open Democracy News Analysis - the americas - Comments

George Washington on "Los Desaparecidos: rescuing real lives"

George Washington — Thu, 21 May 2009 16:17:00 +0100

I hate this stuff.

Personal Trainer on "After Bush: dealing with Hugo Chávez"

Personal Trainer — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 20:46:48 +0100

Obama is getting heat from the press for even shaking hands with Chávez. Would love to see what happens if he actually talks to him

virtok on "Hugo Chávez: yo, el supremo"

virtok — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 22:10:16 +0100

I meant to write "hours" instead of ours.

virtok on "Hugo Chávez: yo, el supremo"

virtok — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 19:10:08 +0100

BigC,

Coercion, intimidation and direct threats are not the exception under the current regime; it is the modus operandi of Chavez's government. I have many friends and family working for state owned companies and I know first hand that these people have to shout "patria socialismo o muerte" (fatherland, socialism or death) against their will when they are also forced to attend political assemblies at working ours. There is no proof that the electoral council is able to know how electors vote, but the government has squandered millions of dollars on intimidation campaigns that make voters believe that they will know how they voted. Chavez has suggested on countless speeches (that I suspect you have not seen) that they could find out how you voted, but then he backs up to say that it would be illegal to do so. This is a very vernacular way to intimidate voters, a very subtle but clear message. The voters, in fear of loosing their jobs or stop receiving their government stipends do not take a chance and vote for the “right” option. I personally know about ten stories like this. I also know people that have lost their jobs because of being considered “traitors” of the revolution because they were seen with the “wrong” people. I do my own extrapolation which can be little or far off from reality, but aside the numbers the fact that this is happening makes me sick anyway. Again, this is not the exception, is the way it is done on a regular basis, openly and shamelessly.

With regards to your suggestions that my statement about the abusiveness and incompetence of the government being exaggerated and that the proof is that Chavez enjoys a support from the majority, I have to say these are not mutually exclusive events. Based on my observations and the comparisons with previous Venezuelan governments, I consider this the most authoritarian, abusive and incompetent, by far, of the last 30 years. Needless to say, before Chavez there were a number of very incompetent and corrupt governments that ran the country. However, back then we had separation of powers (not perfect, but never violated the way Chavez does it now), we had a bi-cameral Congress (before Chavez’s constituent assembly of 1999 that was the denomination) that produced laws which lead to the construction of the Guri dam and the wonderful hydroelectric system that the country enjoys today, to name one of the many large infrastructure projects that were developed then, and they signed the decentralization law which gave powers to the regions which lead to an incredibly fast development of the different regions of my country. Chavez, instead, in the ten years in power does not have a single large infrastructure development to show, and he is furiously acting to eliminate the autonomy of the regions to go back to a centralized state where all the decisions are made by one person: him. Is he giving money to the poor? yes he is, single-handedly as he decides how the money of the taxpayers is spent without consulting anybody. There is no need for consulting, as he enjoys “special powers” granted by… his National Assembly. Is it bad per se that he “gives” money to the poor? No, it isn’t, per se.

I will give you some numbers about gasoline and gas oil in Venezuela. About 75% of the electricity in Venezuela is generated by hydropower. This is thanks to the prevision of the governments that preceded Chavez. That means that the other 25% is thermoelectric as Venezuela does not have nuclear, solar or wind power. All transportation of goods, which is done by truck, depends on either gasoline or gas oil. The whole economy is being subsidized by the stubborn subvention to gasoline (and that’s one of the many subsidies to the economy that I made reference to on one of my previous posts). The internal use of gasoline went from 16% of the total oil production in 2003 to 33% in 2008. Why? Because there are many more cars on the streets (you can call that an achievement) due to a booming economy (the oil prices kept going up throughout those last 5 years) and the fact that many more people can afford to pay for a car and the gasoline to run it (to fill up a tank of a Toyota Corolla costs less that $3). The other reason why the percentage has increased is because the total oil production has decreased under Chavez’s run PDVSA (remember that 18,000 workers were fired by Chavez himself on national TV, but after 5 years the total number of employees, which now are loyal to the regime for obvious reasons has doubled). If things keep going this way, the internal use of gas will keep increasing. As you can tell, this is absolutely unsustainable. But not only that, it is an absurd and unjust subsidy. Why don’t, for instance, sell the gasoline at international market price and use the revenue to build the best public transportation system in the world which would benefit, guess who, the poor that cannot afford a car anyway (even with a tank at $3) , and then you can subsidize the public transportation system if you want.

I will stop here for now.

BigC on "Hugo Chávez: yo, el supremo"

BigC — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 16:24:00 +0100

Virtok

There is so much documentation about [corruption] that if you want to get it you will find it. However, if you refuse to believe that this is the case, then that is a different issue.

It's not a case of refusing to believe it: more one of putting it into perspective. If you look at Transparancy International's 2007 report (http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/gcb/2007) you'll find that Venezula is perceived by it's population as one of the most corrupt countries in the world let alone South America. However this is purely subjective and is not surprising when you look at the fact that the Venezuelan press and media (in this authoritarian state) are almost unanimously anti-Chavez. When you look at most of the objective measures (eg who has actually paid a bribe in the last months) Venezuela seems to be around the regional norm.

Do about 50% of people still vote for Chavez? Yes, for one reason or another, although it is safe to say that about 25% of these people are coerced to vote for Chavez (or else they will pay the consequences, ergo loose their jobs, stop receiving money assitance from government, etc ...)

How exactly did this coercion take place? Midnight visits from shadowy and menacing figures? Quiet warnings that the ballot was not really secret? Or do you mean that they were told that tthe end of Chavez's regime would mean mass unemployment and the end of social security? Warning of the dire consequences of electing someone else is a stock election ploy everywhere.

The strike was succesfull in that it aglomerated hundreds of thousands of people around a common cause in response to an abusive, incompetent and irresponsible government.

But many more turned out in support of this "abusive, incompetent and irresponsible government". No? Otherwise how do you account for Chavez's survival of it?

Chavez uses money from oil revenues and subsidizes gasoline, to give an example, which costs about $0.25 to produce and sells it to everyone (rich and poor) at $0.06. This is completely unsustainable and makes the whole economy to be dependent on oil prices.

It's not unsustainable in itself. If enough oil is sold abroad then there could well be enough revenue to sustain it. I'm afraid I don't know the relevant figures. If the people of Venezuela decide that they would like their oil revenues spent differently (for example to pay for luxury goods for the rich or on expensive armaments for the US) then they need to elect someone else.

virtok on "Hugo Chávez: yo, el supremo"

virtok — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 22:20:17 +0100

BigC: Thanks for not attacking me but my arguments. That is the base for a healthy and constructive debate. See my answers below.

Kleptocratic - Who exactly is doing the stealing and from whom is it being stolen?

There are tens of verifiable testimonies of high level corruption and blatant stealing of public funds from government oficials, let alone the massive corruption at the medium and low levels, starting from the most shameless and completelly open squandering of public resources being done by the president himself. There is so much documentation about this that if you want to get it you will find it. However, if you refuse to believe that this is the case, then that is a different issue.

Authoritarian militarism - Chavez must be one of the most democratically validated politicians in the history of the world!

Yes, he completely controls the electoral council as much as he now rules over the supreme court, the attorney general's office and the national assembly where 95% of the members belong to Chavez's party. Do about 50% of people still vote for Chavez? Yes, for one reason or another, although it is safe to say that about 25% of these people are coerced to vote for Chavez (or else they will pay the consequences, ergo loose their jobs, stop receiving money assitance from government, etc ...)

He has survived a business strike, a recall vote, a coup (which would have been authoritarian and militarist if it had succeeded) and several elections.

The strike was succesfull in that it aglomerated hundreds of thousands of people around a common cause in response to an abusive, incompetent and irresponsible government.

The coup was carried out by people that were as abusive and irresponsible as Chavez, and that in my opinion used the public discontentment as a way to take power by force. I do not know if they would have been authoritarian and militaristic, but I am certainly glad that they did not succed in taking power.

Widespread subsidies to the economy - eh? What is a subsidy to the economy? A contradiction in terms surely?
Chavez uses money from oil revenues and subsidizes gasoline, to give an example, which costs about $0.25 to produce and sells it to everyone (rich and poor) at $0.06. This is completely unsustainable and makes the whole economy to be dependent on oil prices. Chavez does this because he is affraid of the consequences of stopping his insane and utterly unsustainable policies. The collapse that will come in the Venezuelan economy will be the sole responsibility of Chavez.

By the way, I am not from the "right". Just for the record.

BigC on "Hugo Chávez: yo, el supremo"

BigC — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 19:23:00 +0100

May be a kleptocratic, authoritarian militarism based on widespread subsidies to the economy...?

Kleptocratic - Who exactly is doing the stealing and from whom is it being stolen?

Authoritarian militarism - Chavez must be one of the most democratically validated politicians in the history of the world! He has survived a business strike, a recall vote, a coup (which would have been authoritarian and militarist if it had succeeded) and several elections.

Widespread subsidies to the economy - eh? What is a subsidy to the economy? A contradiction in terms surely?

virtok on "Hugo Chávez: yo, el supremo"

virtok — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 18:50:10 +0100

I find that every comment in favor of chavismo, whether it comes for honest believers, from fanatics or from people that are paid to defend Chavez and his cronies, is often if not always oriented toward a disqualification of the other, rather than a discussion about the facts. If I say that Chavez has distroyed the principle of separation of power, the pro-Chavez person will usually come back with something like "you guys from the right cannot accept that Chavez is giving money to the poor". What the heck has that to do with the principle of separation of power? I see that again and again on every blog about the topic.
The true political left in Venezuela does not support Chavez. Besides, even when it evades any classic definition, the government of Chavez is anything but from the left. May be a kleptocratic, authoritarian militarism based on widespread subsidies to the economy...?

henry_n on "Mexico: living with drugs"

henry_n — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:18:11 +0000

The way I see things, this situation in Mexico will last for a long time. Organized crime is not that easy to defeat and Mexican people have to leave with it. Paradoxically Mexico is a poor country but you can also find the most influential rich drug lords hiding in their mansions. I pity all those Mexicans that have to live with that and that have no defense.
Henry, Drug Treatment Centers

DKML on "Jungle dumb: Mel Gibson’s Apocalypto"

DKML — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 21:28:16 +0000

Regardless of the symbolism of the film, which incidentially I thought was quite good, I don't get how any one in their right mind can infer anything about European imperialism in this film since the version I saw did not have any interaction with Europeans in it other than the Spanish rowing their boat towards the natives. Also, I don't think the portrayal of the Maya was some how demeaning. Yes, artistic license was taken with the facts but by and large Gibson portrayed them as real people with real dilemmas. I am very educated liberal and frankly I think that this sentimental emmotionally motivated analysis has no or little place in the public dialouge. If Kanishk Tharoor wants to bitch about real problems there are plenty to go around.

Hassan Samrhouni on "Barack Obama, Moroccan Ali, and me"

Hassan Samrhouni — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 07:08:53 +0000

Here is why It should be Morocco

What do you call an Arab, Muslim and African country who was the first to recognize the United States independence?
Kingdom of Morocco

What do you call a moderate, tolerating, peaceful country who is the strongest ally to the United States in the region?
Kingdom Of Morocco.
What do you call Obama's first speech in Morocco after his inauguration?
A historical moment.

The Moroccan Community is one of the fastest growing communities in the USA, Moroccan Americans Democrats, republicans and independents are inviting President Elect Obama to Make Morocco the home for his first foreign policy speech abroad.

Morocco is the ideal country to launch a message of peace to the Muslim world.
A peace loving country with a respected voice in the region, Morocco is a long time friend of the United States and would be proud to host President Elect Barack Obama in this historical event.

Morocco is well positioned to hold this great event .Besides the long standing ties and good relations Morocco has with the US for over 200 years, there are many other factors that would lead the new elected Leader, Mr. Barack Obama to give a speech in Morocco .

Morocco enjoys political stability, a stability that is continuously strengthened as Morocco builds a modern democracy in the spirit of freedom, openness and tolerance.

Morocco is also well positioned as a Western ally in the global war on terror.

Morocco offers a rich and widely diversified potential as it is strategically located on both the Mediterranean Sea and Atlantic Ocean, within 7 miles from Europe and serves as a gateway to both Africa and the Arab world. The diversity of Amazigh, Arabs, and Jews, who have lived side by side for centuries, as well as its close ties to Europe, has made Morocco a different country than many of its neighbors.

Mr. President Elects Obama, please accept our invitation. Not only do we support your vision for change, but we are ready to help you make it happen. Let this speech in Morocco be the start of a new day for America's relation with the Muslim World
www.obamatospeakinmorocco.com/home/
Hassan Samrhouni
Founder of Obama to Speak in Morocco

muthu22 on "South Dakota, sexual politics, and the American elections"

muthu22 — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 18:33:49 +0000

This is very nice article comments about

Normal
0

MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) }

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}

South Dakota,
sexual politics, and the American elections. its having very good
informations. its having lot of useful informations. its like good.

------------------

Muthu

south dakota drug rehab

prys miroy on "Argentina and the Malvinas, twenty-five years on"

prys miroy — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 13:55:10 +0100

I feel that the Malvinas must be returned to Argentina and our navy should instead be relocated to Tyneside, England where they can control what's happening over here especially with gangs of youth on the streets just like I saw in Saranda and Duessi, not be in foreign places.

porkfilledbullets on "Evo Morales: the unauthorised version"

porkfilledbullets — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 05:09:53 +0100

I think that all this socialist movements are so biased that anybody who thinks diferent is pro Oligarchy and invader to the Indian territory.
Morales is president to Bolivia not to a race of indians which he belongs, there are more than Aimaras in Bolivia you have Quechuas, Guaranies, Matacos, etc.
The point is that the Aimaras cultivate Coca leave in Cochabamba and have been the center of support for Morales since the very begining + DADDY Chavez with the PetroDollars, what do you call Chavez? is he better than the Olligarchs? he just want an stupid indian that he can control with his Pro-Bolivar with a touch of Castro comunist ideas.
Despite all that I go back to the point that Bolivia is not only Aimaras and Morales is not a president for all Bolivians, Listen to his speachs or you just read what you need?

Heriberto Vizcarra on "Mexico: living with drugs"

Heriberto Vizcarra — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 11:17:02 +0100

"Mexico has a 3,000-kilometre border with a power avid for narcotics".
Actually, it is the US side of that border the one with power avid for narcotics, or at least has been so.
Narcotics consumption has, recently, raised in Mexico, according to reports from authorities and non-profit organizations due to the stronger control of the U.S. over its border. Nevertheless, it has been the american addiction and buying power that has fed the organized crime in Mexico.