Chavez seeks indefinite rule

[bullmoose88]

Reality check. He's abolishing term limits. Not trying to be elected president for life. End of reality check.

Oh come on Lewis.  Yes technically the measure doesn't make him President for life.  But I can't see you arguing/don't believe you would dispute that he would win every election for president that he stood for.

[Beet]

Reality check. He's abolishing term limits. Not trying to be elected president for life. End of reality check.

Oh come on Lewis.  Yes technically the measure doesn't make him President for life.  But I can't see you arguing/don't believe you would dispute that he would win every election for president that he stood for.

Indeed, it would be an interesting question... what drives authoritarian regimes to give up power voluntarily? The Pincohet and Franco regimes, while horrible, gave way to free elections without the need for much political struggle. The Communist regimes on the other hand gave way only when their hands were forced by an unwilling military. Is that accurate to say? It seems so.

[StateBoiler]

Indeed, it would be an interesting question... what drives authoritarian regimes to give up power voluntarily? The Pincohet and Franco regimes, while horrible, gave way to free elections without the need for much political struggle. The Communist regimes on the other hand gave way only when their hands were forced by an unwilling military. Is that accurate to say? It seems so.

The Franco regime never gave up power, Franco died. Franco installed Juan Carlos I of the Carlists as King and raised him to be his successor and to carry on leading the country as Franco did. Once Franco died, Juan Carlos had no one to answer to and told people to prepare for elections in a year, pissing off a number of Spanish conservatives. The military attempted a coup to gain back their power, but Juan Carlos held his ground and the Spanish public accepted him, even the left-wing politicians that were anti-monarchist.

[Colin]

Aren't too many who don't have boring titles like President or Prime Minister.
Gaddafi calls himself "Brotherly Leader and Guide of the Revolution".
Hu Jintao is "Paramount Leader of the People's Republic of China".
Khamenei is "Supreme Leader of Iran".
San Marino is led by a pair of "Captains Regent" elected every six months.
Plus a whole slew of Kings, Emirs, Grand Dukes and other monarchist titles.

We need Republics and pseudo-Republics to come up with some interesting names.

but doesn't anyone use the title "Dictator" anymore, or is it now just a perjorative term?

No and really no one ever used the term dictator in history either. Dictator comes from the Roman term for a military leader elected during times of extreme crisis who was given power over the entire Roman government and was allowed to rule by decree until his six month term ended.

After the classical period it seems only Simon Bolivar, who was called Dictator for a single year of his reign, and the leaders of some of the anti-Russian uprisings in Poland styled themselves dictators. Beyond that most use terms such as President or crazier titles like Qaddafi's depending upon their personalities.

Also I found this fun little website linked from the Wikipedia dictator page: http://www.dictatorofthemonth.com/English/English_welcome.htm.

The Current Dictator of the Month is Rafael Trujillo.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I guess the closest we have to a modern-day strongman abandoning the pretense of democracy is Emperor Bokassa I of the Central African Empire, although even he claimed to rule a constitutional monarchy.  The weirdest thing about his short three year reign in the late 1970's is the role that school uniforms played in his ultimate downfall.

[minionofmidas]

Now this reminds me, Has there ever been a modern world leader who ACTUALLY holds the title "dictator" or calls himself "dictator" or admits that he is one?

Not even Fidel Castro says it.

No, of course not. "Dictator" means, very roughly, "non-democratically elected President". Which gives journalists infinite wiggle-room for misrepresentation, such as calling Eritrea's brutal, internationally isolated dictator "dictator" and Ethiopia's almost as brutal, US allied dictator "president" in the same sentence. (In a supposedly leftish German newspaper, no less. ) "Dictator" is not a bureaucratic rank, but a statement of fact. Mussolini's official position was that of Prime Minister. As was Hitler's until Hindenburg died.

Kim Jong Il calls himself supreme leader.

Actually, he uses the title "Chairman of the National Defence Commission". That's because his late father is still officially the President.

Reality check. He's abolishing term limits. Not trying to be elected president for life. End of reality check.

Oh come on Lewis.  Yes technically the measure doesn't make him President for life.  But I can't see you arguing/don't believe you would dispute that he would win every election for president that he stood for.

While the oil boom lasts, yes. This is supposed to demonstrate exactly what?

[minionofmidas]

Chavez's statement of "removing term limits will enhance democracy" reminds me of all these idiots that we elect that think the 22nd Amendment is a bad idea and should be revoked.

Well, it is. There isn't really much basis for a defense of term limits. Keeping individual politicians' ego in check and politicians in fear of being retired by the voters - preventing them from becoming as all-dominant as Chavez in Venezuela or Kaukonen in 50s-70s Finland - is a job for civil society, not the constitution.

[Michael Z]

FYI, seems Mugabe in Zimbabwe might get the same thing.

He already is, more or less, just on rather informal lines (read mass terrorisation of political opponents).

[minionofmidas]

FYI, seems Mugabe in Zimbabwe might get the same thing.

He already is, more or less, just on rather informal lines (read mass terrorisation of political opponents).

Now Zimbabwe, that's a really down-the-drain ex-democracy with a tiny few figleaves left.
Not comparable to Venezuela at all.

[MasterJedi]

FYI, seems Mugabe in Zimbabwe might get the same thing.

He already is, more or less, just on rather informal lines (read mass terrorisation of political opponents).

Now Zimbabwe, that's a really down-the-drain ex-democracy with a tiny few figleaves left.
Not comparable to Venezuela at all.

Give Chavez some time and he'll get to that as well. He's already screwed their hospitals over, foreigners aren't allowed in side because of how bad they are now.

[minionofmidas]

FYI, seems Mugabe in Zimbabwe might get the same thing.

He already is, more or less, just on rather informal lines (read mass terrorisation of political opponents).

Now Zimbabwe, that's a really down-the-drain ex-democracy with a tiny few figleaves left.
Not comparable to Venezuela at all.

Give Chavez some time and he'll get to that as well. He's already screwed their hospitals over, foreigners aren't allowed in side because of how bad they are now.

Actually, that was you. Venezuela's once fairly good health care system deteriorated to teh point of nonexistence during the last twenty years before Chavez.
Chavez' attempts to rectify the situation, though, have been largely a disaster, though not a quite unmitigated one. Which is largely due to ideological battles being fought over the issue, by both sides by the way though of course folly in a President is a more serious offense than in private lobbyists... (Chavez basically built a government system of cheap healthcare in neighborhoods that hadn't had any for decades - but ran it very much as a competitor to private establishments, plus tried to use it for election purposes, etc. ANd staffed it mostly with underpaid (by Venezuelan standards) Cubans. Etc. Bad, bad populist rightwing fool, Hugo Chavez. As I was saying.)

[KillerPollo]

FYI, seems Mugabe in Zimbabwe might get the same thing.

He already is, more or less, just on rather informal lines (read mass terrorisation of political opponents).

Now Zimbabwe, that's a really down-the-drain ex-democracy with a tiny few figleaves left.
Not comparable to Venezuela at all.

Give Chavez some time and he'll get to that as well. He's already screwed their hospitals over, foreigners aren't allowed in side because of how bad they are now.

Actually, that was you. Venezuela's once fairly good health care system deteriorated to teh point of nonexistence during the last twenty years before Chavez.
Chavez' attempts to rectify the situation, though, have been largely a disaster, though not a quite unmitigated one. Which is largely due to ideological battles being fought over the issue, by both sides by the way though of course folly in a President is a more serious offense than in private lobbyists... (Chavez basically built a government system of cheap healthcare in neighborhoods that hadn't had any for decades - but ran it very much as a competitor to private establishments, plus tried to use it for election purposes, etc. ANd staffed it mostly with underpaid (by Venezuelan standards) Cubans. Etc. Bad, bad populist rightwing fool, Hugo Chavez. As I was saying.)

SInce when is Chavez a "rightwing"? at least from Western Perspective.

Anyways, yeah! fixing something that was reduced to nonexistant, comes with its price... Remember in 1980's Mexico when Miguel De La Madrid became President? Throughout his administration, he attempted to undo the damage that the 70's presidents (Echeverria and Lopez Portillo) did. He decentralized as much as he couls with the cost of massive inflation. His successors have continued to do the same. and it;s been working?

[minionofmidas]

An arch-Nationalist, quite lacking in democratic instincts (while obviously no dictator - if he really wanted a full dictatorial position he's had ample opportunity go by unused) who aspires to regional leadership? That's right-wing in my book, anyhow. Although of course an entirely legitimate opposite view can be held (Chavez is certainly on the left on traditional race/class cleavages and such) - but was Peron a leftist?

[WalterMitty]

why havent we 'dealt with' this despot?

[bullmoose88]

Reality check. He's abolishing term limits. Not trying to be elected president for life. End of reality check.

Oh come on Lewis.  Yes technically the measure doesn't make him President for life.  But I can't see you arguing/don't believe you would dispute that he would win every election for president that he stood for.

While the oil boom lasts, yes. This is supposed to demonstrate exactly what?

I'm challenging your statement..."Not trying to be elected president for life."

As I see it, you seem to be disputing the inferrence that while this measure doesn't make Chavez president for life, it effectively would do just that.  If I read you correctly.

[minionofmidas]

Reality check. He's abolishing term limits. Not trying to be elected president for life. End of reality check.

Oh come on Lewis.  Yes technically the measure doesn't make him President for life.  But I can't see you arguing/don't believe you would dispute that he would win every election for president that he stood for.

While the oil boom lasts, yes. This is supposed to demonstrate exactly what?

I'm challenging your statement..."Not trying to be elected president for life."

As I see it, you seem to be disputing the inferrence that while this measure doesn't make Chavez president for life, it effectively would do just that.  If I read you correctly.

Oh, he certainly wants to remain president for the remainder of his life - but "president for life" has a very different, Turkmenic ring to it that is completely out of place here. Eamon de Valera wanted to remain President for the remainder of his life as well. Konrad Adenauer wanted to remain Chancellor for the remainder of his life. So did Helmut Kohl. (All failed in that objective, eventually.)

[bullmoose88]

Reality check. He's abolishing term limits. Not trying to be elected president for life. End of reality check.

Oh come on Lewis.  Yes technically the measure doesn't make him President for life.  But I can't see you arguing/don't believe you would dispute that he would win every election for president that he stood for.

While the oil boom lasts, yes. This is supposed to demonstrate exactly what?

I'm challenging your statement..."Not trying to be elected president for life."

As I see it, you seem to be disputing the inferrence that while this measure doesn't make Chavez president for life, it effectively would do just that.  If I read you correctly.

Oh, he certainly wants to remain president for the remainder of his life - but "president for life" has a very different, Turkmenic ring to it that is completely out of place here. Eamon de Valera wanted to remain President for the remainder of his life as well. Konrad Adenauer wanted to remain Chancellor for the remainder of his life. So did Helmut Kohl. (All failed in that objective, eventually.)

Well, I don't dispute the first half of what you said (turkmenic part), i think you placing him in the same category as Adenauer/Kohl is a little unfair to those two. (if my history knowledge serves me correctly)...Those guys had to deal with viable opposition parties and the constant threat of losing an election.  Chavez does not, and (forseeably will not) face that challenge...True, there is some strength in Venezuela's opposition parties, but they're not really viable (whether they could be...yes an issue)...

so he's probably somewhere between the turkmenic end and the Kohl end...

[bullmoose88]

Whether Chavez wants to be near Kohl's end is another, more disturbing, question entirely.

[minionofmidas]

Kohl was a cheapshot. Adenauer didn't have to fear elections in the middle 19fifties. That Chavez will continue to govern *for ever* is by no means a given - he's unbeatable in the current political situation (such as, high oil prices, Bush**te antidemocratic coupists governing the Big Satan, etc), but that may not last.

[bullmoose88]

Kohl was a cheapshot.

Meh. Kohl deserved it.

I still think Chavez is more secure than Adenauer was in the 50s. I guess thats just a matter of opinion.

[MasterJedi]

Can we get Colombia to kill him and end his slow trek to Communism and Dictatorship?

[© tweed]

Can we get Colombia to kill him and end his slow trek to Communism and Dictatorship?

he'd love nothing more!  do you not get it?  he'd then die a martyr and hero who was murdered at the hands of Yanqui Imperialism.

[MasterJedi]

Can we get Colombia to kill him and end his slow trek to Communism and Dictatorship?

he'd love nothing more!  do you not get it?  he'd then die a martyr and hero who was murdered at the hands of Yanqui Imperialism.

Get Colombia to get some person that's poor from Venezuala who hates Chavez to do it. Just train him to do it and give him the weapons. It wouldn't look like that then.

[minionofmidas]

Can we get Colombia to kill him and end his slow trek to Communism and Dictatorship?

he'd love nothing more!  do you not get it?  he'd then die a martyr and hero who was murdered at the hands of Yanqui Imperialism.

Get Colombia to get some person that's poor from Venezuala who hates Chavez to do it. Just train him to do it and give him the weapons. It wouldn't look like that then.

Yes it would. How would you feel if another country trained some redneck hillbilly (has to be a White man to make it less obvious...) to assassinate your own favorite President? Think about that before throwing such disgusting shite around, ok?

[ag]

Chavez's statement of "removing term limits will enhance democracy" reminds me of all these idiots that we elect that think the 22nd Amendment is a bad idea and should be revoked.

Well, it is. There isn't really much basis for a defense of term limits. Keeping individual politicians' ego in check and politicians in fear of being retired by the voters - preventing them from becoming as all-dominant as Chavez in Venezuela or Kaukonen in 50s-70s Finland - is a job for civil society, not the constitution.

There is. In presidential systems of Lat Am type actual electoral loss by an incumbent absent a major disaster of cataclismic proportions is an extremely rare, if not an unheard of, event. Even when press, etc., work well (as they rarely do), it turns out it is a lot easier to depose an incumbent who does not want to go by a coup or revolution, than at a ballot box. Hence, I tend to believe, that absent term limits, democratic transfer of power from a non-senile leader would be an extremely rarely observed phenomenon in Latin America (not every generation of voters would live to see one). At the same time, there would be a lot more coups.

This is, actually, the reason I believe Chavez will never be defeated at the ballot box: the conditions for a successful and widely socially supported coup in Venezuela would be achieved ages before the conditions for an electoral defeat he would acknowledge. Frankly, I wouldn't give him more than one in four chance of dying in his own private non-presidential bed in Venezuela at this point (mind it, I actually expect him to live long).