Gina-Marie CheesemanHugo Chavez: Saint or Sinner
December 4th 2007 02:55
Venezuelans narrowly rejected amendments to its constitution on Sunday, December 2, 2007. Supporters such as Angelo Rivero Santos, the deputy chief of mission of the Venezuelan embassy, say the amendments were “aimed at helping to speed the redistribution of national resources to Venezuela's neediest.” Critics like former government legislator Elias Matta say the referendum “aims to…impose totalitarianism.”
The Venezuelan congress debated and voted on the constitutional reforms for six months. The amendments would have only modified less than 20% of the constitution (69 out of 350 amendments).
According to Latin American expert James Petras, the amendment that would have allowed unlimited term elections is “in line with the practices of many parliamentary systems, as witnessed by the five terms in office of Australian Prime Minister Howard, the half century rule of Japan’s Liberal Democratic Party…the multi-term election of Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair in the UK among others.”
Petras points out that both free elections and the “separation of legislation, judicial, and executive powers will subject the president to periodic citizen review.”
Former Minister of Defense, General Raul Isaias Baduel resigned in July, and was against the amendments. He held a press conference on November 5 where only media opposed to Chavez were invited. He said the reforms would “seize power away from the people” and amount to a “total change in the content of the structure and fundamental principles of the constitution approved by the Venezuelan people in ‘99.”
“This proposal is definitively not a constitutional reform; it is not a partial revision, nor a replacement of some of its norms. It is a transformation of the state, and a different model for the country,” He went on to say. “I feel the moral obligation to continue traveling the country to explain my opinion… I'm also considering an international campaign,” he continued.
He called for the Venezuelan armed forces to “profoundly analyze” the amendments to articles 328 and 329 which would change the armed forces. He said not to underestimate “the capacity of Venezuelan military men to analyze and think.”
Article 328 stipulated that the Venezuelan armed forces are anti-imperialist, will never serve an oligarchy or foreign power, and military personnel are not political activists. Article 329 added the word “Bolivarian” to all military branches, and renames the reserves the “National Bolivarian Militia.”
An advisor to Chavez on the military denounced Baduel’s statements saying they amounted to a call for a coup. Two former defense ministers, General Jorge Luis Garcia Carneiro and Admiral Orlando Maniglia also rejected Baduel’s statements.
Vice President Jorge Rodriguez said, “General Baduel has said the same thing that the opposition has been saying... he is not saying anything new.”
More than 200 representatives from 13 European countries released a statement supporting Chavez’s constitutional reforms. “We believe that the lives of millions of Venezuelans have been transformed by the progressive social and democratic policies of Hugo Chávez's government,” the statement began. Calling the constitution Chavez introduced “one of the most democratic in the world,” the statement went on to site that illiteracy is “nearly eliminated,” poverty “halved,” free health care “extended to nearly 20 million people,” participation in education “more than doubled,” and unemployment is at an “historic low.”
The Bolivarian Revolution of Chavez
Chavez’s revolution is referred to as a “Bolivarian Revolution.” The Bolivarian Revolution is based on a socialist interpretation of 19th century South American general Simon Bolivar’s republicanism. Bolivar helped what are now the countries of Venezuela, Ecuador, Colombia, and Panama become independent of Spain.
There are six basic principles to Bolivarist republicanism: 1) Order as the most important necessity, 2) Tricameral legislature with varied and broad powers composed of a hereditary and professional Senate, body of Censors composing the state's “moral authority,” and a popularly elected legislative assembly, 3) A life-term executive supported by a strong, active cabinet or ministers, 4) A judicial system stripped of legislative powers, 5) A representative electoral system, and 6) Military autonomy.
Bolivar designed the Censors to act like the U.S. Supreme Court, although they are not a judicial body. In defense of a hereditary Senate, Bolivar said it would act as a “neutral body to protect the injured and disarm the offender ... [it] would arrest the thunderbolts of the government and would repel any violent popular reaction.”
The president would act as a figurehead, much like the British monarchy. Unlike the U.S., the courts would not be granted the power to challenge or revoke legislation, but would enforce the laws. Only the Tribunes are popularly elected according to Bolivarist republicanism, but the people would elect their local authorities. The military would not be regulated by civil authorities, but be a separate institution.
In 1999 the new Venezuelan constitution changed the country’s name to the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. The main tenets of Chavez’ brand of Bolivarianism include: anti-imperialism (economic and political sovereignty of Venezuela), participatory democracy, economic self-sufficiency, patriotic service by the populace, fair distribution of revenues from oil, and the elimination of corruption.
British scholar of Venezuelan politics, Julia Buxton, believes Chavez’s government “has brought marginalized and excluded people into the political process and democratized power.” One of the tenets of Chavez’s Bolivarian Revolution is endogenous development where the importance of local and diverse development is emphasized.
Robert Gott, the author of Hugo Chavez and the Bolivarian Revolution, when asked in an interview what he thinks Venezuela will look like in ten years, answered, “I think Venezuela will be a model for the rest of Latin America—a society that's come to terms with its black and indigenous poverty-stricken populations, and where those populations participate fully in the democratic process. Because it's a new generation it's a little open-ended as to what will happen, but Chavez recognizes that. He says “‘Let the people decide,’ and I think he means it.”
The conceptualization of Chavez’s endogenous development comes from Osvaldo Sunkel’s ideas in his work, Development from Within: Toward a Neo-structuralist Approach for Latin America” published in 1993, “which calls for an adaptation of import substitution policies where local development, adjusted to their specific conditions and employing local resources, equity and human development are prioritized.”
Part of Chavez’s endogenous development is the establishment of cooperatives. A reporter visiting Venezuela made the following observation: “Spaces for small enterprises, especially cooperatives, have been opened by a great number of local governments, public institutions, and enterprises, including Venezuela’s oil company, PDVSA. These agencies have established contract-bidding procedures that, while demanding competitive quality and costs, don’t discriminate against small enterprises and cooperatives. They have also encouraged workers employed by private contractors to form cooperatives.”
“The government's promotion of cooperatives is irresponsible and opportunistic because they have made it too easy to create a cooperative [the requirement of proving feasibility was eliminated] and they are being used for political agendas,” according to Camila Piñeiro Harnecker, who has done field research on Venezuelan cooperatives. “Most new cooperatives are doomed to failure… because they are dependent on state resources and lack management and administrative skills. They also… create cooperatives with members who don't share the proper values and corrupt them by providing easy credit and too much paternalistic aid.”
“So far there isn't a single example of a successful co-operative that I'm aware of,” says José Luis Betancourt, president of Venezuela’s leading business group, Fedecámaras.
In 1998, when Chavez became president, Venezuela only had 72 cooperatives. In August 2005, according to a report by the Superintendencia Nacional de Cooperativas (National Superintendence of Cooperatives—SUNACOOP) there were 83,769 cooperatives. Written into the constitution are the three roles of cooperatives: participation, state decentralization, and economic inclusion. The state is expected to serve as the protector for the cooperatives.
Fabricio Ojeda is one the largest cooperatives in Venezuela, and has 150 workers (all but one are women). It is at the Venezuela Advances textile plant and shoe factory. Poor residents of the surrounding community in Caracas are served by the cooperatives health and educational facilities.
“If the worker has a legitimate health problem, they can get time off and receive the same salary as everyone else. But at the end of the year our cooperative’s ‘surplus’ [profits] are divided up and distributed to each worker on the basis of the number of days worked,” says Alida Basida, one of the workers and a supervisors.
Chavez has created parallels (a parallel bank, health program, and education program have been created) in order to fight poverty and increase participatory democracy, according to supporters. America Vera-Zavala, Swedish politician and political writer of Chilean and Peruvian descent, believes the “parallels are working…the left-wing theory of creating parallel powers to break down and end the old order is here taken to new breathtaking heights.”
Alternatives to neo-liberalism
Chavez also created an alternative to free trade agreements (free trade is one of the main tenets of neo-liberalism) called Alternativa Bolivariana para las Américas (Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas) or by its acronym, ALBA. A document by the Venzuelan Banco de la Comercio Exterior (Bancoex), describes ALBA, “ALBA pushes for solidarity with the economically weakest countries, with the aim of achieving a free trade area in which all of its members benefit (a win-win alliance).”
Víctor Álvarez, Venezuela's chief trade negotiator, says that structural convergence funds must be created, “which would foresee funds for investment in infrastructure and basic services which support production. That integration agreements are turned into a real opportunity for our countries to increase their exports, and a growing investment in human capital.”
In a talk given at the National Meeting of Workers for the Recovery of Enterprises) in Caracas, Venezuela on October 22, 2005, author Michael Lebowitz stated that Venezuela has said no to neo-liberalism, and as a result the world is watching. “Venezuela is saying that there is an alternative to neo-liberalism, there is an alternative to imperialism, there is an alternative to capitalism.”
Lebowitz believes that worker management, or co-management, is an alternative to neo-liberalism. “The point of co-management is to put an end to capitalist exploitation and to create the potential for building a truly human society. When workers are no longer driven by the logic of capital to produce profits for capitalists, the whole nature of work can change.” Lebowitz also believes that democracy in production is necessary in order to have “the free development of all.”
The Venezuelan congress debated and voted on the constitutional reforms for six months. The amendments would have only modified less than 20% of the constitution (69 out of 350 amendments).
According to Latin American expert James Petras, the amendment that would have allowed unlimited term elections is “in line with the practices of many parliamentary systems, as witnessed by the five terms in office of Australian Prime Minister Howard, the half century rule of Japan’s Liberal Democratic Party…the multi-term election of Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair in the UK among others.”
Petras points out that both free elections and the “separation of legislation, judicial, and executive powers will subject the president to periodic citizen review.”
Former Minister of Defense, General Raul Isaias Baduel resigned in July, and was against the amendments. He held a press conference on November 5 where only media opposed to Chavez were invited. He said the reforms would “seize power away from the people” and amount to a “total change in the content of the structure and fundamental principles of the constitution approved by the Venezuelan people in ‘99.”
“This proposal is definitively not a constitutional reform; it is not a partial revision, nor a replacement of some of its norms. It is a transformation of the state, and a different model for the country,” He went on to say. “I feel the moral obligation to continue traveling the country to explain my opinion… I'm also considering an international campaign,” he continued.
He called for the Venezuelan armed forces to “profoundly analyze” the amendments to articles 328 and 329 which would change the armed forces. He said not to underestimate “the capacity of Venezuelan military men to analyze and think.”
Article 328 stipulated that the Venezuelan armed forces are anti-imperialist, will never serve an oligarchy or foreign power, and military personnel are not political activists. Article 329 added the word “Bolivarian” to all military branches, and renames the reserves the “National Bolivarian Militia.”
An advisor to Chavez on the military denounced Baduel’s statements saying they amounted to a call for a coup. Two former defense ministers, General Jorge Luis Garcia Carneiro and Admiral Orlando Maniglia also rejected Baduel’s statements.
Vice President Jorge Rodriguez said, “General Baduel has said the same thing that the opposition has been saying... he is not saying anything new.”
More than 200 representatives from 13 European countries released a statement supporting Chavez’s constitutional reforms. “We believe that the lives of millions of Venezuelans have been transformed by the progressive social and democratic policies of Hugo Chávez's government,” the statement began. Calling the constitution Chavez introduced “one of the most democratic in the world,” the statement went on to site that illiteracy is “nearly eliminated,” poverty “halved,” free health care “extended to nearly 20 million people,” participation in education “more than doubled,” and unemployment is at an “historic low.”
The Bolivarian Revolution of Chavez
Chavez’s revolution is referred to as a “Bolivarian Revolution.” The Bolivarian Revolution is based on a socialist interpretation of 19th century South American general Simon Bolivar’s republicanism. Bolivar helped what are now the countries of Venezuela, Ecuador, Colombia, and Panama become independent of Spain.
There are six basic principles to Bolivarist republicanism: 1) Order as the most important necessity, 2) Tricameral legislature with varied and broad powers composed of a hereditary and professional Senate, body of Censors composing the state's “moral authority,” and a popularly elected legislative assembly, 3) A life-term executive supported by a strong, active cabinet or ministers, 4) A judicial system stripped of legislative powers, 5) A representative electoral system, and 6) Military autonomy.
Bolivar designed the Censors to act like the U.S. Supreme Court, although they are not a judicial body. In defense of a hereditary Senate, Bolivar said it would act as a “neutral body to protect the injured and disarm the offender ... [it] would arrest the thunderbolts of the government and would repel any violent popular reaction.”
The president would act as a figurehead, much like the British monarchy. Unlike the U.S., the courts would not be granted the power to challenge or revoke legislation, but would enforce the laws. Only the Tribunes are popularly elected according to Bolivarist republicanism, but the people would elect their local authorities. The military would not be regulated by civil authorities, but be a separate institution.
In 1999 the new Venezuelan constitution changed the country’s name to the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. The main tenets of Chavez’ brand of Bolivarianism include: anti-imperialism (economic and political sovereignty of Venezuela), participatory democracy, economic self-sufficiency, patriotic service by the populace, fair distribution of revenues from oil, and the elimination of corruption.
British scholar of Venezuelan politics, Julia Buxton, believes Chavez’s government “has brought marginalized and excluded people into the political process and democratized power.” One of the tenets of Chavez’s Bolivarian Revolution is endogenous development where the importance of local and diverse development is emphasized.
Robert Gott, the author of Hugo Chavez and the Bolivarian Revolution, when asked in an interview what he thinks Venezuela will look like in ten years, answered, “I think Venezuela will be a model for the rest of Latin America—a society that's come to terms with its black and indigenous poverty-stricken populations, and where those populations participate fully in the democratic process. Because it's a new generation it's a little open-ended as to what will happen, but Chavez recognizes that. He says “‘Let the people decide,’ and I think he means it.”
The conceptualization of Chavez’s endogenous development comes from Osvaldo Sunkel’s ideas in his work, Development from Within: Toward a Neo-structuralist Approach for Latin America” published in 1993, “which calls for an adaptation of import substitution policies where local development, adjusted to their specific conditions and employing local resources, equity and human development are prioritized.”
Part of Chavez’s endogenous development is the establishment of cooperatives. A reporter visiting Venezuela made the following observation: “Spaces for small enterprises, especially cooperatives, have been opened by a great number of local governments, public institutions, and enterprises, including Venezuela’s oil company, PDVSA. These agencies have established contract-bidding procedures that, while demanding competitive quality and costs, don’t discriminate against small enterprises and cooperatives. They have also encouraged workers employed by private contractors to form cooperatives.”
“The government's promotion of cooperatives is irresponsible and opportunistic because they have made it too easy to create a cooperative [the requirement of proving feasibility was eliminated] and they are being used for political agendas,” according to Camila Piñeiro Harnecker, who has done field research on Venezuelan cooperatives. “Most new cooperatives are doomed to failure… because they are dependent on state resources and lack management and administrative skills. They also… create cooperatives with members who don't share the proper values and corrupt them by providing easy credit and too much paternalistic aid.”
“So far there isn't a single example of a successful co-operative that I'm aware of,” says José Luis Betancourt, president of Venezuela’s leading business group, Fedecámaras.
In 1998, when Chavez became president, Venezuela only had 72 cooperatives. In August 2005, according to a report by the Superintendencia Nacional de Cooperativas (National Superintendence of Cooperatives—SUNACOOP) there were 83,769 cooperatives. Written into the constitution are the three roles of cooperatives: participation, state decentralization, and economic inclusion. The state is expected to serve as the protector for the cooperatives.
Fabricio Ojeda is one the largest cooperatives in Venezuela, and has 150 workers (all but one are women). It is at the Venezuela Advances textile plant and shoe factory. Poor residents of the surrounding community in Caracas are served by the cooperatives health and educational facilities.
“If the worker has a legitimate health problem, they can get time off and receive the same salary as everyone else. But at the end of the year our cooperative’s ‘surplus’ [profits] are divided up and distributed to each worker on the basis of the number of days worked,” says Alida Basida, one of the workers and a supervisors.
Chavez has created parallels (a parallel bank, health program, and education program have been created) in order to fight poverty and increase participatory democracy, according to supporters. America Vera-Zavala, Swedish politician and political writer of Chilean and Peruvian descent, believes the “parallels are working…the left-wing theory of creating parallel powers to break down and end the old order is here taken to new breathtaking heights.”
Alternatives to neo-liberalism
Chavez also created an alternative to free trade agreements (free trade is one of the main tenets of neo-liberalism) called Alternativa Bolivariana para las Américas (Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas) or by its acronym, ALBA. A document by the Venzuelan Banco de la Comercio Exterior (Bancoex), describes ALBA, “ALBA pushes for solidarity with the economically weakest countries, with the aim of achieving a free trade area in which all of its members benefit (a win-win alliance).”
Víctor Álvarez, Venezuela's chief trade negotiator, says that structural convergence funds must be created, “which would foresee funds for investment in infrastructure and basic services which support production. That integration agreements are turned into a real opportunity for our countries to increase their exports, and a growing investment in human capital.”
In a talk given at the National Meeting of Workers for the Recovery of Enterprises) in Caracas, Venezuela on October 22, 2005, author Michael Lebowitz stated that Venezuela has said no to neo-liberalism, and as a result the world is watching. “Venezuela is saying that there is an alternative to neo-liberalism, there is an alternative to imperialism, there is an alternative to capitalism.”
Lebowitz believes that worker management, or co-management, is an alternative to neo-liberalism. “The point of co-management is to put an end to capitalist exploitation and to create the potential for building a truly human society. When workers are no longer driven by the logic of capital to produce profits for capitalists, the whole nature of work can change.” Lebowitz also believes that democracy in production is necessary in order to have “the free development of all.”
| 87 |
| Vote |
Shared on
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Harry
World Art
Sydney Diary
Personals
Video Games
Brisbane Diarystar
Films Found
Zoo Parent
Comment by Ahmed
techy.Bytes
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Qwerk
Cinema Three
He is not an extremist socialist, what he is however is extremely against helping foreign interests, none of his policies or ideals are 'extreme' in nature. The only extremes that exist are those of foreign interests particularly the US who have gone to extreme lengths to try and remove him from power and have all but failed.
That hasn't stopped with the propoganda against him, he's an 'extreme' socialist, a dictator, he abuses human rights and whatever else. None of which are true.
Comment by Brenton
Dr Spin
Tales From The Other Side
Downwrite
Blip Blog
Gadget Museum
All systems work, as long as they work.
Comment by JustOneTime