|
in the capitol city, and to achieve it by wily or suspect means. In both cases, Washington DC and Caracas, it was by wily political means, but essentially democratic, in that the national legislatures voted on the matter. In other words, Chavez did not personally appropriate political power in Caracas. The matter was discussed and voted on by a democratically elected legislature, in a highly transparent election system.
It is also not unusual--nor a sign of dictatorship--for a political movement--say, the "New Deal" here in the 1930s--to gather and consolidate its power as well as it can. You think the "New Dealers" didn't do this? They surely did. And they got called "dictators" for it, too. And the rightwing called FDR himself a "dictator"! But, in truth, the "New Deal" represented a huge expansion of the rights and power of the American people--the majority--the workers and the poor. I think it is the same with the Chavez government. They are politicians. They want power--they can't do ANYTHING without power. Maybe like any strong political movement--and like the "New Deal"--they occasionally step over the line into power-mongering, but they have scrupulously followed the Venezuelan Constitution and the rule of law, even more religiously than the "New Deal" did.
The "New Deal" stepped over the line, during the war, and forced all Japanese citizens (mostly on the west coast) into detention camps (as Changaloa has pointed out). They were also weaker on civil rights for black citizens than they knew they should have been, because they were the ones who forged the Democratic Party alliance with southern (all white) politicians. On the whole, though--especially on economic issues--they were the salvation of the poor majority and they created the prosperous and progressive American middle class of the post-WW II era.
The Chavez government has made no such egregious error as the Japanese detention camps, and they have been champions of civil rights for excluded groups. They have made a couple of over-the-line political mistakes. One was the creation of "lists" from the petition signatures for the 2004 (U.S. funded) recall election (which Chavez won, hands down). There is some evidence--if you can trust the word of the rightwing opposition in Venezuela (very iffy)--that they used these "lists" for political punishment (like not getting hired for government jobs), and, even if they didn't, possibly intended to. But they have NOT made a lot of mistakes like that.
I think you make a mistake in attributing anything that goes wrong to Chavez himself--in your media-induced delusion that Chavez is, or wants to be, a "dictator." He is the product of a large-scale political movement, involving thousands of political leaders and tens of thousands of grass roots activists. They have not "seized" power. They have earned power--through democratic means.
It is in the nature of politics, politicians and political activists to want to achieve and keep power. That's why democracy is such a good system. It provides checks and balances--the court system (which is largely still hostile to Chavez, as the Supreme Court was to FDR), the opposition, the opposition press (which still dominates the broadcast media), the international press (also extremely hostile to Chavez), totally free "free speech" and rights of peaceful protest, and so on. And the rich rightwing elite still have lots and lots of money, and get lots and lots of monetary support from the USAID, the CIA, and other U.S. meddlers. Chavez may have more "checks and balances" on him than any leader in the world.
In any case, the checks and balances exist, for those intelligent enough to use them. The rightwing opposition in Venezuela has made some really stupid mistakes--such as boycotting free and fair elections--engaging in a coup d'etat, whining too much and taking money from the U.S., also letting venally corrupt politicians become leaders and spokespersons. They need to learn to play by the rules. They tend to be bratty and petulant, and are used to getting rich the easy way--with the oil money. In fact, it's one clear sign that Venezuelan democracy is in good working order that this rich oil elite is no longer in power in Venezuela. They really haven't deserved power, and they grossly misused it when they had it. The Chavez government, on the other hand, represents the great majority of people, who--to use the "New Deal" example once again--need strong government to advocate for them against the entrenched rich, as was the case with FDR and the "New Deal."
The Chavez government has to deal with more than USAID/CIA funding of the rightwing opposition. They have to deal with subversion and signs of U.S. war intentions. That is why the Chavez government took control of the oil harbors, airports and associated roads in northern Venezuela, on Venezuela's oil coast, recently. Rightwing politicians openly talk of secession in this region, and could well be in league with the U.S. and Colombia for a U.S. move against Venezuela's oil coast. So these facilities are no longer in local control. I don't think of this as "autocratic." I think of it as common sense--somewhat similar to the opposition in this country to the United Arab Emirates buying our ports (one traitorous scheme of the Bushwhacks). The Chavez government has the DUTY to protect the safety of Venezuelans and the integrity of the country's borders. That is not an OPTION. That a required duty. I don't buy that that, or the measures that the legislature took to control Caracas, are signs that Chavez is 'autocratic.' They are signs that the Chavez government and the Venezuelan legislature take their duties seriously. And that is likely yet another reason why they keep getting elected.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
