Castro's not really dead, although most likely dying, despite his TV cameo appearance.
Chavez's star, however, is in the ascendance, and expanding fast. He's the new Castro, with a bigger field to play on than Castro ever had: Venezuela.
Chavez has set the stage by taking on greatly expanded powers to nationalize Venezuela's industries as part of his campaign to "maximize socialism" in Venezuela. He plans to use his newly acquired powers to nationalize and/or control telecommunications, electricity, the oil and gas industry, and:
....dictate unspecified measures to transform state institutions; reform banking, tax, insurance and financial regulations; decide on security and defense matters such as gun regulations and military organization; and "adapt" legislation to ensure "the equal distribution of wealth" as part of a new "social and economic model."
Okey dokey; that's democracy, I guess. After all, as his supporters say [italics mine], "Socialism is democracy," and, "We want to impose the dictatorship of a true democracy and 'power to the people'" (now, just where have we heard that last phrase before?)
I haven't followed every in and out of Chavez's rise to power and his successful grab at more power, but I am under the distinct impression it was done with the appearance of following the rules of democracy.
You might think that, as a neocon, I champion democracy in all its guises. But the type of democracy I support (and I actually prefer a republic, but we'll leave that aside for the moment) is one that includes a constitution that explicitly protects freedoms and individual rights, and features a system by which it is extremely hard to change that constitution and expand a leader's powers as Chavez has done.
If you read the Reuters article carefully, you'll note that Chavez gained his expanded powers through a vote by Venezuela's Congress, which is at present overwhelmingly composed of his supporters. This unanimity was gained because the opposition boycotted the last election, held in 2005.
Why? Why would the opposition boycott the election of a man they knew was bent on becoming a socialist dictator? This seems so counterproductive that it's obvious there's much more behind it. The often-criticized Wikipedia has a lot to say on the matter. The opposition was initially afraid that fingerprint scanners would be used to match voters with results, and even though the scanners were removed the boycott proceeded. Chavez's supporters say that the boycott reflected the fact that the opposition knew it was sunk; others say the opposition distrusted and greatly feared Chavez and his crew.
At any rate, the boycott enabled Chavez to attain--between his own party and allied parties--virtually 100% control of Congress, far more than the 2/3 it would need to amend the Constitution. One thing appears true: the election was controlled by a National Election Council totally sympathetic to Chavez, and the opposition perceived that, even if they participated, the voting would be rigged.
The entire process points out the utmost--and I mean utmost--importance of guarantees against such usurption of powers (which, by the way, Hitler used, as well, in his ascendance to becoming Fuehrer; Germany had a similar clause that allowed dictatorial powers to be given a leader by a 2/3 vote of the Reichstag, which Hitler then proceeded to abolish).
The United States, by the way, does not allow this dangerous and pernicious route to amending the Constitution (see this for our far more restrictive method). But that's not going to help Venezuela.
The AP adds some interesting facts about Chavez's plans:
Chavez...also has formed a commission to rewrite the constitution and expects to hold a referendum on the changes by the end of the year. Among the changes, Chavez has proposed doing away with presidential term limits to allow for indefinite re-election. Term limits currently bar him from running again in 2012.
No surprise, that. He's on his way to becoming President for Life, despite claims that it will all be oh-so-democratic. With the opposition silenced and frightened, the entire legislature in his pocket, and the path cleared for an indefinite reign, the picture seems very ominous indeed.
I've often thought about our own FDR's propensity to grab power by bending the rules, or at least tradition: the attempt to pack the Supreme Court, and his four Presidential terms. But he never changed the Constitution, he merely took advantage of its silence on certain subjects. Congress deflected his first effort, and the US Constitutional amendment process was used to change the law to fill in the gap on the second, by making the two-term limit explicit after FDR.
But back to Chavez. One possible limitation for his plans involves the fact that, paradoxically, most economies based primarily on oil don't seem to do all that well; they are very vulnerable, and in good times have no incentive to diversify, and at the moment oil prices are "softening." And, of course, socialist economies in general don't have a great track record.
Even if the Venezuelan economy ends up tanking, it's hard to see how these trends toward dictatorship can be easily reversed. Once such powers are given--especially when war is not the ostensible excuse--they are rarely taken away, except by the force of arms. That's why, traditionally, the military has been feared by dictators as rivals in such countries--they are often the only ones who can accomplish the removal of a dictator. Unfortunately, they sometimes replace one with another.
Venezuela is a country with a built-in weakness in addition to its social and economic problems: a Constitution that allows for the easy usurpation of basic checks and balances. How many other democracies are vulnerable in this way I don't know, although it would be an interesting thing to research. My guess is that it's quite a few.
[For some fascinating background and eloquent commentary on the Venezuelan situation, Daniel in Venezuela has been watching the downward spiral for quite some time. Take a look at his archives: see this, for example. And here's his description of the 2005 election; here he offers some background to it, and here is his take on how the public lost faith in the voting process in the buildup to the 2005 election.
Daniel's summary statement:
I have written the diary of Venezuela slow descent into authoritarianism, the slow erosion of our liberties, the takeover of the country by a military caste, the surrendering of our soul to our inner demons.]
[Cross-posted at neo-neocon.]
The full WSJ article can be found here
Sorry about that, I just read the guidelines now.
The full WSJ article can be found here
It's funny, how the American Left talks about Bush as a "dictator" yet seems to embrace Chavez who is one.
He's on his way to becoming President for Life, despite claims that it will all be oh-so-democratic.
If the majority continually vote him into power, I fail to see how that is a dictatorship. The reason Bush is seen as a "dictator" is because the collective that voted him into power are servants of the grand dictator, God Money.
Democracy is more than just having elections. Saddam had elections. What is typically meant by democracy is constitutional liberalism. Constitutionalism requires a respect for the rule of law and leaders that act as if they are subjects of the law. Chavez is one of the best examples of a leader who continually modifies the constitution, treating it as a tool of his own power and job security.
As to liberalism, well people who petitioned for a referendum on Chavez were blacklisted and prevented from obtaining government jobs, public assistance and visas. Not a small matter in a socialist economy.
""power to the people'" (now, just where have we heard that last phrase before?)"
John Lennon, circa 1972, I think.
I've been following some of the left blogs' reactions to this, and there is caution and skepticism being sounded there. Even some sharp criticism of Chavez. Overall, the tendency is to diminish the importance of what Chavez is doing - to paraphrase: "Chavez is scary, Bush is scary, and the corporate media is blowing this all out of proportion."
This is the sort of thing that separates the pantomime socialists of soft-core liberalism from the ideological socialists of the real left, the posers from the will-to-power types, and the nitwits from the Leninists. But the various socialist attitudes of the left are nothing but so many dead alien autopsies. The real harbinger for the left are the attitudes towards democracy that are revealed here. So far they seem to run the full gamut. For some, Chavez's anti-democratic behavior is a fatal objection, others are confused or unsure about the importance of democracy, and others claim that Chavez represents "true" democracy. And some make it clear that if the choice is between Democracy and Chavez, then Viva Chavez.
I don't know enough about Chavez to condemn or praise him but I do fancy the concepts behind socialism. I will have to disagree with you about for I think that elections are the core element of democracy. England doesn't have a constitution and it surely is considered a democracy.
Is it not our very own president that has the power to pardon anyone they see fit? Why doesn't water gate count when we speak of being above the law?
If Chavez is above the law, which I doubt, it is not a socialist democracy, it is an aristocracy. The truth that no one wants to hear is that democracies are only as strong as the intelligence of the majority. So long as Virgin births, American Idol and 72 virgins dominate the minds of the masses we are all in danger.
England has an uncodified constitution.
OK, so Chavez is the new Castro. So what shall we do about that?
With the original Castro, we imposed an economic embargo that had the effect of making Fidel Castro now the longest-serving Head of State in the world?
If Americans were still doing business in Cuba, and American tourists were going there spending money, and middle-class and upper-class Cubans were making money off that business, do you think that Castro would still be in power? I doubt it.
If you are worried about Chavez, think carefully about how to respond. Simple-minded moves against him may only make him stronger.
JTFR, I find Chavez's anti-democratic measures abhorrent, whether or not they are part of his inherent powers as Venezuelan Commander-in-Chief.
The entire process points out the utmost--and I mean utmost--importance of guarantees against such usurption of powers (which, by the way, Hitler used, as well, in his ascendance to becoming Fuehrer; Germany had a similar clause that allowed dictatorial powers to be given a leader by a 2/3 vote of the Reichstag, which Hitler then proceeded to abolish).
Hitler got the power because 32-37% of the Germans voted him AND because he carried out a Coup d'Etat: the Reichstag Fire
The United States, by the way, does not allow this dangerous and pernicious route to amending the Constitution
It might not matter: in Spain its happening something very similar to what is going on in Venezuela, even with the Right Wing Popular Party blocking any Constitutional Amendment in the Congress. How? It's quite simple: the Socialist party and its allies separtatist are promoting regional constitutions (such a State Constitution) that collide with the National. The conflict may last for decades and will not be solved without further amendments.
Kønig Hasemörder (#4)
If the majority continually vote him into power, I fail to see how that is a dictatorship.
Haven't you heard about "The Dictatorship of the Majority"?
Read Tocqueville
The reason Bush is seen as a "dictator" is because the collective that voted him into power are servants of the grand dictator, God Money.
And what has voted Chavez? Corruption based on petrodollars.
PD Shaw (#5)
I entirely agree.
Kønig Hasemörder (#8)
Is it not our very own president that has the power to pardon anyone they see fit?
That tool is provided in many Democracies to correct flagrant contradictions applying the law.
Why doesn't water gate count when we speak of being above the law?
I think it counted: Gerald Ford suffered a heavy loss of confidence because of that, and finally lost the elections. Nixon was forced to resign, the first president to do ever so. I think he also paid. What Ford did not want to see is American presidency institution suffering.
BTW, why you go back to Nixon when you have Socialist Zapatero covering up 3/11 and the MSM looking to the other side??
If Chavez is above the law, which I doubt, it is not a socialist democracy, it is an aristocracy.
(Applause) Congratulations, you have discovered Socialism and you have also realized why is so succesful in Europe: the basic structure was inherited from the Ancient Regime.
Don't you remember about the Soviet Nomenklatura ?
The truth that no one wants to hear is that democracies are only as strong as the intelligence of the majority.
Democracies are only strong if individual rights are preserved. Elections are simply a consequence of the fact that we all are, or should be, equals before the law.
Though PD Shaw (#5) diagnostic is very accurate, I think the prevailing problem in such arguments is that you live in Democracies that work so well, that you cannot imagine how things can go wrong.
You are lucky.