Venezuelans reject Chavez's bid for new powers

[875000]

CARACAS (Reuters) - Venezuelans have rejected President Hugo Chavez's bid to win new powers and run for re-election for decades to come in an unprecedented defeat that could slow his socialist revolution in the OPEC nation.

In a fiercely contested referendum on Sunday, voters said "No" to reforms that would have scrapped term limits on Chavez's rule, given him control over foreign currency reserves and boosted his powers to expropriate private property.

Election officials said early on Monday that the "No" camp had about 51 percent of the vote and the anti-U.S. president scored around 49 percent support.

Opposition celebrations immediately erupted throughout Caracas with caravans of activists cheering, honking horns and waving flags out of car windows.

Although he remains powerful and popular, it was Chavez's biggest vote blow since he swept to power in a 1998 election.

He quickly conceded defeat but insisted he would "continue in the battle to build socialism". He also said the reforms had failed "for now" and they were "still alive", suggesting he might try again to push them through later on.

Students, rights and business groups, opposition parties, the Roman Catholic Church, former political allies and even his usually loyal ex-wife all lined up against Chavez ahead of the referendum vote on Sunday.

They accused him of pushing the constitutional reforms to set up a dictatorship.

Enough voters also balked at giving more power to a firebrand leader who calls Cuban leader Fidel Castro his "father," capitalism an evil and himself "El Comandante."

Admired as a champion of the poor in city slums and rural villages, the 53-year-old Chavez has said he wants to rule until he dies.

He had warned before the vote that a defeat could sink his revolution and prompt him to think about a successor. Without a constitutional reform, he will have to step down in 2013. But he took a different stance after the defeat.

'NOT A DEFEAT'

"This is not a defeat, it is another 'for now'," he said, repeating a famous quote from 1992 when as a red-bereted paratrooper he went on national television and acknowledged his coup attempt had failed.

The referendum was a major victory for Venezuela's fragmented opposition, which had failed to beat Chavez in almost yearly votes or oust him in a brief coup in 2002, a national oil strike and a recall referendum.

The victory could embolden opposition leaders to try to block Chavez's plans to install what he calls "21st century socialism," which has involved nationalizing large areas of the economy in the No. 4 oil supplier to the United States.

"This should cause him to rethink the pace and scope of the changes he is seeking to impose on Venezuela," said Vinay Jawahar, an analyst at Princeton University.

"Whether this will happen, however, is unclear. Chavez could never be accused of not having grandiose, ambitious plans and might not be willing to let reality impinge on those."

Chavez still wields enormous power in a country he has pledged to turn into a socialist state. His supporters dominate Congress, the courts and election authorities.

Soldiers bark his slogan "homeland, socialism or death" when they snap their salutes. The state oil company spends more on social projects such as building homes than on exploration of some of the biggest deposits outside the Middle East.

Chavez had tried to make the referendum vote a black-and-white plebiscite on his rule and sought to rally his supporters with warnings that he was under attack from Washington and other foreign enemies.

http://www.reuters.com/article/wtMostRead/idUSN0235721220071203?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0

[Drew]

TheE must be weeping big salty tears that his hero can't stay in office for life.

Not that Chavez won't try anyway. Chavez is just so dumb, Putin, there's a smart dictator.

[Gan]

:clap:

For now... Chavez still has until 2013 to get another referendum passed. He has time.

[Parkbandit]

:clap:

For now... Chavez still has until 2013 to get another referendum passed. He has time.

Exactly. There is plenty of time for him to be 'elected' as President for life. He just needs more time to threaten and bribe the right people and he'll be their 'President' 4 life.

[Celephais]

Modern day hero!

[TheEschaton]

Uh, Chavez is Backlash's hero, not mine.

[Kefka]

Not exactly sure I understand the open hostility towards Chavez. The elections and this referendum were monitored by foreign observers including the Carter Center. Sounds fair enough to me. The term 'president for life' keeps getting thrown around for wanting to remove term limits? We had a similar system until FDR and many countries such as France, Australia, Japan and Italy have the same system. In the end, he would need to be voted back into power, which, according to yesterday's referendum, is anything but a lock. I keep hearing he's a dictator, but it sounds like democracy is alive and well in Venezuela.

[TheEschaton]

xtc?

[Celephais]

it sounds like democracy is alive and well in Venezuela.
You're going to regret saying that. This quote is now going to pop up in every venezuelan thread.

[Latrinsorm]

I keep hearing he's a dictatorWhat I kept hearing was that the proposed reforms would lead to him being a dictator. The aforementioned reforms "would have scrapped term limits on Chavez's rule, given him control over foreign currency reserves and boosted his powers to expropriate private property." That sounds like it's approaching a dictatorship to me.

[Kefka]

You're going to regret saying that. This quote is now going to pop up in every venezuelan thread.

LOL. I know, but I do want to understand the hostility instead of 'HE R DICTATERS' end of discussion.

[Tolwynn]

Threatening to deport foreigners that speak against him or his government, seeking to silence or shut down opposition media outlets, and shuttering private schools that might not support him or his government in their curriculum isn't doing much to counter the whole dictator image.

If Bush or Blair pulled stunts like that, there'd be rioting in the streets, yet somehow Chavez gets hailed as some kind of democratic revolutionary hero.

[Gan]

Before the vote Chavez was quoted as saying that if you're against the amendments then you were a 'traitor' to socialism and to Venezuela.

Well, looks like 51% of Venezuela is a traitor.

I still think that there's enough time to buy the vote before 2013 when his term is finally up for the last time. The options abound!

1. Another failed coup attempt.
2. Count errors, voting machine conspiracies.
3. National emergency, martial law.
4. National buy the vote where he drives around throwing money out of the car. (/purposeful exaggeration)

[Kefka]

Before the vote Chavez was quoted as saying that if you're against the amendments then you were a 'traitor' to socialism and to Venezuela.

Well, looks like 51% of Venezuela is a traitor.

I still think that there's enough time to buy the vote before 2013 when his term is finally up for the last time. The options abound!

1. Another failed coup attempt.
2. Count errors, voting machine conspiracies.
3. National emergency, martial law.
4. National buy the vote where he drives around throwing money out of the car. (/purposeful exaggeration)

Actually, he wasn't talking to the people of Venezuela. He was talking about members of his own party. He said they'd be traitors to the Bolivian movement.

[Hulkein]

Actually, he wasn't talking to the people of Venezuela. He was talking about members of his own party. He said they'd be traitors to the Bolivian movement.

You respond to that yet have no response to the several posts that have pointed to reasons why people might compare him to a dictator?

[Kembal]

He's a democratically elected leader seeking to become a dictator. This referendum would've pretty much gotten him there if it had won.

If he doesn't solve the food shortage and inflation problem in Venezula, he's never going to get this referendum passed. Of course, considering those problems are the direct result of his socialist economic policies, they're not going to get solved. (How the hell you have food shortages in an economy awash in petrodollars is beyond me. It takes a special kind of stupid to pull that off.)

BTW, I don't think there were foriegn observers (or at least, many of them) for this referendum, because it was held in a short time period.

And finally, speculation: If the U.S. had attempted to diplomatically meddle in Venezula (like, having the Ambassador say something) in regards to the referendum, it would've passed. Sometimes, less is more.

[Gan]

Actually, he wasn't talking to the people of Venezuela. He was talking about members of his own party. He said they'd be traitors to the Bolivian movement.

Actually you're wrong. There's even a thread with the actual article sourced. (see below for OP)


CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) - President Hugo Chavez warned his supporters on Friday that anyone voting against his proposed constitutional changes would be a "traitor," rallying his political base before a referendum that would let him seek unlimited re-election in 2012 and beyond.


Brandishing a little red book listing his desired 69 revisions to Venezuela's charter, Chavez exhorted his backers to redouble their efforts toward a victorious "yes" vote in the Dec. 2 ballot.

"He who says he supports Chavez but votes 'no' is a traitor, a true traitor," the president told an arena packed with red-clad supporters. "He's against me, against the revolution and against the people."

His speech followed the recent high-profile defection of his former Defense Minister Gen. Raul Baduel, a longtime ally who called the president's proposed reforms a "coup." Others have also broken with the Chavista movement in recent months, including politicians of the small left-leaning party Podemos.

Chavez's opponents accuse him of concentrating power and seeking to be president-for-life like his close friend Fidel Castro of Cuba. Chavez insists he will only stay on as long as Venezuelans continue to vote for him.
"If you don't approve (the referendum), maybe we'll have time for a parachute jump in five years," Chavez, a former paratrooper, told the crowd. "But if you wish—if you approve the referendum—I will stay as long as God wills! Until the last bone of my skeleton dries out!"

The proposed revisions would do away with presidential term limits, extend terms from six to seven years, let Chavez appoint regional vice presidents and eliminate Central Bank authority, among other changes.

Critics warn he would also have the power to shut down Venezuelan newspapers, television and radio stations by declaring a state of emergency, and the government could detain citizens without charges during such a period.

Chavez insists the reforms are meant to deepen democracy and give Venezuelans more of a voice in government, especially through neighborhood-based "communal" councils.

He said he plans to increase funding for the councils to 5 percent of his government's 2008 budget, or $3.2 billion, that will go toward neighborhood projects from public housing to road paving.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8T3M1P00&show_article=1

[Kefka]

Threatening to deport foreigners that speak against him or his government, seeking to silence or shut down opposition media outlets, and shuttering private schools that might not support him or his government in their curriculum isn't doing much to counter the whole dictator image.

If Bush or Blair pulled stunts like that, there'd be rioting in the streets, yet somehow Chavez gets hailed as some kind of democratic revolutionary hero.

I need a link for that. Haven't heard anything about deporting foreigners, but he did want to remove US diplomats, accusing them of being a CIA front. As far as the media goes, Chavez simply refused to renew their license to use government funded airwaves. Can you really say Bush or Blair would be as lenient towards these media outlets after encouraging and supporting a coup a la Rwanda?

[Kefka]

Actually you're wrong. There's even a thread with the actual article sourced. (see below for OP)

From the very article you posted:

"President Hugo Chavez warned his supporters on Friday"

Unless you think all of Venezuela supports him.

[Tolwynn]

For the foreigners:
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americas/07/23/venezuela.chavez.ap/index.html

And the schools:
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americas/09/17/chavez.venezuela.ap/index.html?eref=edition_americas

You can Google plenty more for cross-reference if you're so inclined.

As to the media outlets, how many U.S. newspapers, magazines, etc., that called for Bush's impeachment were closed by the U.S. government or Bush himself? I'll give you a hint, the number rhymes with socialist hero.

[Celephais]

Actually you're wrong. There's even a thread with the actual article sourced. (see below for OP)
... Yeah it looks Kefka is right, in that he specifically said those who say they support him but vote note are traitors, but it doesn't mean he didn't imply that those who don't even say they support him are well... not necessarly traitors, but just opposition (you can't really be a traitor to some thing you never supported).

[Atlanteax]

Well, when 2013 rolls around, Venezula will be broke and the citizens there will blame Chavez for bringing the country to financial ruin.

National Oil Company's oil production has been *consistently declining*.

Chavez was still able to Spend & Spend (and retain support of Poor/Mob) because Oil prices were *climbing*.

However, by 2013... a lot of Caspian Sea oil production will be flowing to the West, we should also see significantly more Oil out of Iraq than the 2 million bpd.

So declining oil production, *and* declining oil prices = Chavez unable to continue spending.

... particularly since oil revenue has *not* gone into exploration or increased production (at least, not in a meaningful manner, ever since the Western know-how was forced out).

.

I think Chazev fears the worse for his well-being (in the long-run ... when Venezula = broke), and so the best way to protect himself is to retain power as long as possible. Identifying himself with the Poor so that they are in support of him, would seem to be a prudent move as more and more of Venezula is destined to become poor.

[Kefka]

You respond to that yet have no response to the several posts that have pointed to reasons why people might compare him to a dictator?

Patience. I'm trying to educate myself by reading from multiple sources. I don't have a response yet. One of the mentioned items in the referendum sounds like eminent domain, which is enough to hate the referendum, but not enough for dictator status.

[Atlanteax]

Patience. I'm trying to educate myself by reading from multiple sources. I don't have a response yet. One of the mentioned items in the referendum sounds like eminent domain, which is enough to hate the referendum, but not enough for dictator status.

So in other words, you are conviently ignoring the past several years in Venezula.

[Kembal]

For the foreigners:
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americas/07/23/venezuela.chavez.ap/index.html

And the schools:
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americas/09/17/chavez.venezuela.ap/index.html?eref=edition_americas

You can Google plenty more for cross-reference if you're so inclined.

As to the media outlets, how many U.S. newspapers, magazines, etc., that called for Bush's impeachment were closed by the U.S. government or Bush himself? I'll give you a hint, the number rhymes with socialist hero.

Hmm. I think your point differs from Kefka's. Impeachment != coup.

[Kefka]

So in other words, you are conviently ignoring the past several years in Venezula.

The past according to whom? The poor and working class loves him. The rich hates him. I don't believe everything I read.

[Gan]

From the very article you posted:

"President Hugo Chavez warned his supporters on Friday"

Unless you think all of Venezuela supports him.


... Yeah it looks Kefka is right, in that he specifically said those who say they support him but vote note are traitors, but it doesn't mean he didn't imply that those who don't even say they support him are well... not necessarly traitors, but just opposition (you can't really be a traitor to some thing you never supported).

Eh I interpreted it differently.

:shrug:

Still doesnt change the fact that the guy's a loon.

[Parkbandit]

I'm not sure why you guys are getting on Kefka's case.. he's a loony liberal.. of course he will love Chavez.

I invite him and others like him to move there.

[Kefka]

I'm not sure why you guys are getting on Kefka's case.. he's a loony liberal.. of course he will love Chavez.

I invite him and others like him to move there.

:wow: Your debating skills are just full of win and awesome. :no:

[875000]

Not exactly sure I understand the open hostility towards Chavez. The elections and this referendum were monitored by foreign observers including the Carter Center. Sounds fair enough to me. The term 'president for life' keeps getting thrown around for wanting to remove term limits? We had a similar system until FDR and many countries such as France, Australia, Japan and Italy have the same system. In the end, he would need to be voted back into power, which, according to yesterday's referendum, is anything but a lock. I keep hearing he's a dictator, but it sounds like democracy is alive and well in Venezuela.

I'm assuming this question is sincere, so let me take a stab at addressing it ...

Why do people suspect Chavez is trying to install himself as a dictator?

Reason #1: Because he tried to do so in 1992. He failed. While it is possible that he learned from his mistakes and acquired a newfound respect for democracy, it is unlikely.


After an extended period of popular dissatisfaction and economic decline under the administration of President Carlos Andrés Pérez and the violent repression known as El Caracazo, Chávez made extensive preparations for a military coup d'état. Initially planned for December, Chávez delayed the MBR-200 coup until the early twilight hours of February 4, 1992. On that date, five army units under Chávez's command barreled into urban Caracas with the mission of assaulting and overwhelming key military and communications installations throughout the city, including the Miraflores presidential palace, the defense ministry, La Carlota military airport, and the Historical Museum. Chávez's ultimate goal was to intercept and take custody of Pérez, who was returning to Miraflores from an overseas trip.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Ch%C3%A1vez

Reason #2: People who know him well have openly stated that the referredum was an attempt for installing himself as dictator. These people include his ex-wife, prior supporters, and current friends. For example ...


Former military chief and longtime friend Raul Baduel broke with Chavez this week, urging voters to reject the proposed constitutional changes as a virtual "coup." Baduel also said he wouldn't rule out his own run for office, revealing divisions within the military that analysts say Chavez worries about constantly.

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN0235721220071203


Reason #3: The referendum was crammed with goodies that would have began to give him dictatorial powers. It would have given him control over the Central Bank, allowing him to ensure that money was handed off to supporters or used to bribe new ones. It also gave him the ability to suspend due process laws, giving him the ability to incarcerate opponents.


The amendment would eliminate the constitutional prohibition on suspending due process rights in states of emergency. Under Venezuela’s constitution, these rights include, among others: the right to the presumption of innocence and to a fair trial; the right to an attorney; the right against self-incrimination; the right of a defendant to know the charges and evidence against him; and the right against double jeopardy.

“This amendment, if approved, would allow President Chávez to invoke a state of emergency to justify suspending certain rights that are untouchable under international law,” said José Miguel Vivanco, Americas director at Human Rights Watch.

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2007/10/16/venezu17104.htm


Reason #4: Chavez has a history of threatening and retaliating against political opponents. You have already mentioned his actions against news agencies sympathetic to his opposition. He also has issued threats against other bloc of opponents.


Last week, Chavez threatened to expropriate companies that belonged to the largest business chamber in Venezuela, Fedecamaras, after the group urged Venezuelans to vote against the reform.

"When I saw and heard the president of Fedecamaras practically threatening us, that they'd do everything they have to do to avoid the reform's approval - well buddy, if you want to, go ahead, because I'm going to take away every business you have," Chavez said in a televised speech, according to the Canadian Press.

http://www.latinbusinesschronicle.com/app/article.aspx?id=1846

Additionally, it has been a long standing assertion that he has been secretly arming supporters to commit acts of violence against student groups, or at the very least sitting on his hands as his supporters resort to violence.


Chavez accused his opponents of resorting to "fascist violence" and seeking help from Washington and Venezuela's military. But he did not respond to allegations that his government armed the gunmen who attacked protesters.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/11/09/america/LA-GEN-Venezuela-Violence.php

I could go on and on. For example, most of his public comments cast this as a referrendum on him, as opposed to measures that were necessary to perpetuate democracy. He hangs out with people like Fidel Castro and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He tends to approach this elections using the "dictator's handbook,' where shortly before the vote he claims that outside parties -- usually the US, although Columbia and Spain have recently been added to the mix -- plan on interferring with the election and will attempt to assassinate him soon. But really, why belabor the point?

[Kefka]

I'm assuming this question is sincere, so let me take a stab at addressing it ...

Thank you... um... 875000? I'll have to read up on those links when I have the chance. It still doesn't really explain why he's going about things the way he is if dictator status is what he's really looking for. He's shown leniency towards those involved in the coup attempt against him. With the media, he's even gone as far as allowing their license to expire before rejecting it's renewal. Even the referendum went through the democratic process instead of being forced on the country. It's just hard to compare him to people like Saddam, Stalin and countless others when the worst he's done as president is make a few threats that even the opposition dismiss.

[875000]

Thank you... um... 875000? I'll have to read up on those links when I have the chance. It still doesn't really explain why he's going about things the way he is if dictator status is what he's really looking for. He's shown leniency towards those involved in the coup attempt against him. With the media, he's even gone as far as allowing their license to expire before rejecting it's renewal. Even the referendum went through the democratic process instead of being forced on the country. It's just hard to compare him to people like Saddam, Stalin and countless others when the worst he's done as president is make a few threats that even the opposition dismiss.

It is important to note he has yet to consolidate control over the military. While he does have control over certain elements of it, other parts are leery towards him and his policies.

In 1992, he had about 10% of it in his camp and he nearly succeeded in overthrowing the government. Until he gets a firmer grasp on things, he has to move in increments. Otherwise, he runs the risk of another coup.

[Parkbandit]

:wow: Your debating skills are just full of win and awesome. :no:


Your reading comprehension skills are teh sux.. because I wasn't debating there, I was posting a fact and a suggestion.

[Stanley Burrell]

I think if he's serious about his anti-American sentiment, or, at the very least, anti-Bushian sentiment, he would globalize oil, as opposed to pocket-line the investors who he probably views as the most fascist in his twisted mind with oil hype statements.

I really, truly hope someone does globalize crude -- I don't think it would be that hard to rally. No one has the chutzpah to pull a Chilean copper globalization on black gold, though.

[Kefka]

Your reading comprehension skills are teh sux.. because I wasn't debating there, I was posting a fact and a suggestion.

Actually, I read that part quite well. It's unfortunate you're incapable of participating in debates without hurling insults. :no:

[radamanthys]

My ex-girlfriend was down there around the time he came in.

She watched one of the chavanistas stab a reporter through for attempting to interview someone about the chavanista movement.

Then she got booted out. Put under diplomatic house arrest for one of the big holidays, I don't remember which, then she was sent home. Ended up heading back down to Argentina. It was an exchange program, of sorts. This was back in 2003 I think.

From the first-hand experiences I had heard, I've known this guy was a whackjob even before his insanity became national news.

[Clove]

From the very article you posted:

"President Hugo Chavez warned his supporters on Friday"

Unless you think all of Venezuela supports him.


CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) - President Hugo Chavez warned his supporters on Friday that anyone voting against his proposed constitutional changes would be a "traitor," rallying his political base before a referendum that would let him seek unlimited re-election in 2012 and beyond.


I know you're playing devil's advocate Kefka, but honestly- he said anyone who voted against him was a traitor; that he was addressing his supporters at the time doesn't change the meaning of his statement.

[Tsa`ah]

I know you're playing devil's advocate Kefka, but honestly- he said anyone who voted against him was a traitor; that he was addressing his supporters at the time doesn't change the meaning of his statement.

It doesn't at all ... since he was addressing those who claimed to support him. Hence the rhetoric he used.

Best intentions derailed through power, he has definitely made his intentions made about becoming a "socialist" dictator ... that doesn't mean his statement had ANY other meaning than it did.

[Kefka]

I know you're playing devil's advocate Kefka, but honestly- he said anyone who voted against him was a traitor; that he was addressing his supporters at the time doesn't change the meaning of his statement.

Why would he warn his supporters if he was referring to everyone?

[Gan]

Why would he warn his supporters if he was referring to everyone?

Again, its based on interpretation of how you read the article and the quotes.

Was he only describing his supporters when he said 'anyone'? or was he telling his supporters that anyone who didnt vote for his referrendum would be a traitor? It depends on who you think he was talking about, not talking to.

[Kefka]

Again, its based on interpretation of how you read the article and the quotes.

Was he only describing his supporters when he said 'anyone'? or was he telling his supporters that anyone who didnt vote for his referrendum would be a traitor? It depends on who you think he was talking about, not talking to.

I don't know... When Bush attends a conservative event, there's no question who he's referring to when he says 'we' and 'they' and 'all of us'. As president of Venezuela, he has mean means of addressing all of his people. The article didn't say he warned all of Venezuela nor did it say he warned his supporters about any Venezuelan that goes against him. To be a traitor to the cause means you had to be a follower to begin with.

[Gan]

I don't know... When Bush attends a conservative event, there's no question who he's referring to when he says 'we' and 'they' and 'all of us'. As president of Venezuela, he has mean means of addressing all of his people. The article didn't say he warned all of Venezuela nor did it say he warned his supporters about any Venezuelan that goes against him. To be a traitor to the cause means you had to be a follower to begin with.

But he didnt say we or us, or all of us. He said 'anyone'.

[Sean of the Thread]

I'm voting for Bush in 2008.

[Clove]

But he didnt say we or us, or all of us. He said 'anyone'.

Precisely there is a distinct difference between the two pronouns. "We" and "us" are first person plural pronouns. "Anyone" is a pronoun that indicates any person at all.

Beyond the semantics or how you slant the speech; equating lack of support to a referendum to treason is high-charged rhetoric. In my opinion statements like that aren't used to persuade someone to change their mind, or reconsider an issue... it's to make people AFRAID to oppose it. The MO of a dictator?

:thinking: