whether or not Venezuelans need Chavez to run again (and he would likely win, if he did), that is entirely up to the Venezuelan voters. They get to vote on their Constitution. We don't. Here, the two-term limit on the president was rammed through Congress, by the Republicans, in the mid-1950s, so that no "New Deal" could ever happen here again. That was the purpose of the term limit--but if the people of the U.S. could have voted on it, they likely would have voted against a term limit, with FDR still fresh in their memories. Although I'm not a Venezuelan, I can certainly have an opinion on this matter--and it does, indeed, affect me. You say that "the Chavez butt kissers here" have no stake in the outcome of the vote. I presume that you consider me a "Chavez butt kisser." If you do, my stake in the outcome is that I am a U.S. citizen, whose government has grievously harmed the people of Latin America, and I want to see that redressed. I want to see Latin America come into its own, as an economic and political powerhouse, use its resources for the benefit of the people, and create vibrant democracies, like Venezuela's, where long excluded and oppressed groups now have a say. Past U.S. policy has not only been disgusting and reprehensible, it has cost me money, as a taxpayer, in aid programs, in military extravagances, in illegal immigration and other ways, and it has caused me embarrassment, for the many innocent people that my own government colluded in torturing, killing and oppressing. I am glad to see Venezuela and other countries fighting back, and insisting on their sovereignty. I think it will be good for us all.
I think Venezuela probably needs Chavez because they are at mid-stage in creating a more just society. I really do see it much like the "New Deal." Social justice revolutions take time. New systems have to be worked out. Newly empowered citizens need time to learn the best ways to use their political power. The Chavez government has greatly improved things, economically, and probably only his socialist government can run it all properly, without corruption and looting--which Venezuela's rightwing would surely engage in, if they came to power again. They are much like Bushites, from what I can see. Possibly there is some other socialist politician who could fill Chavez's shoes, but I haven't seen one on the horizon. Chavez is young. If he is willing to serve, why not? I don't believe the rightwing propaganda that he is a "dictator." It is no more meaningful or true than when FDR was called a "dictator." It is simply not the case.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
