Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiCARACAS - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez acknowledged Monday his first-ever election defeat after voters rejected reforms in a weekend referendum that would have strengthened his grip on power and turned his oil-rich country into a socialist state.
"Don't feel sad," a chastened-looking Chavez told his supporters via a media conference. He stressed that he had lost by only a "minimal" margin and was encouraged by the support he did get.
The National Electoral Council said "no" votes against the reforms had outweighed "yes" votes by a very narrow 51 to 49 percent.
"I tell you from the heart: For a few hours I debated with myself, in a dilemma," Chavez said. "I've now left the dilemma behind and I'm calm. I hope the Venezuelans are as well."
He added: "Now, Venezuelans, let's put our trust in our institutions."
Opposition members and sympathizers immediately celebrated their victory, setting off fireworks in Caracas and filling the streets with cheers and whistles.
Chavez supporters, in contrast, looked despondent in their red campaign colors, their "yes" flags and banners lowered.
It was the first time since Chavez came to power in 1999 that he has lost at the polls. In all his past elections, the charismatic leftwing firebrand triumphed with comfortable leads.
During his campaigning for the referendum, the president had labeled as "traitors" those swelling the ranks of the opposition -- including an unprecedented number of the country's poor, who, while still expressing affection for him, balked at endorsing his reforms.
Chavez, a firebrand critic of the United States with ties to Iran and Cuba, had been counting on the referendum to continue his rule beyond January 2013, when he must step down under the current constitutional two-term limit.
The 53-year-old former paratrooper had said he wanted the constitution overhauled so he could seek re-election "until 2050" -- when he would be 95.
He had also wanted to gain even tighter control over the country by putting more of the military under his command, permitting media censorship in times of emergency and scrapping the central bank's autonomy.
But street protests started by university students put paid to those ambitions, growing into the grassroots opposition movement that eventually vanquished him at the polls.
His exhortations that a "no" vote would be a vote for US President George W. Bush and US "imperialism" failed to carry the day in his favor.
There was a disturbing few hours after the vote, however, during which the government gave no results whatsoever and Chavez pondered what to do.
With the opposition clamoring for the release of figures -- and soldiers moving in to block entry to the National Electoral Council building -- a media conference was finally held in the early hours of Monday in which NEC chief Tibisay Lucena announced the defeat of the reforms.
Chavez mocked the opposition in his concession speech, saying that their concerns that he might refuse to accept the result were clearly misplaced.
"Now the tensions have dropped I hope they will see things more calmly," he said.
Fears remained of street violence in the wake of the result, however.
Chavez also warned right up to the eve of the referendum that he suspected the United States had a plan to exploit the vote to sow unrest, and he vowed to cut oil supplies to the US if he saw any meddling.
A historian, Margarita Lopez Maya, told AFP that the result was "a personal rout for the president" but overall good for the country.
"Chavez will survive, but will be forced to rethink the timing of his project and the ways he might be able to persuade the population," she said.
Venezuela's constitution prevents Chavez from re-presenting his constitutional reform under the current congress -- though he could conceivably appoint a constituent assembly to draft an entirely new basic law for adoption.
© 2007 Agence France Presse
112 Comments so far
Show AllI as a Venezuelan, wa happy that Chavez accepted the defeat like he did. He was calm and realx about it. But then a couple of days later he went on saying that the win was SHITY one, and that the opposition was full of SHIT...and kept of calling a lot of other stuff SHITY/FULL OF SHIT or what ever...that's why people (not Bush just people in general) dont agree with him, it's not very likely of a democratic president to be like that
They will try their best to stop the Bolivarian project--any way they can.
The "No" vote was a disappointment. While I wish Chavez had won the referendum (all the reforms were fine ingredients for furthering the revolution under Chavez and his poor grassroots supporters), I have to admit that perhaps he was pushing too far, too fast. This wasn't a defeat, only a minor setback. In fact, the loss may help re-establish Chavez' image as the democratic reformer, who respects the will of the people. What Chavez has done for Venezuela is more democratic than what our own government has done, surely we can agree on that. To be honest, I do feel sorry for the slum dwellers and poor people who weaped and cried when the news came out that their champion had suffered a loss. Rest assured, Chavez is NOT going away! The world gets leaders like this once in a blue moon - we gotta keep him around.
The Bolivarian Revolution lives on. All Washington can do is sit and watch; they can't stop a tidal wave of grassroots revolution. Viva Chavez, viva Fidel!
Incarnadine:
I also find Mike Gravel to be a credible person.
He said that if any of the other candidates were voted into office that it would be the same old same old, and it is patently clear that he was telling the truth.
Unfortunately, he has zero chance of being elected because:
1. The US electorate is ageist (and it didn't help that Reagan had Alzheimers before he was out of office);
2. The US electorate doesn't really like straight shooters--they respect devious types that stab other folks in the back, as well as overt bullies;
3. Mike represented a state with few Electoral College votes (I believe only 3, even fewer that Richardson's New Mexico with 5), and therefore he can't bring EC votes to the table.
funeocon:
The issue of voting on Chavez becoming president for life was a clear case of propagandistic DISinformation.
Abolishing the limit on the number of times one can run for president is NOT the same as installing someone as president for life.
The problem with the electorate in Latin America and in the US is that it is functionally illiterate.
Although literacy has been eliminated in a pure sense in Venezuela (though, oddly, NOT in the US), there are still many folks there who are FUNCTIONALLY illiterate--just as now 40% (!!!!!) of folks in the US are functionally illiterate.
When one doesn't REALLY understand what something means, you can tell them it means anything you want.
Of course some folks are cagey enough to do that AND create a thousand signing agreements that nullify the spirit AND the letter of law.
I am glad that you have visited Venezuela. Seeing Chavez in action is a real treat--especially when one compares him to the other political leaders around the planet.
I have been fortunate enough to meet and talk with him on several occasions over the past 4 years or so--and he is even better at close range!
Tijuana: I see that you are a very selective reader.
You did not read the word USUALLY in the part of one of my posts that you quoted.
In the case of Hitler, he was NOT voted into office, but appointed Chancellor by an ailing Hindenberg after the Reichstag Fire.
I have never heard of Chavez seeking to be the permanent leader of Venezuela. Seems to me I recall the whole "abolish the term limits" came about when the opposition was threatening to boycott the elections.
I bet in the end, I bet he will be plenty ready to give it up. It has to be exhausting to be the president of a country for such a long time...
When I went to Venezuela in 2006 for the WSS, our delegation had a meeting with Gregory Wilpert of Venezuelanalysis. He said one of the weaknesses of the Bolivarian revolution was that it was heavily dependent on Chavez to keep it alive. He said, without his leadership, it would be quickly undermined by the opposition. Then, as we went out and visited people, I asked them the question, "What will happen when Chavez isn't president?" and they all said, "We started this, not Chavez. This is our revolution, and we won't give it up no matter who is president." So I am torn about the whole term limit thing. On the one hand, very few Latin American countries have managed to survive a turn to the left. I don't know if Evo could makeit without Chavez having his back, and maybe Corrales, too. We shall see... I do know that I wish Hugo Chavez could run for President of the US when he is done in Venezuela. You just can't imagine how inspiring and charismatic he is until you see him in person...
I'm glad that Chávez has pushed the envelope on dismantling capitalism. The revolution is alive and well and democratic. The democratic part is what scares Washington.
Funny how Washington keeps presenting Chavez as a dictator. I don't know of any dictators that allow their citizens to vote directly on any important issues at all, let alone amending a constitution. If the people of Venezuala can make the right decision and vote on an issue like this, why can't us free-worlders?
If we want to see true democracy in this country, we need to support Mike Gravel for President. He's the only candidate talking about giving the power of lawmaking to ordinary citizens so that we can bypass corporate interests.
funeocons,
I'm not supporting rightwingers but it's just that despite Hugo Chavez's best intentions, from all the sources including this site, it would appear that Chavez is too anxious to run a one-man show or he wouldn't have even wasted time and money asking people to make him a permanent leader. Yes, Chavez is not evil unlike Bush who rigged two elections and can count on both parties and the media to kiss his ass. I just don't know that Chavez is doing what he needs to keep the progressive movement and ideology sustaining in the long run.
That hypocrisy will not go away so long as the US exists as a country.
Think of the other hypocritical programs for Latin American frelations: The Good Neighbor (Hoover and Roosevelt), The Good Partner (Truman and Eisenhower), and the beat goes on.
The hypocricy of the capitalist press, the capitalist politicians and the capitalist liberals is unbelievable. They attacked Chavez for the referendum on the constitutional changes which, they say, would give him dictatorial powers. They appeared as defenders of the constitution and democracy. Their massive propaganda "forgot" to mention one small detail. The constitution they were "defending" is the same constitution that was drafted by Chavez and approved by referendum in 1999. It is the same constitution, which the same oligarchic forces rushed to abolish a few hours after they pulled the April 2002 short lived coup against Chavez.
Another reason why Chavez may have had his fill of Baduel is that, although he was one of the 4 swearers of the oath which another poster cited above, he did not follow through with the others in 1992 when they made an unsuccessful coup against the government.
Chavez spent 2 years in jail for the coup attempt while Baduel continued his military career.
And, although it has been cited frequently that Baduel played a major role in reversing the 2002 coup against Chavez--it really isn't true.
Although he commanded Chavez' old paratrooper company--which did go to the island where Chavez was being held and bring him back to Palacio Miraflores--tat was a good 12 to 14 hours AFTER the rank and file soldiers of the presidential guard had taken back the palace--and after other generals and military officials had already called for the end to the Carmona dictatorship and the return of Chavez from captivity.
The guy has always covered his butt, never has stuck out his neck, and has used his supposed Buddhist belief as an excuse--ONE of the excuses--for not doing so.
Yet suddently he goes in a two week period in November of this year from demanding that the referendum be approved to calling it a Chavez coup.
?????
I say Obregon was right.
Right: And one of those guys was Baduel.
The current traitor.
Chavez has had plenty of experience with various kinds of traitors.
In a revolutionary process, betrayal is the number 1 crime.
Emiliano Zapata was betrayed here in Mexico on April 10, 1919.
Previous to his assassination he had indicated that he could forgive everyone except someone who betrayed him.
As for the 36 hour work week, it's interesting that the comparison was made by another poster with France. FRANCE HAS A 35 HOUR WORK WEEK.
Big operations like PDVSA that hire thousands would see much greater productivity and the larger work force would be very helpful--especially considering the high percentage of folks all over Latin America who work in the so-called "informal" sector (either self-employed selling on the street or working without a guaranteed salary and benefits).
Dirty tricks were used to "win" this election. As many know, the oligarchy specializes in dirty tricks. The truth to them in any contest is their enemy.
"During the last Presidential elections, approximately 67% of the registered voters came out to vote, Sunday just over 50% voted. Yet, the opposition basically received the same number of votes they got in the last Presidential elections (just over 4 million), so the abstention hurt Chavez' "YES" vote more."
Source: http://www.vheadline.com/readnews.asp?id=77219
I hope that Chavez will get tough with the dirty bastards there who think that they are better and more deserving of material comfort than the peasants. May God bless Hugo Chavez and all the people who are involved in the fights for justice and peace!
------
"I swear by the God of my parents, I swear by my nation,
I swear by my honor that I will not allow my soul to rest,
nor my arm to relax until I have broken the chains that
oppress my people through the will of the powerful.
Free elections, free land and free men, horror to the oligarchy."
Oath used by Hugo Chavez (when he was 28) and some of his revolutionary friends. page 80, !HUGO! by Bart Jones)...
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/
funeocons:"uh, I think $100/barrel oil would go to pay for most of the reforms -not the middle class."
There is nothing in the proposed and now academic constitutional reforms implying that the difference that would otherwise reduce a worker's paycheck from working fewer hours per week, and (except for the very rare, creative, and invested employee) producing less per week as a result, would be paid by the state. For example, if the reforms had passed, a retail clerk would be taking in fewer sales by virtue of fewer hours behind the register but would still somehow earn the same salary, according to the proposed reform. The "how" of accomplishing that, other than simply taking it out of the owner's take, who is not, necessarily, all that much better off given that he or she is probably still paying off loans on the business, was not spelled out. Therefore, the assumption held by private merchants was that they would simply have to raise their prices in order to pay the same salary to their employees for less productivity, and/or lay-off workers increasing customer lines. Continuing with the example of the retail clerk, there aren't many ways to rush customers through a store to increase sales. However, a "big box" store might find a way (and there are more and more of those in Venezuela every day). That would have been the end of small, independent retail. Venezuela, like what used to be said of France, is a nation of shopkeepers. I wouldn't be surprised if some of them had heart-to-heart talks with their employees who voted to keep their jobs.
There was no proposal on the table for the state to send out supplementary paychecks. But, if there were, that would be Communism-lite, not Socialism.
As for independent entrepreneurs getting social security, that would have been a good thing. That is one of the babies that will have to be thrown out with the bath water. I hope that causes some sleepless nights among those who thought bundling all the reforms in only two measures was such a great idea.
From what I have read and taught of History, dictators usually do not take power through the democratic process of folks voting for them.
And the only referenda I remember in regard to one was when the UN pressured Chile in regard to the Pinochet dictatorship. In the first one, 1978 (?) the vote was something outrageous like 80 percent to keep him in power--and was largely regarded as rigged. Ten years later or so there was another one and that one he lost--although he still kept his power as head of the armed forces and his immunity by being declared senator for life.
It is comments like the brief one above by saywhat that make me even more discouraged by the inability of members of our species to treat each other with respect.
Chavez=Dictator, well he tried.
A democracy lets the people decide, not the corporations and banks, not corrupt politicians, not fascist judges. Hugo is letting the people decide by way of the referendum. He is under attack by the oligarchy and it's enablers because he is "the threat of a good example", as Chomsky says.
Senator Mike Gravel proposed to let the people decide via referendums in his National Initiative for Democracy. The oligarchy felt so threatened by democracy that they excluded him from the "debates" in their MSM.
The only "democracy" the oligarchy allows in the USA nowadays is the selection of a candidate of their choice in a rigged election.
Viva Chavez!
Lots of action since I left this thread yesterday, and that's good to see!
I want to respond to several folks in this post, and would also like someone to tell me how we can persuade CommonDreams to NUMBER the posts--so much easier to refer to than searching and scrolling and putting the hour of the post!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1. kivals: Sorry, but I do not share your view that Nature is hostile. Perhaps I feel differently because of my Native American heritage and traditions--since I was a baby I have spent time in the natural world, and I still live in that world--even though I am two hours from downtown Mexico City. I speak extensively with OTHER animals (despite Wittgenstien's saying that If a lion could talk we would not understand him), and my nagual, the Raven, is very much a part of my world.
In fact, I feel much more at home in the natural world than I do around folks of my own species--who ARE in the main hostile beings--and not because they are hunting for food, but because they have a passion for violence and an addiction to making war, not love.
2. Stepfour: Originally, there were 33 changes submitted by Chavez to the National Assembly--who were advised not to change a hair, but to decide which if any would be presented to the electorate. The National Assembly accepted all the Chavez changes, but also added--in two separate batches--36 changes more!
At that point the number was very unwieldy, to say the least--and would have been so even if they had been voted on one by one. Imagine, each person spending half the day in the voting booth checking one by one 69 proposed changes!
But the damage was done, and the solution--not a god one--was to present the changes in two batches to the voters.
Several of the more controversial changes--especially those around the State of Emergency, were created and added by the National Assembly.
In my opinion, it was to big a bite to chew--which left the door wide open to manipulate folks' fears and prejudices.
Chavez said it was HIS error to put such a big batch of changes before the electorate--which shows what an elegant man he is--to take the respopnsibility for the legislators' refusal to follow his recommendation.
He also commented yesterday that many folks are not mature enough to bite off such a big change and chew it.
I think that's a key word--INFANTILISM is still the mark of Latin American politics (not to mention the politics of the northern neighbor), and it doesn't evaporate just because illiteracy has been eliminated.
It's hard, though, when so many of us have a real sense of urgency--that this is Crunch Time for the planet on so many levels--to do what we have a saying in Spanish for: Give time to time (darle tiempo al tiempo).
What's encouraging about Chavez is that he is a VERY fast learner, and can make decisions faster than anyone I have ever met.
3. Salvation: You have lost your way.
4. Doom and Gloom: Thanks for echoing the Indigenous world view. However, from what I am aware of, the whel was PROBABLY invented in Mesopotamia. It really did not exist here in the early times, although The Olmecas and Mayas came close to a wheel here in Mesoamerica.
5. Posterkid: You are right to be worried about Bolivia. It is currently seen as the weakest link in the ALBA--largely because there is such a history there of white/mestizo dominance in the lowlands and indigenous preponderance in the highlands--and because it lacks the financial clout of Venezuela.
For the moment the US will have to lower its profile in regard to Chavez--and that means raising it in Bolivia, where Brother Evo clearly has his hands full.
Bolivia needs all the support we can give--of every kind.
6. zoya--Chavez has been trying to BUILD an effective opposition since he took office--to encourage the opposition to present a program and vision for the country and to clean up its dirty habits.
They tried all the other options to growing up and doing just that: strikes, street violence, a failed fascist coup, sabotage of PDVSA which sent the country into the toilet for almost a year, trying to rig the 1994 referendum, boycotting the votation in 2005--finally making a baby step of progress in 2006 when the majority united around the candidacy of Rosales in the presidential elections and when Rosales actually accepted that he lost in a landslide vote.
They could go two ways now that they actually squeaked by with a pyrrhic victory on Sunday:
a) pull out all the stops thinking they now have the power, and try another coup (the most likely, given the racist basis of their infantile style of politics) OR
b) come up with a CREDIBLE leadership--with brains and which is not fueled by racism and addiction to shopping in Miami--and put together a vision and an alternative model (unfortunately, I have not seen any seeds of this process in the time I have spent in Venezuela).
7. Liberator: If you want to know the background on the comment of TRAITOR that Chavez applied to Baduel, you will have to dig into the history of when they were in the army and formed a group to change Venezuela. Bart Jones' biography of Chavez in English deals fairly extensively with that. Given the seriousness of the oath they took, I can see and FEL where Chavez is coming from.
I also--perhaps cynically--believe that Baduel was bought. A general in the Mexican Revolution and twice elected president here, Alvaro Obregon, said: "No general resists a cannonblast of 50,000 pesos".
He said that in the 1920s, so clearly the price for a general is higher now, but the basic point is valid.
I think Baduel wanted a cushier returement than his military pension afforded.
Long live Hugo Chavez!
Whether it passed or not he has shown that he is a true leader of all the people of his country by accepting the failed outcome of the referendum not passing. As a U.S. citizen I have the worst government in the world, yet he was re-elected. Thus, I will never cast stones at another countries leader unless I think they are doing a bad job which clearly H. Chavez is doing the opposite, a fantastic job.
My question to those who are so hung up on having a true democracy is to show me a country that has a true democracy that is working? As far as I can see, the U.S. government constantly is interfering with other countries and progressive governments that are trying to make a true change for the "whole" of there people, rather than the elite of their society.
C.I.A. out of the rest of the world NOW!
Vote Dennis K. for a real change in leadership.
Power to the People.
Clarity, I am not going to take up for castro's excesses, but your statement is bizarre in the light of the fact that any individual on this planet can be snatched by the US government if Bush deems them an enemy. Even Castro for all his warts and excesses, doesn't even stoop to that level!!!!!Flame me!
Ever notice how the NSA goofs always expend so much type on how much "left" they are before they severely criticize the elements of progress?
No doubt, Hugo learned from this experience, as he graciously stated that they must mature as they advance.
There seems to be some unwarrented discussion about Fidel Castro and Cuba in this thread, so I will take this opportunity to bring to everyone's attention one of the most important books of the century;
"Biografia a dos voces" by Ignacio Ramonet or, if you only read English, "My life" by Fidel Castro, which is the just released English edition of the same book, and you will read an absorbing and truthful account that history will regard as definitive reporting.
As for the term limit in Hugo's proposed changes, that is not a whimsy, but an absolute requirement for any democracy. If a people cannot choose for themselves their leader for as many times as they would like, then there is no democracy.
"Sounds like they are light years ahead of us."
Real Bright there! Cuba is an economic basket case and was only able to function on hand outs from the Soviet Union. A nation that relies on hand outs is not "light years ahead of anybody). They can now import food from anyplace, except the US, including the former Soviet Union but they have to pay for it- which they can't do becouse this fertile nation of educated, industrious and proud people has been brought to it's knees by a leader who can't get over himself. The
I repeat, it is a self evident fact to anyone but a FOOL that any nation that has to pass laws, build walls and shoot their citizens to keep them from leaving is a Failure. Countries who have to take measures to keep people from coming in, for all their faults, are doing something right (along with the all the crap of the last 7 years!).
If you want to see for yourself there are special visas you can get. But oh by the way, don't write anything bad about Castro while your there- they are so far ahead of us that people that can't see that end up in PRISON! That "Question Think Learn" thing of yours is illegal in Catros paradise! Nice, real Nice...
funeocons,
Thanks fior listing out all of the other apects/benefits regarding the reforms proposed by Chavez.
And yes, Chavez could still be voted out, so the no limit terms has nothing to do with dictatorships etc. The fact that many do not realize this is the clear result of brainwashing from the mainstream media.
My point is...given the most controversial reform (the Term Limit - and by controversial I mean easy to manipulate/sow fear concerning its meaning), Chavez should have removed this one aspect from the reforms for the sake of getting the others through.
Don't get me wrong, I am not disagreeing with Chavez, but he could have taken that piece out of the mix, and introdced it later when these other reforms had proven beneficial. From a very brief glance, the other reforms seemed to benefit the people, whereas the term Limit seemed (can be debated) to benefit only Chavez. As a leader, he should have never mixed the two.
for those whining about removing term limits not being a bad thing, would you still say the same thing if a right winger were in power? of course not. sometimes it doesnt seem like there's much difference between the left and the right attitude wise. he could have made his reforms WITHOUT the term limits elimination clause, i am sure to a lot of Venezuelans, that seemed a grab for dictatorship.
I have very mixed feelings about Chavez's lose, on the one hand I wanted to see Venezuela move toward socialism, but on the other hand I am nervous about giving anyone too much power.
"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
In some ways this will be beneficial to Chavez in the long run, first it will take him out of the cross hairs of a CIA assassination, ala Salvator Allende of Chile.
And secondly the fact that he lost graciously will help him solidify power and move his country toward a just society for all Venezuelans.
Socialism has become a despicable word in the American lexicon, and having a neighbor that shows some compassion for its citizens would be a good example for greedy Americans to emulate.
The poor, the homeless, the hungry will have to wait a little longer for a piece of the pie.
VIVA CHAVEZ
VIVA CASTRO
"The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to socialism."
"Democracy is the road to socialism."
Karl Marx
as i was saying, the indoctrination runs deep--to the point that folks don't even know they are indoctrinated:
'As to "what's wrong with Cuba?"- you've gotta be kidding me! Ask the survivors who don't die in shark infested waters trying to leave the worker's paradise. Quick acid test for any country- when the government makes it illegal to leave it's a crap house…'
Say fool, do our freedoms that everyone wants to kill us for allow us to travel to Cuba?
Learn about our Cuban friends--enemies of Cuba and you decide where you stand.
http://sandiego.indymedia.org/en/2004/04/103657.shtml
Question. Think. learn.
give me a break, salvation:
1. Great universal education
2. Great sports program
3. Great medical system
Sounds like they are light years ahead of us.
and I do believe you are full of crap regarding the land use:
"...Cuba is the only country in the world that has developed an extensive state-supported infrastructure to support urban food production and urban growers. Functionally, this infrastructure emerged in response to acute food shortages in the early 1990s; ideologically it grew out of the Cuban governments view that access to nutritious food is a basic human right.
Following the Cuban Revolution in 1959, the new Cuban government prioritized eliminating hunger and poverty through an elaborate national food distribution system. This system functioned well to distribute needed food goods to the Cuban population but, it was highly dependent upon food imports; 57% of total foods consumed in Cuba were imported from the Soviet Bloc.
With the demise of the Soviet Bloc in 1989 all food imports were lost, resulting in the Cuban population experiencing immediate food shortages. Cuba also lost critical agricultural imports upon which its national food production system had become dependent -- – fertilizers, pesticides, tractors and spare parts and petroleum to provide fuel energy. Reductions in access to petroleum brought the food distribution system to a halt; severe fuel shortages meant that food could not be refrigerated or transported by trucks from the peri-urban and rural areas where food was produced to the urban areas where the majority of the population resided. The U.S. Congress made the situation more difficult with the passage of the Toricelli Bill in 1992. Toricelli banned trade between Cuba and foreign subsidiaries of U.S. companies by the U.S. government threatening to confiscate ships that touched port in both Cuba and the United States within six months. Since most of this trade had been in food stuff; after Toricelli food shortages worsened considerably...The Department also set up Seed Houses (Tiendas del Agricultor), 12 in Havana alone, which sell garden inputs, seeds, ornamental and medicinal plants, tree samplings (mostly fruit-bearing) tools, books, biological control products, biofertilizers, biological pest and disease controls, packaged compost, worm humus, and other needed inputs. The Department also works with Cuba's agricultural research sector to quickly develope a new emphasis on providing information and resources for small-scale, sustainable urban agriculture. Two hundred and twenty-two small scale centers now produce biological control products to support sustainable organic agriculture throughout the nation. These centers harness microorganisms that perform useful functions in natural ecosystems and reproduce them in forms that can be used as biopesticides; other laboratories produce a variety of organic biofertilizers (see Table I).
This state-supported infrastructure for urban agriculture has allowed thousands of Cubans to become involved in food production in the nation's capital. Currently, about 30% of Havana's available land is under cultivation and there are more than 30,000 people growing food on more than 8,000 farms and gardens in Havana alone. The size and structure of these urban farms and gardens varies considerably. There are small backyard and individual plot gardens cultivated privately by urban residents (huertos populares). There are larger gardens based in raised container beds by individuals and state institutions (organoponicos). There are work place gardens that supply the cafeterias of their own workplace or institution (autoconsumos). There small family-run farms (campesinos) and there are farms owned and operated by the State with varying degrees of profit sharing with workers (empresas estatales).
In 1997, urban farms and gardens in Havana provided 30,000 tons of vegetables, tubers and fruit, 3,650 tons of meat, 7.5 million eggs, and 3.6 tons of medicinal plant materials (see Table II). Havaneros also began to grow rice. This small-scale rice production was completely unprecedented and unexpected because historically rice production in Cuba had been conducted on large farms using industrial methods. Nationwide, small-scale urban rice production is now producing as much rice as large-scale state owned farms in rural and peri-urban areas.
Within Cuba, many people raised questions about whether the urban population's commitment to urban agriculture would outlast the food shortage crisis. In actuality, food shortages have decreased considerably since 1995 yet, every year since then, more Cubans have become involved in urban agriculture. Agricultural techniques are constantly improving. Yields and production levels have dramatically increased. Cubans are eating more fresh fruits and vegetables. There has been a revival of interest in, and use of, herbal medicine supported by the Cuban Ministry of Public Health. One of Cuba's burgeoning economic sectors is plant-based medicine..."
http://bss.sfsu.edu/raquelrp/pub/2000_aug_pub.html
Meanwhile our country spirals downward--yet the propaganda and indoctrination runs deep--heaven forbid we be a country seeking the best interests of it's citizens and not just the ruling class elites--you know, the way Cuba used to be...and dare I say it--perhaps it would benefit us to learn a lesson from Cuba.
moonraven,
hola, compa :D keep your spirit whole for humanity (whatever is left of us) when the Crisis finally ends. while we are teetering here, we need everybody we can pushing forward. as for Chavez: hey, my homeboy is strong, he don't need no referendum. CIA, take your black magic elsewhere! your dark hearts are in need of repair.
viva all the revolutions, pray for Evo,
restive
ps: as for all y'all naysayers: well, fix your own damn house first. :p
Chavez does not have to worry.
He hasn't committed any human rights abuses so there is no need for him to become a president-for-life. There will be no court cases against him after he resigns and he can resign in quiet and peace and people will still respect him.
I do think he was a bit foolish with his rhetoric before the referendum and I hope he can come back to it and accept that opposition to him is not automatically also support fro George Bush. Anyway, George Bush will have long rotten away in prison in 2013, the time when Chavez will resign.
If only we had that kind of leadership in this country! Just think of how much better a world we would all live in.
Instead of accepting defeat here, our so called leaders cheat the polls and the people for their own egotistical gain.
Tis a shame. A downright shame.
Abbeybwood; The "your comment is awaiting moderation" comes up every so often on my posts too, and a few other writers have asked the same question. I think two of mine were never posted, but all the others with the "moderation" thing eventually were posted.At times it takes minutes more, and last week, one of my comments took almost an hour before it was posted. I don't have an answer as to why.
funeocons, lillulu, and liberator; Great comments. Sharp insight in the political arena.
Let me start by saying, I am an unapologetic Chavez supporter - whatever that's worth, since I am in another country. He has done many great things for Venezuela. Things that a Capitalist Government wouldn't have done. The Revolution has progressed to this point BECAUSE the Capitalists were such an utter failure in their neglect of the majority of the people.
Having said that, I see a bunch of mistakes being made.
1) No loyalty to comrades in case of disagreements. I saw it with Castro, and it seems to develop with Chavez too, in that those who disagree are branded as 'traitors'. Not everyone who disagrees with aspects of the Venezuelan Revolution is a pawn of Washington. It needs a certain belief in personal infallibility to come up with a mindset like that. Compatriots who fought side by side with Castro, who did not share every nuance of the leaders vision, ending up jailed. One of Castro's comrades ended up spending 20 years in jail, essentially for disagreeing. When the Revolution began, it was agreed that none of the Revolutionaries were supposed to have executive government positions.
2) Personality cult. A movement cannot be based on a face. It has to be based on living ideas, and the public has to be "thinking", has to participate, has to shape the system. Cuba's Revolution is embodied in Fidel Castro, and THAT is the weak spot, and there is a real chance it will die with him. Chavez, despite the enthusiasm of the "Chavistas", should not relish in the support of the people, but instead should push for a broad-based leadership, or the Revolution will fade when the face fades.
3) Bundling. This Referendum was doomed because of bundling. If I would be a Venezuelan, I too would have voted "no", because of the flies in the ointment. That doesn't mean I don't like what Chavez has done to this point. Had Chavez allowed the people to vote on every proposed change of the Referendum separately, I bet he would today have a vote that would let him run for re-election, and indeed he would have most of the important changes incorporated into the Constitution.
4) Entrenching of Socialism into the Constitution by declaring Venezuela a Socialist Republic. Socialism has to survive based on ideas, and because it is GOOD for the people, not because the Constitution says so. You cannot entrench Socialism via Constitution, because the real victory is, to make it possible for the people to vote AGAINST Socialism, but them NOT doing so, because they see the merit of the system every day of their life.
5) Impulsiveness. Chavez is destroying a lot by his outbursts. Instead of being calculated and calm, he acts in an isolationist manner by cutting Venezuela off from dealing with other nations, thereby providing fuel to his enemies. And no, he cannot "stop" exporting oil, as he has threatened. That would be the end and doom to his Revolution, which needs a lot of money to keep moving ahead. Unfortunately, the more wars the US starts in the world, the better Venezuela does. A peaceful world is a low-oil-price world.
6) It is easy for poor people to be "Socialists". Once things are better, many tend to abandon Socialism and become Capitalists, because they believed in saving #1, and not the ideals of Socialism.
7) 10 years ago, perhaps 90% of Venezuelans were unhappy with the system, while 10% were happy. Then things changed, and 90% were happy, while 10% were unhappy. But in a few years, 60% will be happy and 40% will be unhappy, as social conditions are changing, and people forget how bad it was under the Capitalists. A better answer is not a 'this-or-that' form of government, but making laws to enable grassroots socialism, cooperatives. Changing laws to a point where it would take a long time to undo the changes. Requiring 'Living Wages'. Limiting Executive Pay to a multiple of the lowest paid person in the organization. Enacting anti-exploitation laws. Policing those policies with teeth. On the other front, making lieing in the media a crime punishable by prison terms. Making it illegal for political organizations - not just Parties, but also political NGO's - to receive money from foreign sources, directly or indirectly. Making it illegal for humanitarian organizations to re-donate money to other organizations. In other words, cutting off all foreign funded channels to the political organizers, and making them dependent on homegrown support.
There are a lot of things that can be done, without changing the Constitution. But to propose more than 60 changes and present them as a 'Yes-or-No' Basket, was a recipe for disaster and defeat. Nobody in their right mind, who really thinks about all the points, can support that, despite believing in the goals of the Revolution.
I hope he is learning, and realizing that the Revolution cannot be based on him alone, or else, it will be a project that will not outlive him by much.
It's absurd that the dumb politicians in the U.S. -- including the Democrats -- call Hugo Chavez a "dictator" when he was elected by the people -- unlike George Bush who "won" by two rigged elections.
maxpayne-
What makes you think he is running a one man show? Hmmmm...the media? After spending some time in Venezuela, I have come to realize that the only thing that gets reported on Chavez in this country is the neocon propaganda (and I watch the news through google alert everyday -- it is just astonishing). He invests an incredible lot in promoting a cultural revolution that restores the dignity, confidence, and power of the people.
Chavez would be better off keeping the Left movement alive for the long haul rather than trying to run a one-man show ! The "right" knows how to keep getting new people to keep their movements going. FDR and now Chavez are making terrible mistakes by not spreading the progressive ideology !
Nomoresoy4me - uh, I think $100/barrel oil would go to pay for most of the reforms -not the middle class.
Sounds to me like a lot of people here bought into the same propaganda the CIA used to whip up fear among the Venezuelan people to manipulate this referendum. Abolishing the term limits (as in England, France, Australia, and a zillion other democracies) just means that he could RUN for office again. It does not mean no limits to the length of his term. The people, if they still wanted him as President, could vote for him again (golly gee, how undemocratic!). And, unlike our sorry excuse for a democracy, the people already have the power to kick him out in the middle of his term (an article in the existing constitution proposed by Chavez himself) if they don't like what he is doing. They don't have to rely on a feckless bunch of politicians to do the job like we do.
I am just shocked that people here would say they are glad "he lost". As if this was all about Hugo Chavez. These reforms were the brain child of the entire movement with lots of grassroots and national assembly input and deliberation. Do you even have a clue what they voted against? This is what the poor majority of Venezuela voted AGAINST (redacted from article on Venezuealanalysis.com with my commentary, dripping with sarcasm):
-expedited land expropriation facilitating re-distribution to the landless and small producers. Chavez has already settled over 150,000 landless workers on 2 million acres of land.(last I heard, dictators generally don't promote GIVING land to the poor)
- universal social security coverage for the entire informal sector (street sellers, domestic workers, self-employed) amounting to 40 per cent of the labor force. (afterall, if you were a maid or sold soda in the street, you wouldn't ever want to be able to retire...)
- Organized and unorganized workers' workweek reduced from 40 to 36 hours a week (Monday to Friday noon) with no reduction in pay. (because we all would hate to have more paid time off...)
-Open admission and universal free higher education that would open greater educational opportunities for lower class students. (maybe they are holding out for the be-$50K-in-debt-before-your-first-job system we have....)
-Amendments to allow the government to by-pass current bureaucratic blockage of the socialization of strategic industries, thus creating greater employment and lower utility costs (because they just love the multinational corporations ripping them off blind thanks to the elites who gave everything away)
-an amendment to INCREASE the power and budget of neighborhood councils to legislate and invest in their communities. (afterall, who in their right mind would want MORE community control over neighborhood investment)
Boy, I'm sure glad that all of those impoverished Venezuelans came to their senses and refused such awful reforms to their government.
GET REAL FOLKS. This was another fine example of the CIA's meddling to whip up fear to manipulate the people (here and there)-- using the same exact tactics they have used everywhere for the past 60 years. They even have the CIA Memo in hand documenting it! THINK ABOUT IT! Does this make any sense to you??? Once again, the Right has managed to terrorize the poor and uneducated to vote against their own interests in favor of the rich.
Another recent example - the referendum on CAFTA in Costa Rica. Just as with this election, the week before, the REAL polls were showing an incredible lead for rejecting CAFTA, and then the Bush administration made public threats to refuse to negotiate any trade deals with them whatsoever, causing panic that the entire economy would be turned upside down. Several Congressmen quickly went down there to try to allay their fears, but to no avail...
pdxman is probably right. Chavez does need reminding that there is some effective opposition: it'll keep him honest. Although watching the pix on tv, it was clear to me the most of the faces of his opposition are white, while all his supporters' faces are brown--like his.
One big difference between Chavez and Bush is that Chavez lets people decide things by public referendum whereas Bush circumvents the people's will by using signing statements, a stacked SCOTUS, a compliant Congress, the MSM, Big Money bribes, threats and every dirty trick that his conservatives can come up with.
Bush doesn't need to censor the MSM because they are a part of him. He already has the military under his command and our central bank, the Federal Reserve, is an integral part of his oligarchy.
I am so thrilled to see the nuanced responses in Common Dreams. I was so afraid that the English speaking left-wing was allowing themselves to be blinded by hope for something else which this constitutional "reform" proposal was not.
The "reforms" were not just about term limits. There were also issues like the 36-hour workweek, which is only relevant in an economy where most are employed by big foreign employers, which is not the case here. In greater Venezuela, unlike the US, most earners are either entrepreneurs or employed by them. Now who would have paid for the difference between 40 earning hours (plus a 2 and half hour lunch break, folks, and more vacation days and holidays than you can imagine in your wildest dreams) and 36 earning hours? The ordinary middle class is who, which would have meant a lot of job loss, rising prices, and monopolies by those large employers who actually could have afforded the profit loss. Thank you Venezuelan voters for dodging that crisis.
There were so many good things in this reform, but it reached too far. For example, changing the Central Bank sounds good on paper, but where are the safeguards preventing so called, "Chavistas" from overstepping their bounds? Chavez cannot keep tabs on all of his "Con Chavez" followers, some of whom are as criminal as preceding administrations. Imagine a change to the Central Bank concurrent with the already-in-motion change to the official currency for the coming year. Sound like someone has a lot of otherwise-cheapened U.S. dollars to sell in the only market in the world for them these days.
And then there was the proposed dilution of the current beautiful direct democracy of the referendum process requiring 30% of the electorate to sign each petition. Do you think California's referendum law could survive that? California only requires 8% of the voters represented in the last election for a referendum petition! The devil is in the details. How did they sneak that in?!!!
There were some sour cherries buried in this reform proposal, accompanied by some obvious pandering, like lowering the voting age to 16. Who would this benefit, exactly? Those who advertise via music videos?
First comes a constitution, then come the laws. Who is going to write them? I saw a cult of personality, like Maoist China, come to a halt. Thank you Venezuelan voters. Thank you Chavez, for accepting the word of the voters.
The first Chavez constitution really was revolutionary given the participation of the public. Whereas this "reform" was not public participation, only politician participation. There is no comparison. It was too much, too fast, and too far reaching. At the least they should have allowed the public to vote on each amendment, individually, rather than making the outlawing of sexual preference discrimination dependent on whether the public accepts another "reform" mandating a politicized military (that's another story also reminiscent of Communist China). Or the formal acknowledgment of African culture in Venezuela effectively subordinate to term limit abolishment. Sounds like a page from the U.S. Congress! Just who is advising these reforms? Sound to me like the CIA was working BOTH sides of the table.
The other hopeful result of this election is that it once again illustrates to me that Venezuelan voters are far more intelligent that U.S. voters. Imagine the nuance of supporting Chavez but not supporting the blanket "reforms". Could U.S. Democrats ever be so credited with putting their votes where their mouths are?
Once again Venezuela demonstrates that it is a superior democracy to the U.S. Meanwhile, President Chavez, I expect you to go back to the drawing board and start planning your best succession, and a true constitutional convention, please, not a "YOU ARE EITHER WITH US OR AGAINST US" approach. Thank you.
Term limits are not applicable to Parliamentary systems as a leader can be voted out by either his own party or a no confidence vote can bring down his government at any time. Had we this system our verbally and ethically challenged leader would have been in the historical dust bin for some time now (not to mention having to go before the likes of Conyers and DK once a week to answer their questions!).
Also, term limits were only part of this massive power grab- the power to appoint regional leaders, assume control of the monetary system and a provision to declare martial law and dictatorial powers AT ANY TIME the President deems necessary- these were truly the most problematic parts of the referendum.
As to "what's wrong with Cuba?"- you've gotta be kidding me! Ask the survivors who don't die in shark infested waters trying to leave the worker's paradise. Quick acid test for any country- when the government makes it illegal to leave it's a crap house...
90% of Venezuela's exports are from oil- Chavez, like Morales, has done a good job making sure these revenues go to the citizens as a whole- BRAVO. But clearly Chavez caught that authoritarian virus and more's the shame...
Just curious: What does it mean when I post something here and Commondreams places a caveat ahead of my post that says, "Your comment is awaiting "moderation"?
Comments fellow posters?
What a fantastic read this thread has been!
What a surprise that Moonraven is a woman! Sweet. (One tends to hear a "male/female voice" in various posts I think..)
It would have been interesting to see the outcome of the election in Venezuela had there been no outside interference (which there clearly was): Go to Rense.com and check the 11/28 Petras article on Venezuela.
And I agree. It would have been far better to make each issue a separate vote. I would like a straight answer as to why that wasn't done.
Also, I wonder. What kind of physical voting process does Venezuela have? Certainly not electronic touch screens where the people cannot count the votes, as we have here in the United States:
http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/PROJECTS/NCEL/WashTimesAd-NCEL.pdf
You know, many pixels have been written about this vote in Venezuela. I, for one, am under no illusions about my government or my culture - they are errant. However, like most others, my culture colors how I see things, so I have to struggle to see through this colored perspective to try to understand others. This is what has happened with this whole Chavez vote.
I know damn well that the US had it's bloody fingers in the vote. I also know that we've tried to assassinate Chavez. Nothing new - we all have the T-shirt.
So...what do I do now? What I saw was a man who was/is valiantly trying to wrest control from the oligarchs and interventionists and put it in the hands of his people. The thing is, he's a man. He's human and fallible and the history of the ages tells us that humans are susceptible to the wiles of power. It seemed as if this man was being seduced by the power that he had and was trying to overstep his bounds. Nothing new - another T-shirt.
I am for the Bolivarian movement! I am for the workers and the campesinos and the downtrodden and the common folk everywhere. Yet, I am wary of anyone in power - anyone! There must be checks to power or it will corrupt as the surely as Bush is a tyrant.
Long live Hugo Chavez, long live the Movement, long live the People - but, woe be to those who put anyone on a pedestal - they will be sorely disappointed.
Please, look forward now to Bolivia as the next example of the 'template' to be used for engineering 'democratic consent' against overwhelming majority of the people.
Bolivia was the nation protagonist of Rachel Boynton's 2005 masterfull documentary over cynical american manipulation of elections abroad: "Our Brand is Crisis".
Now we have the following facts that the mainstream media is choosing to marginalize or openly ignore by 'laziness'(?) and/or 'design':
The Final Battle in Bolivia
by Roger Burbach
Global Research, November 30, 2007
globalalternatives.org
Evo Morales, the first Indian president of Bolivia, is forcing a showdown with the oligarchy and the right wing political parties that have stymied efforts to draft a new constitution to transform the nation. He declares, "Dead or alive I will have a new constitution for the country by December 14," the mandated date for the specially elected Constituent Assembly to present the constitution.
Vice-President Alvaro Garcia Linares states, "Either we now consolidate the new state…with the new dominant forces behind us, or we will move backwards and the old forces will again predominate." A leading trade union leader, Edgar Patana, put it bluntly: "The final battle has begun, and the people are prepared for it."
For over a year the oligarchy centered in the eastern city of Santa Cruz has conspired to frustrate the efforts of the Constituent Assembly in which the governing party, the Movement Toward Socialism (MAS), and its allies hold 60 percent of the seats. First the right wing parties in the Assembly, led by Podemos, insisted that a two-thirds vote was needed even for committees to approve the different sections of the new constitution.
When the opposition was overruled on this point, the oligarchy then won allies in the city of Sucre, where the Constituent Assembly is being held, by asserting that the executive and congressional branches of government should be moved from La Paz to Sucre, which used to be the center of government until the late nineteenth century. This was also a racial strategy as La Paz and its sister city El Alto are at the heart of the country's majority Indian population that support Morales and mobilized in 2003 to topple an oligarchic president in La Paz who murdered Indian demonstrators in the streets.
In Sucre in recent months right wing militants have menaced and assaulted delegates of MAS, including Silvia Lazarte, the Assembly's indigenous women president. The Assembly has been effectively prevented from functioning since August 15.
Then in a move to more equitably redistribute the country growing oil and gas revenues, Morales in mid-October declared that a retirement pension equal to the minimum wage would be extended to all Bolivians that would come directly out of a special hydrocarbon fund. Morales simultaneously cut the payments from the fund that go to municipal governments like Santa Cruz with no congressional oversight. This caused an uproar in the Media Luna (Half Moon) region, comprised of the department of Santa Cruz and allied departments, with many of the business interests of the country threatening to create shortages and sew economic chaos by withholding their produce from the market.
Three hundred peasants, who came to Sucre last week to protect the Assembly members in its efforts to reconvene, were violently expelled from their sleeping quarters at the Pedagogical Institute by right wing students and Lazarte was prevented from convening the Assembly. Then Morales moved the Assembly meeting site to an old castle on the outskirts of Sucre that also serves as a military school and barracks. The head of the armed forces, General Wilfredo Vargas, backed the meeting of the Assembly at the castle, saying "it has to meet to continue …to modernize the state in all its features."
Then Vargas in a swipe at one of the regional political leaders allied with the Media Luna who claimed that Cuban and Venezuelan military units where in the country, declared: "No information exists of such units. And if it were the case, they are military units of the State and as part of the State they represent the Bolivian people."
The Bush administration is also jumping into the fray. Earlier this year Morales denounced that US backed agencies and non-governmental organizations that are providing direct support to right-wing political parties and allied institutions, ordering that all such funding would now be channeled directly through the government. Then at the recent Ibero-American Summit in Santiago Chile, Morales declared that "while we are trying to change Bolivia…small groups of the oligarchy are conspiring in alliance with the representative of the government of the United States," referring to the US ambassador to Bolivia, Philip Goldberg. To support his claims a photo was shown of Goldberg in Santa Cruz with a leading right wing business magnet and a well known Colombian narco-trafficker, who had been detained by the local police.
On November 15, the US State Department spokesperson, Sean McCormick, responded by demanding that Morales stop launching "false" and "unfounded" allegations of conspiracy by the ambassador. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called the Bolivian ambassador in Washington to deliver the same tough message.
The delegates of the right wing parties led by Podemos boycotted the meetings at the castle, declaring that the Assembly is "illegal." On Friday 139 of the 255 Assembly members met and approved the broad outlines of a new constitution to carry out the reforms championed by Morales and the country's social movements. The next step is for the Assembly to adopt the specific clauses and content of the constitution.
But before that process could begin, the opposition in Sucre, led mainly by students and young people, violently took over all the major public buildings using dynamite and Molotov coctails, demanding the resignation of "the shitty Indian Morales." Parts of the city were in flames as the members of the Assembly abandoned the castle on Saturday, and by Sunday rioting mobs controlled Sucre, forcing the police to retreat to the mining town of Potosi, two hours away. Three people, including one policemen, are dead, with hundreds injured. The right wing and the business organizations in Santa Cruz and allied departments are threatening to declare autonomy and even talking of cession.
"We are at a national impasse" says Manuel Urisote, a political analyst and director of the Land Foundation, an independent research center in La Paz. "The right wing led by the Santa Cruz oligarchy is in open rebellion, but Morales, the Movement Towards Socialism and the popular movements will not back down. The military is supporting the president. As a national institution it intends to maintain the territorial integrity of Bolivia and it will not accept decrees of cession by Santa Cruz."
Roger Burbach is director of the Center for the Study of the Americas (CENSA). (http://globalalternatives.org) His most recent article is, "Ecuador's Popular Revolt: Forging a New Nation," NACLA's Report on the Americas, Sept.-Oct., 2007. He is a Visiting Scholar at the University of California, Berkeley.
Copyright Roger Burbach, globalalternatives.org, 2007
© Copyright 2005-2007 GlobalResearch.ca
Moonraven, goot posts.
I hope that I do not anger anyone by my words that is not my intent. Think of it this way if you can. As Indigenous Americans we view the world through Spirit. As non-indigenous Americans your world view is through Science. It is the scientific world view that has brought us to the brink of extinction. The Indigenous world view existed from 12,000 to 30,000 years on this continent before the introduction of Euro's in 1492. In 1491 the Americas had a greater population than Europe. Our cities were larger in some cases than Paris. The wheel was invented here. Medicine and Astornomy were studied and applied here within the understandings of Spirit. Agriculture was thriving here and the Milpa garden, corn, beans, and squash grew in harmony and provided all the nutrients needed for healthy human existance.
So it is important to realize that after only a few hundred years Euro/American Civilization is crumbling. It is also important to recognize that evan after the worst genocide in the world in the last 500 years and where 98% of American Indians perished in the genocide, we are still here. We are still here after 30,000 years.
Now, should this not ring a bell in your minds?
And how would we feel now if we had no term limits?
Its fascinating that the reason the US has term limits, at least on how long a President could stay in office, is because the right and the corporations were so stunned that FDR could keep winning re-election.
The interesting point is that this could be voted down, and Chavez accepted that. To me, that alone says it Venezuela has a very strong and well functioning democracy. The very fact that this was defeated is the strongest blow to all the corporate propaganda that says Chavez is a dictator that I can think of.
SOMETHING WRONG WITH CUBA
Hope you have been there and spent some time talking to the people on the street as I have over a dozen times..You know what the Cuban joke is about their governmental
system.
What are the 3 greatest things about Cuba.
1. Great universal education
2. Great sports program
3. Great medical system
What are the 3 worse things
1. Breakfast
2. Lunch
3 Dinner
Do you know that with all the fertile land that Cuba has it imports the majority of its fruits and vegetables from Jamaica.
Drive down the 4 lane American built highways and maybe see another car in 30 minutes. People run out of hiding when you go by to try to sell you some fish or fruit. If you catch a fish it belongs to the Government, and if you don't give it to the big trouble.
I could go on and on, there is some good in Cuba, but my feeling and experience from the people on the ground is that when Castro finally dies Cuba is going to flop 180 degrees, that is what I heard and I tried to speak to as many people in as many locations and positions as I could
What I'd like to know about the Venezuelan referendum and haven't been able to find out is why all the questions appeared on one ballot. Advocates of referendum measures usually put them up one at a time on the theory that they have a better chance of passage. With multiple questions on the ballot, an objection to one measure becomes a vote against all. Seems like many of the reforms would have passed if they'd been voted on one at a time. Why didn't Venezuela do that?
moonraven,
I really enjoyed reading what you said about Chavez, and you are always a good information source with regard to issues regarding Central and South America. So I hate to take this one more step away from the thread, but you responded so I feel compelled.
The comfortable and secure cocoon that human civilization has provided allows us to view other species and the world in general as something gentle and pleasing, and in this pleasant atmosphere we can easily form mental bonds with those nonthreatening other species (all of nature has become a sort of zoo). But those bonds are dependent on our cocoon that is completely dependent on the human race. Take away that cocoon and one immediately falls several steps in Maslow's hierarchy, as one would have not nearly as much interest in the survival of other species as in one's next meal.
The connection to the human race is hard and self-reinforcing. The connections to other species are weak and are dependent on the continued existence of the human race.
Entonces, disculpame porfavor, compañera.
iammyself:
Just noticed as skimmed back over the thread that you are under the mistaken impression that I am male.
I am very definitely female.
My final comment for the day: If humanity is our mother we were doomed from the start.
kivals,
It's not a question of hostility.
Our species has brought the planet to the brink of meltdown--in fact, it's already melting even as I type this.
It's a simple confronting of reality.
Plenty of species who were NOT destructive have become extinct.
I see no reason whatsoever that the one species who has created the conditions for its own extiction--and the extinction of other species--should be allowed to escape.
I am certainly hostile to SOME members of our species.
But I fail to see that that is to the point of this thread.
"Those folks who give some serious attention to the Maya-Hopi prophecies–among whom are both Chávez and this poster–have had a real sense of urgency about creating a new system."
I for one feel this urgency and have great hope for the Bolivarian movement. However, maybe the lens I'm looking through is clouded by the situation here. That's what I'm afraid may happen there, if it is derailed.
Lorax,
The US has term limits.
Those limits would not stop Bush from perpetrating another coup next year and declaring a continuation of his government.
The Bushes of history DO represent a certain Spirit of the Time--in Hegelian terms--whether you like it or not.
There is no foolproof way of saving folks from their baser selves.
'"We are at a national impasse" says Manuel Urisote, a political analyst and director of the Land Foundation, an independent research center in La Paz. "The right wing led by the Santa Cruz oligarchy is in open rebellion, but Morales, the Movement Towards Socialism and the popular movements will not back down.'
The Right Wing is in rebellion in the US too, but they use the military and the courts to do their bidding.
"Humanity is our mother, not the earth. The earth is a rock."
That was a little harsh, kivals. Earth was seen as our mother long before our ancestors ever figured out that they could plant and grow things in her. I think those who figured out the right balance deserve some respect.
My point about term limits is thus:
Let's assume for a second that England (or France or Italy)got bush instead of America. With no term limits in place to stop him, he would rule the country for the rest of his natural lifetime. (Through rigged elections and fear mongering) As the years continued, the country would gradually abandon it's Constitution and become a fascist neo-religious state similar to Nazi Germany in 1943. Neighboring countries would be in danger of being attacked. Please observe how much damage bush has done to America even with our term limits in place. I shudder to imagine what it would be like if we didn't have them.
I feel that without term limits, eventually a "bush" will rise in that country and destroy it's democracy.
I think this thread is starting to come unglued.
No one could seriously consider defending George Bush as an example of a democratic leader--and I don't think anyone IS defending him.
Those folks who give some serious attention to the Maya-Hopi prophecies--among whom are both Chávez and this poster--have had a real sense of urgency about creating a new system. It would have helped for this referendum to pass.
I believe that Chávez is still optimistic that a critical mass of new consciousness can and will be created in time.
I am not really that optimistic.
moonraven,
I love your posts except for your frequent expressions of hostility to the human race, and your seeming embrace of extinction (obviously because of frustration). If you are so hostile to the human race, you should support Bush and Cheney as they are your best bets to end it.
If any of us were left on earth without other humans, we would soon find that the other residents, e.g. bugs, beasts, and bacteria, were not so cuddly, friendly, and loving after all, and we would likely face a Hobbesian reality where life is nasty, brutish, and short. Humanity is our mother, not the earth. The earth is a rock.
I'm sure the US CIA was busy down south prior to this election.
And i don't care. US meddling in South and Central America is
not exactly new. What is new is a powerful leader of an oil rich
South American country bowing to the will of his people. In the same
situation, if it had occurred in the US, George w. would have just added
a signing statement to the election results stating that he wouldn't
abide by the results because of reasons of national security.
The real beauty of this article is that Mr. Chavez shows that there are
still leaders out there who operate out of integrity even if it's not in their
own short term political interests. I'd swap Hugo for george in a heartbeat.
Want change, first be the change.