One-Thousand-Twenty-Four-Bit Heavily Encrypted Opinions
Hey everyone,
As some of you may have heard (through either some reputable news source, or maybe perhaps through your local town douchebags blog), the National Assembly of Venezuela, which acts as the legislative branch there, has recently had a referndum pass by a close 54% vote that would allow the president to run for unlimited terms, and if elected, be able to serve them. Also, a presidential term in Venezuela is 6 years. What fools they are, truly, and pathetic wielders of democracy, right? I know.
For those who haven't chosen to go to school, either because they're too cool for it and can compensate by formulating their separate but equal opinions right out of thin air, or because they feel that once you sit in a chair with a desk attached to it, you're automatically bombarded with irreversible and unresistable mind control rays thast change you as a person in your very core, 4% is only a hair above being completely split down the middle (50%), so I'd say it was somewhat of a close vote. The Yay's were 6 million while the Nay's were 5 million
Now, in order to know why you may or may not have an opinion on this, you should be informed as to the nature of Venezuela's democracy. The president of Venezuela is Hugo Chavez. He was elected in 1998 by popular vote. He ran on a platform of three basic pledges. First, Chávez promised that he would begin his presidency by abolishing Venezuela's old political system, puntofijismo, and opening up political power to independent and third parties. Second, Chávez promised to end corruption. Third, Chávez promised to eradicate poverty in Venezuela.
After Chavez's victory, a constitution was drawn up and ratified for the country and there in lies the "Bolivarian Revolution " of Venezuela, or The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, as it is currently named.
Anyway, this referendum was actually an alteration of the constitution repealing the limit of terms an elected official may serve.
Now, personally, I've been up all night realyl trying to decide where I stand on the issue. You see, Chavez seems to be the only one who cares about the poor, disenfranchised, and unfortunate people of his country. He claims that he hopes to lift them from their poverty and ashes into a better place. Of course I'm not so naive as to imagine he's succeeding and loved by everyone.
On the contrary, there are those who are sick of Chavez, and believe that he's using this government as his own personal vehicle to success and wealth as a dictator guising himself as a democratic champion. On 31 January 2007, the National Assembly approved an enabling act granting President Hugo Chávez the power to rule by decree for 18 months. He plans to continue his Bolivarian Revolution, enacting economic and social changes. He has said he wants to nationalize key sectors of the economy. Chávez, who was beginning a fresh six-year term, says the legislation will be the start of a new era of "maximum revolution" during which he will consolidate Venezuela's transformation into a socialist society. His critics, however, are calling it a radical lurch toward authoritarianism by a leader with unchecked power. You can be on either side of this, which is generally what the commenting section below is for... Don't think that Chavez is the first leader of Venezuela to be given this decree. He is not and he wil not be the last.
Venezuela is known to be one of the most urbanized countries of South America, so we're not talking about the worst case situation here, and although I'm not 100% (which for those of you, again, too burdened by just living to get an education is all the way) sure, I think it's possible that Chavez could be held responsible for some of this prosperity.
The government, being a Republic that has a president that was elected "by the people," insomuch as any one man is elected, "by the people," is looking to create a natiowide healthcare service that would be free of charge. He also intends to nationalize Venezuela's telecommunications and power industries and end foreign ownership of oil refineries. This sounds like a great thing for Venezuela, and it does seem that Chavez is capable of doing good.
Just like any coin, there are atleast two sides to any issue. The government banned 300 candidates from the local elections that were scheduled for November 23, 2008. This has been criticized as blatantly violating the Venezuelan constitution and the Inter-American Democratic Charter of the Organization of American States, which says that candidates cannot be barred from elections unless they are convicted of crimes. The country's Supreme Court, appointed by the government several years ago, ratified the ban. I suppose, once you've begun a revolution, you don't quit until you've finished the job? I don't know.
What I do know, or think I know, is that when someone speaks of unlimited terms for representatives or senators, there are no outcires of injustice and there are no pickets. Once a president gets the approval for unlimited terms, well, it seems everyone loses their minds. Think about this. Suppose we didn't have our term limitation, which only began with FDR anyway, and Reagan won his third term in 1988. You may disagree, but I don't think that this is so ridiculous that it couldn't be supposed. I would say that Reagan would have stepped down in the late 90's as his mind gave out and Bush would have taken over for the rest of that term. Clinton then, would have ran for the 1996 election and won, as he did, then, could have been able to run his second term for 2000, which he would have won as well. This could have meant not having Bush in the White House, which would have avoided the Iraq war entirely, and not allowed our economy to be where it is today, in the shitter.
After thinking about all of this, I think I would go on the record as saying that just because you put a term limit on the position of the presidency doesn't mean you're treating democracy better than anyone else, nor are you keeping it in the hands of the most capable (just, fair, whatever) most of the time, or even at all. I'm not really trying to derive whether or not I like Chavez asa leader. That would be unfair because all I have to go upon is hearsay and reference that I cannot validate. For this reason, I stay to the topic of simply, whether or not this is a democratic action for Venezuela to take. I believe that it is and I look forward to seeing the next outcome of their 2012 presedential elections.
Anyone else have any opinions on the situation in Venezuela? All in all, I'd say Venezuela is quite democratic in it's current manifestation.
-Matt F.
As some of you may have heard (through either some reputable news source, or maybe perhaps through your local town douchebags blog), the National Assembly of Venezuela, which acts as the legislative branch there, has recently had a referndum pass by a close 54% vote that would allow the president to run for unlimited terms, and if elected, be able to serve them. Also, a presidential term in Venezuela is 6 years. What fools they are, truly, and pathetic wielders of democracy, right? I know.
For those who haven't chosen to go to school, either because they're too cool for it and can compensate by formulating their separate but equal opinions right out of thin air, or because they feel that once you sit in a chair with a desk attached to it, you're automatically bombarded with irreversible and unresistable mind control rays thast change you as a person in your very core, 4% is only a hair above being completely split down the middle (50%), so I'd say it was somewhat of a close vote. The Yay's were 6 million while the Nay's were 5 million
Now, in order to know why you may or may not have an opinion on this, you should be informed as to the nature of Venezuela's democracy. The president of Venezuela is Hugo Chavez. He was elected in 1998 by popular vote. He ran on a platform of three basic pledges. First, Chávez promised that he would begin his presidency by abolishing Venezuela's old political system, puntofijismo, and opening up political power to independent and third parties. Second, Chávez promised to end corruption. Third, Chávez promised to eradicate poverty in Venezuela.
After Chavez's victory, a constitution was drawn up and ratified for the country and there in lies the "Bolivarian Revolution " of Venezuela, or The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, as it is currently named.
Anyway, this referendum was actually an alteration of the constitution repealing the limit of terms an elected official may serve.
Now, personally, I've been up all night realyl trying to decide where I stand on the issue. You see, Chavez seems to be the only one who cares about the poor, disenfranchised, and unfortunate people of his country. He claims that he hopes to lift them from their poverty and ashes into a better place. Of course I'm not so naive as to imagine he's succeeding and loved by everyone.
On the contrary, there are those who are sick of Chavez, and believe that he's using this government as his own personal vehicle to success and wealth as a dictator guising himself as a democratic champion. On 31 January 2007, the National Assembly approved an enabling act granting President Hugo Chávez the power to rule by decree for 18 months. He plans to continue his Bolivarian Revolution, enacting economic and social changes. He has said he wants to nationalize key sectors of the economy. Chávez, who was beginning a fresh six-year term, says the legislation will be the start of a new era of "maximum revolution" during which he will consolidate Venezuela's transformation into a socialist society. His critics, however, are calling it a radical lurch toward authoritarianism by a leader with unchecked power. You can be on either side of this, which is generally what the commenting section below is for... Don't think that Chavez is the first leader of Venezuela to be given this decree. He is not and he wil not be the last.
Venezuela is known to be one of the most urbanized countries of South America, so we're not talking about the worst case situation here, and although I'm not 100% (which for those of you, again, too burdened by just living to get an education is all the way) sure, I think it's possible that Chavez could be held responsible for some of this prosperity.
The government, being a Republic that has a president that was elected "by the people," insomuch as any one man is elected, "by the people," is looking to create a natiowide healthcare service that would be free of charge. He also intends to nationalize Venezuela's telecommunications and power industries and end foreign ownership of oil refineries. This sounds like a great thing for Venezuela, and it does seem that Chavez is capable of doing good.
Just like any coin, there are atleast two sides to any issue. The government banned 300 candidates from the local elections that were scheduled for November 23, 2008. This has been criticized as blatantly violating the Venezuelan constitution and the Inter-American Democratic Charter of the Organization of American States, which says that candidates cannot be barred from elections unless they are convicted of crimes. The country's Supreme Court, appointed by the government several years ago, ratified the ban. I suppose, once you've begun a revolution, you don't quit until you've finished the job? I don't know.
What I do know, or think I know, is that when someone speaks of unlimited terms for representatives or senators, there are no outcires of injustice and there are no pickets. Once a president gets the approval for unlimited terms, well, it seems everyone loses their minds. Think about this. Suppose we didn't have our term limitation, which only began with FDR anyway, and Reagan won his third term in 1988. You may disagree, but I don't think that this is so ridiculous that it couldn't be supposed. I would say that Reagan would have stepped down in the late 90's as his mind gave out and Bush would have taken over for the rest of that term. Clinton then, would have ran for the 1996 election and won, as he did, then, could have been able to run his second term for 2000, which he would have won as well. This could have meant not having Bush in the White House, which would have avoided the Iraq war entirely, and not allowed our economy to be where it is today, in the shitter.
After thinking about all of this, I think I would go on the record as saying that just because you put a term limit on the position of the presidency doesn't mean you're treating democracy better than anyone else, nor are you keeping it in the hands of the most capable (just, fair, whatever) most of the time, or even at all. I'm not really trying to derive whether or not I like Chavez asa leader. That would be unfair because all I have to go upon is hearsay and reference that I cannot validate. For this reason, I stay to the topic of simply, whether or not this is a democratic action for Venezuela to take. I believe that it is and I look forward to seeing the next outcome of their 2012 presedential elections.
Anyone else have any opinions on the situation in Venezuela? All in all, I'd say Venezuela is quite democratic in it's current manifestation.
-Matt F.