Hugo Chavez Defeated in Referendum

[cellardoor6]

A bright day for Venezuela maybe?

Hugo Chavez has been defeated in the referendum over his proposed changes to the Venezuelan constitution that would have allowed him to further consolidate power in the country.

LINK

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has narrowly lost a referendum on controversial constitutional changes.

Voters rejected the sweeping reforms by a margin of 51% to 49%, the chief of the National Electoral Council said.

Mr Chavez described the defeat as a "photo finish", and urged followers not to turn it into a point of conflict.

Correspondents say the opposition could barely hide their delight and that the victory will put the brakes on Mr Chavez's "Socialist revolution".

With his raft of reforms, Mr Chavez was seeking an end to presidential term limits and the removal of the Central Bank's autonomy.

But the result marks the president's first electoral reverse since he won power in an election in 1998.

Since then he has set about introducing sweeping changes in the country's laws aimed at re-distributing the Venezuela's oil wealth to poorer farmers in rural areas.

The main opposition parties had claimed during the referendum campaign that Mr Chavez was seeking to give himself too much power, and was trying to establish a dictatorship.

====================

I'm happy about this. I never thought for a minute that he would lose.

I hope he owns up to it and doesn't try to scapegoat the US and say it's a CIA conspiracy or something, though. I hope he realizes that a large portion of his country reject his vision for Venezuela.

Although it was a narrow victory for the opposition (51% vs 49%), I'm glad that the majority of Venezuelans are smart enough to realize how close they just were to the point of no return towards dictatorship.

What do you think about it?

Happy, mad, sad?

Discuss.

[Memorize]

Their young people certainly sound smarter than our's.

[cellardoor6]

At 12/3/07 01:35 AM, Memorize wrote: Their young people certainly sound smarter than our's.

You're damn right about that.

[TonyTostieno]

At 12/3/07 01:45 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: You're damn right about that.

Yep...

Changes age

Seriously though, I get how there's supposed to be an intermediate period between the overthrow of the government and Communism actually taking place, but there's not a snowball covered in hot sauce's chance in hell that it would take this long and ACTUALLY be able to work, it's pretty damn obvious what Chavez keeps doing.

[tony4moroney]

This is truly a tragic event and it saddens me, especially when you consider all that he's done for his country.

[Slizor]

I wonder if this will stop people calling him a dictator. I mean, how many Western "democracies" have held referendums recently? And how many "dictatorships" actually pay attention to stuff like that?

[Sajberhippien]

At 12/3/07 01:26 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

Although it was a narrow victory for the opposition (51% vs 49%), I'm glad that the majority of Venezuelans are smart enough to realize how close they just were to the point of no return towards dictatorship.

What was dictatoric with the new law?

Seriously though, I get how there's supposed to be an intermediate period between the overthrow of the government and Communism actually taking place, but there's not a snowball covered in hot sauce's chance in hell that it would take this long and ACTUALLY be able to work, it's pretty damn obvious what Chavez keeps doing.

I don't think Chavez is trying a communistic revolution, rather seems like a social democracy to me; socialism through reforms.

[Tri-Nitro-Toluene]

Doesn't this kind of negate the argument that he's a dictator in the making? If he really were trying to consolidate the powers for the purpose of a dictatorship then he wouldn't have lost this referendum surely?

Especially considering the whole argument revolves around his silencing opposition media, taking lots of power for himself etc, and clearly, the fact that he has lost this referendum ( no matter how narrowly) is testament to the oppositions ability to get their voices heard and Chavez lack of ability to do anything about it.

Meh, either way, this is good for Venezuela. Whilst I'm a left winger, I don't think vesting total power in a single individual is a very good move and that did seem to be where Chavez was moving to

[Sajberhippien]

At 12/3/07 03:10 PM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote: Everything you said

Couldn't agree more on everything you said.

[Memorize]

At 12/3/07 02:57 PM, Sajberhippien wrote:

What was dictatoric with the new law?

Hitler was also democratically elected.

I'm not saying he is like Hitler; i'm only drawing a comparison on how a democracy can change into one.

Think about it:

Not only would this law allow him to run for re-election for every election, it also allows him to detain any of his citizens without proof during a national emergency (I don't necessarily have a problem with this type of law, but considering the kind of nut he is...). It would allow him to appoint anyone he chooses into a political office without anyone's approval.

All to "move the country into socialism quicker" as he puts it.

When anti-chavez groups would demonstrate, Chavez supporters would assault them, killing several of them within the past month. And Chavez would only call the opposition "spoiled, rich brats".

I don't think Chavez is trying a communistic revolution, rather seems like a social democracy to me; socialism through reforms.

And that's how it changes.

[animehater]

Well it appears that Chavez doesn't have complete control over the country as I first thought for him to actually be defeated. Next time this referendum comes round I doubt he'll let this happen again though.

[Imperator]

Hitler was also democratically elected.

Yeah. Seems like the same sort of desperation and fear that usually accompany changes like that wasn't present in Venezuela.

Democracy tends to die to "thunderous applause" if you will.

I'm actually not surprised the movement lost, I've read and studied about that area a bit and it didn't seem like he had the proper hold on the people to carry on such a referendum. The opposition movement seemed pretty strong in that country.

[LordJaric]

At 12/3/07 03:10 PM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote: Especially considering the whole argument revolves around his silencing opposition media, taking lots of power for himself etc, and clearly, the fact that he has lost this referendum ( no matter how narrowly) is testament to the oppositions ability to get their voices heard

Just like what is doing Putin in Russia.

[LordJaric]

At 12/3/07 04:51 PM, LordJaric wrote: Just like what is doing Putin in Russia.

Sorry for the grammer, I was trying to get enough words in so I could post it

What I was trying to say was, Just like what Putin is doing in Russia, the only difference is, he is succeeding.

[Sajberhippien]

At 12/3/07 03:53 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 12/3/07 02:57 PM, Sajberhippien wrote:

What was dictatoric with the new law?

Hitler was also democratically elected.

I'm not saying he is like Hitler; i'm only drawing a comparison on how a democracy can change into one.

Godwin's law.

Think about it:

Not only would this law allow him to run for re-election for every election,

You mean like can also be done here in Sweden, and as far as I know, in the US to?

it also allows him to detain any of his citizens without proof during a national emergency (I don't necessarily have a problem with this type of law, but considering the kind of nut he is...).

So it isn't okay since you think he's a nut, while it is okay for the US despite half the world thinking Bush is a nut? And don't come with a "he's democratic" argument, that would be a circle argument.
I don't like that kind of laws, actually it's the thing I like the LEAST about the new constitution.

It would allow him to appoint anyone he chooses into a political office without anyone's approval.

Sure, it isn't really a good law, but undemocratic? In what way?

All to "move the country into socialism quicker" as he puts it.

When anti-chavez groups would demonstrate, Chavez supporters would assault them, killing several of them within the past month. And Chavez would only call the opposition "spoiled, rich brats".

I think most abortion clinic bombers are republican, wouldn't you agree?

I don't think Chavez is trying a communistic revolution, rather seems like a social democracy to me; socialism through reforms.

And that's how it changes.

What did you mean with that?

Sorry for not understanding, as you know it's not my main language and also I haven't slept a ful night for over a week.

[Tri-Nitro-Toluene]

At 12/3/07 05:28 PM, Sajberhippien wrote: You mean like can also be done here in Sweden, and as far as I know, in the US to?

Presidency is limited to two terms in the US I believe.

Congress is unlimited I think, but their is a term limit on the presidency.

[Memorize]

At 12/3/07 05:28 PM, Sajberhippien wrote:

You mean like can also be done here in Sweden, and as far as I know, in the US to?

2 term limit.

Know your history.

We didn't have a term limit until after FDR's death (who was elected 4 times in a row as a result of WWII). So we made an amendment so that any president would not be able to run an infinite amount of times which may result in someone unfit for president to be president, essentially forever.

So it isn't okay since you think he's a nut, while it is okay for the US despite half the world thinking Bush is a nut? And don't come with a "he's democratic" argument, that would be a circle argument.

The world despises the US no matter what they do.

Was the US' fault for the middle east being in the tormoil that is now? No. Did countries like France who caused it ever fix it? No.

I'm basing everything here on facts and history. I could easily call you a nut for disregarding EVERY iraqi death toll and still believe just the 1 flawed toll that claims over a million civilians have died, when the official one hasn't even reached 90k.

I don't like that kind of laws, actually it's the thing I like the LEAST about the new constitution.

At least that country's young people actually fight FOR their constitution.

Sure, it isn't really a good law, but undemocratic? In what way?

Did you not read what I wrote?

If it were to pass, Chavez could practically do important things as he see's fit without the public's consent.

It's democracy turning into a form of dictatorship disguised as democracy. Take into account that no one would be around to count up the votes for his re-election except for his own government.

Then imagine that law passing saying he could run an infinite amount of times.

I think most abortion clinic bombers are republican, wouldn't you agree?

Where the flying fuck did that come from?

Think about it: His supporters cause violence killing several of those who oppose him, and he doesn't even condemn those supporters, but calls those who were killed and oppose him "spoiled, rich, brats"?

This is incredible!

You defend Chavez for things you would go bat crazy if Bush did.

[Sajberhippien]

At 12/3/07 05:55 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 12/3/07 05:28 PM, Sajberhippien wrote:

You mean like can also be done here in Sweden, and as far as I know, in the US to?

2 term limit.

Know your history.

Okay, didn't know that it was that way in the US. US history isn't my best topic really, and there's no way I can compare to an American that knows something about it.

So it isn't okay since you think he's a nut, while it is okay for the US despite half the world thinking Bush is a nut? And don't come with a "he's democratic" argument, that would be a circle argument.

The world despises the US no matter what they do.
Was the US' fault for the middle east being in the tormoil that is now? No. Did countries like France who caused it ever fix it? No.

Who caused the tormoil in the middle east isn't the question. You DO think that it is undemocratic when some people install a law and fully democratic when others do?

I'm basing everything here on facts and history. I could easily call you a nut for disregarding EVERY iraqi death toll and still believe just the 1 flawed toll that claims over a million civilians have died, when the official one hasn't even reached 90k.

I haven't said anything about a million civilian deaths, and you're WAY off topic.

I don't like that kind of laws, actually it's the thing I like the LEAST about the new constitution.

At least that country's young people actually fight FOR their constitution.

A constitution must be able to change when the world changes.

Sure, it isn't really a good law, but undemocratic? In what way?

Did you not read what I wrote?

If it were to pass, Chavez could practically do important things as he see's fit without the public's consent.

Such as? He can't elect anybody to anything you know. From what I understood it was like the ministers and such, not for example the parliament. But I may very well have missed something, that's why I'm asking what's undemocratic with it.

It's democracy turning into a form of dictatorship disguised as democracy. Take into account that no one would be around to count up the votes for his re-election except for his own government.

That's the case with all countries. What is the difference in the US, or in any other country with a government and elections?

Then imagine that law passing saying he could run an infinite amount of times.

That's the way we have it in Sweden. And although I don't really like our current politicians, it's a fully functional democracy (in THAT respect, still to capitalistic to be fully democratic).

I think most abortion clinic bombers are republican, wouldn't you agree?

Where the flying fuck did that come from?

Think about it: His supporters cause violence killing several of those who oppose him, and he doesn't even condemn those supporters, but calls those who were killed and oppose him "spoiled, rich, brats"?

This is incredible!

You defend Chavez for things you would go bat crazy if Bush did.

I don't defend him for it. I think it's awful for him to do that, don't get me wrong on that. What I mean is that it isn't so spectacular thinking about what the rest of the world is doing, not the least all these so-called democracies of the west.

[emmytee]

Everything he says he wanted will still happen, but he'll rig the next referendum, and every time someone says its not a democracy, he will point to this 'defeat'. Hell, he might have rigged this one. But I can be a bit of a cynic.

If its for real, I guess it just goes to show how much the media influence us. How many intelligent people (and morons) really thought he was not a dictator already?

[Memorize]

At 12/3/07 06:04 PM, Sajberhippien wrote:

Who caused the tormoil in the middle east isn't the question. You DO think that it is undemocratic when some people install a law and fully democratic when others do?

I'm not sure how that last question is supposed to be read.

I think you're talking about Chavez putting his most recent law to a vote.

If so... now ask yourself: How do you gain more power in a democratic country? Simple: You put up laws to vote to give you that power.

I haven't said anything about a million civilian deaths, and you're WAY off topic.

You mean like the abortion clinics?

A constitution must be able to change when the world changes.

The world's superpower and many other european nations have limits as well.

And as history clearly demonstrates: A huge governing authority doesn't work well. So Chavez will have, in fact, been moving back in history.

Such as? He can't elect anybody to anything you know. From what I understood it was like the ministers and such, not for example the parliament. But I may very well have missed something, that's why I'm asking what's undemocratic with it.

He's taking the vote away from the people and placing it in his power. That's fairly undemocratic, eh?

That's the case with all countries. What is the difference in the US, or in any other country with a government and elections?

You do know we're talking about Chavez, right?

The guy who's attempting to give himself more power. Demanding the Spanish King apologize when he told Chavez to shut up after Chavez called that other guy a fascist. Mobalizing his troops to prepare for a US invasion.

The guy is a nut.

I don't defend him for it. I think it's awful for him to do that, don't get me wrong on that. What I mean is that it isn't so spectacular thinking about what the rest of the world is doing, not the least all these so-called democracies of the west.

We're basing our opinions on what type of person Chavez is. And socialism is a near dead economic policy, so is a huge governing authority.

[Der-Lowe]

At 12/3/07 03:53 PM, Memorize wrote: Chavez would only call the opposition "spoiled, rich brats".

They actually are spoiled rich brats.

I don't think Chavez is trying a communistic revolution, rather seems like a social democracy to me; socialism through reforms.

Nah, it's not social democracy; there is too much concentration of power in the Executive Branch. The predominant German party has like 20% of the votes.

At 12/3/07 01:26 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: I hope he owns up to it and doesn't try to scapegoat the US and say it's a CIA conspiracy or something, though. I hope he realizes that a large portion of his country reject his vision for Venezuela.

He has congratulated the opposition publicly.

[Memorize]

At 12/3/07 07:39 PM, Der-Lowe wrote:

They actually are spoiled rich brats.

Hello Chavez.

He has congratulated the opposition publicly.

Yeah, after he lost. Until that point he called them traitors.

[Empanado]

At 12/3/07 03:53 PM, Memorize wrote: When anti-chavez groups would demonstrate, Chavez supporters would assault them, killing several of them within the past month.

I'd like to see some sources for this. I haven't heard anything like that lately, and Chilean media just LOVES bashing on Chávez.

Furthermore, it's stupid to think that all the violence comes from ther pro-Chávez side. Many Chavistas are insane and there's no denying that, but keep in mind that being anti-Chávez doesn't necessarily makes you pro-democracy. Let's not forget that many anti-Chavistas were dancing and prancing to the military coup that appointed Carmona as President, which didn't give a lot of hints of it becoming a functioning democracy.

[Der-Lowe]

At 12/3/07 08:25 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 12/3/07 07:39 PM, Der-Lowe wrote:

They actually are spoiled rich brats.

Hello Chavez.

OMG TEH NOES I IS DISCOVERED!!!!
Seriously, they are.

Manga de oligarcas.

He has congratulated the opposition publicly.

Yeah, after he lost. Until that point he called them traitors.

That's partially true. Them being traitors, I mean. He still congratulated them, and publicly, which surprised me, I must confess.

[cellardoor6]

At 12/3/07 02:57 PM, Sajberhippien wrote:

At 12/3/07 01:26 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

Although it was a narrow victory for the opposition (51% vs 49%), I'm glad that the majority of Venezuelans are smart enough to realize how close they just were to the point of no return towards dictatorship.

What was dictatoric with the new law?

First off, that's an interesting word you created there.

Secondly, if you actually don't know, then you have issues, but I'll oblige.

He wanted to be able to control the central bank, he wanted to appoint officials who previously had to be elected, he wanted to increase his term, get rid of term limits, and gain the authority to mute the media in times of national crisis.

All things that allowed him to consolidate more power, as well as allow him to FURTHER gain more power by having less obstructions for his future goals.

[SizZlE666]

Hmm, maybe he changed, but he did look like he was doing something good before.

[Elfer]

Well, I think he would have gotten away with it had he not thrown in the bit about removing term limits. That's most likely what tipped people off.

[cellardoor6]

At 12/3/07 03:10 PM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote: Doesn't this kind of negate the argument that he's a dictator in the making?

Absolutely not.

If he really were trying to consolidate the powers for the purpose of a dictatorship then he wouldn't have lost this referendum surely?

Venezuela was a democracy before Chavez came to power. But that democracy is slowly being compromised by his policies.

It's possible for a democracy to vote into power someone who later destroys that very democracy he used to get to power. Chavez has made great strides to consolidate absolute power, but he isn't quite there yet. This referendum would have probably been the point of no return in my opinion, and he'd be the next Castro.

He hasn't had a enough time to completely silence the opposition.

[Memorize]

At 12/3/07 08:41 PM, Empanado wrote:

I'd like to see some sources for this. I haven't heard anything like that lately, and Chilean media just LOVES bashing on Chávez.

Yahoo

There's just one example. People shoot at the opposition and Chavez blames the opposition for it? What?

Furthermore, it's stupid to think that all the violence comes from ther pro-Chávez side. Many Chavistas are insane and there's no denying that, but keep in mind that being anti-Chávez doesn't necessarily makes you pro-democracy.

I never said that that meant ALL the violence came from his side. But most of it did.

Yahoo

[fli]

At 12/3/07 08:41 PM, Empanado wrote:

At 12/3/07 03:53 PM, Memorize wrote: When anti-chavez groups would demonstrate, Chavez supporters would assault them, killing several of them within the past month.

I'd like to see some sources for this. I haven't heard anything like that lately, and Chilean media just LOVES bashing on Chávez.

I was gonna say this, but I wasn't sure... because Mexican news is where I can nearly only get news on Chavez without the obvious American slant of US news.

And I never heard about killing of the opposition...
I do, however, hear once in a while about deaths during ralleys--

I think people readily assume that, if it's not America, then most governments kill their own people readily, especially when it's not Democratic. And that's not always the case.

Furthermore, it's stupid to think that all the violence comes from ther pro-Chávez side. Many Chavistas are insane and there's no denying that, but keep in mind that being anti-Chávez doesn't necessarily makes you pro-democracy. Let's not forget that many anti-Chavistas were dancing and prancing to the military coup that appointed Carmona as President, which didn't give a lot of hints of it becoming a functioning democracy.

Well, there are stupid people on both sides...
All I'm glad is that the world has furthered humbled Chavez (and nearly right after the "¿Por qué no te callas?" episode, lolz...)

However, I don't like the US trying to influence South American politics... not at all.
Do we need another Reagnite error, again?