Venezuela to Make Lawmakers Vote With Their Parties

[steven johnson]

Source: Reuters

CARACAS (Reuters) - Venezuela's National Assembly passed a bill on Tuesday to stop lawmakers voting against their political parties in the latest move of a legislative onslaught before a new parliament is seated next month.

Opponents of socialist President Hugo Chavez say the new bill is an attack on the right of Assembly members to vote with their consciences in South America's biggest oil producer.

The outgoing parliament, which is dominated by members of Chavez's ruling Socialist Party, has passed a raft of laws in recent days including one that lets the former soldier bypass the next Assembly and rule by decree for 18 months.

Tuesday's bill was denounced by a small group of lawmakers who split with Chavez's self-styled revolution. The president of parliament, Cilia Flores, said the new legislation would stop other members from switching sides during the next Assembly.



Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2010/12/21/world/international-us-venezuela-politics-law.html?ref=world

---

So much for voting your conscience.

Get ready for the police state.

Good bye, democracy.

[SkyDaddy7]

1. Chavez the "dear leader" is never going to give up power...

Which is sad & the end of Democracy in Venezuela...And perhaps other parts of South America.

[mommalegga]

3. Ok Chavez supporters..

Lets here you defend this one...

"But they have GREAT healthcare!!" :sarcasm:

[EFerrari]

32. Hilarious. Omfg, Venezuela may pass a bill for greater transparency in government!

OMFG, damn you, HUGO!

LOL

[hack89]

47. How is this transparancy?

Party leaders meet behind closed doors, come out and tell legislators how to vote. This is good?

Now the lobbyists only have to buy off a small handful of leaders instead of every legislator.

[EFerrari]

52. The idea is that legislators can't change parties after being voted in.

Of course, it's nothing like here where party leaders meet behind closed doors, come out and tell legislators how to vote. :)

[Bacchus39]

56. thats not what the dumb law says, its says that legislators can't vote different from the party

position. this of course is to prevent Chavez leaning legislators to vote with the opposition. however, if you have an explanation from your alternative universe, I would be amused to hear it.

[hack89]

59. No - it says no one can vote their conscience.

it takes away any independence of thought and action. Why is this good?

[joshcryer]

69. Utter nonsense. It says, explicitly, that if you are voted in under a party, your vote cedes to...

...the majority.

It'd be like being elected School President but being told that you must do everything the dean tells you to do (within the purvey of the things that you can do of course).

It's nonsense.

[ChangoLoa]

76. Venezuelan voters already have the right to revoke their legislator if they aren't happy with him

At mid term.

This law has nothing to do with preserving the legislator's loyalty to his/her voters. It is purely about party control.

[Imajika]

2. Where are the Chavez cheerleaders?

Is this a mistranslation? Story from a right wing source?

This is unreal and utterly appalling - and right on the heels of the latest enabling act allowing Chavez to simply bypass the newest general assembly to be seated Jan 5.

A law against voting your conscience that forces lawmakers to vote with their party? Are you kidding?

[mommalegga]

4. Dont worry Chavez

will reverse this with his "Enabling Act" powers right?

[robcon]

5. Democracy was gone when they agreed to rule by decree.

Although many DUers saw the end of democracy in Venezuela years ago.

[Imajika]

18. Chavez simply used the democratic system...

...as a means of achieving absolute power.

This has happened in many countries - particularly in Africa.

He has now successfully stifled the opposition which has grown to amount to nearly half the population, enacting laws that completely neuter what power they have once they are seated Jan 5.

Chavez is nothing more than a leftist strongman now - a thug really. That won't stop the Chavez cheerleaders from supporting him though, because for them the ends justify the means.

This law forcing lawmakers to vote with their party, basically a way to keep any socialist lawmakers from splitting off and siding with the opposition, is so outrageous that all but the most fanatical Chavista's must now know the truth about him.

Keep in mind, at one time, Mugabe actually had supporters here too. There are some on the left who will support near anyone who claims the socialist mantle so long as they bash the United States.

[mwooldri]

38. Happened in Germany too on March 24th, 1933.

I need say no more on this matter.

[cali]

6. this is not a good idea.

[Pacifist Patriot]

7. We're in perfect agreement here.

[bemildred]

9. I don't think its going to work so good, or stand up in court.

But I can't say it worries me much either.

[COLGATE4]

11. Have you considered that the Supreme Court is packed with

Chavez loyalists? It'll stand up in court just fine.

[bemildred]

12. Who needs Nostradamus when we got you to tell us the future? nt

[COLGATE4]

13. Obviously when you state "I don't think... it's going to stand up

in court" you are not playing Nostradamus. Interesting logic.

[bemildred]

15. It is flatly unconstitutional, as another person who dislikes Chavez pointed out to me

a day or two ago. Not unlike the "Patriot Act" or "Espionage law of 1917" here in the USA. Article 201 of the constitution of Venezuela I think it was.

[COLGATE4]

25. Stalin once said "It's not the votes that count - it's who counts the

votes". Your faith in a packed pro-Chavez Supreme Court interpreting this as being 'flatly unconstitutional' is touching, but I fear misguided. Hopefully it will be so.

[bemildred]

26. Oh good, another cliche. nt

[bitchkitty]

29. They love Stalin.

He's their Osama!

[bemildred]

42. And it doesn't violate Godwin's Law. nt

[COLGATE4]

37. You seem to specialize in non-responsive posts.

[joshcryer]

72. bemildred already provided the article, if it is deemed constitutional, then your case is made.

Otherwise bemildred has hard backing. The language is clear cut and dry, it's unconstitutional.

[bemildred]

16. Here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=405&topic_id=46035&mesg_id=46158

[joshcryer]

70. This wouldn't be the first time Chavez' side tried something unconstitutional.

[joshcryer]

71. Thanks, btw, it's clearly unconstitutional and won't be passed.

[ChangoLoa]

77. The people who decide have just been appointed by Chavez's party. I think the law will pass

Let's see.

[Ikonoklast]

8. All Hail Dear Leader Chavez!! Viva Hugo!!

And Democracy in Venezuela dies.


I suppose those representatives that vote differently fron the party line will now see jail time.


The Hugo Chavez Fan Club is awaiting instructions as to how to spin this one.

[COLGATE4]

10. The silence from Dear Leader's acolytes is absolutely

deafening. For months we have heard excuse after excuse as Chavez took incremental steps to do away with democracy in Venezuela and consolidate a communist (the exact words of his Ambassador to the U.S. on US TV, not mine) system in Venezuela. Now with decree power firmly in hand the gloves are off, all pretense is dropped and he is moving full speed ahead to destroy what remnants of their democracy remain. (Note also the latest legislation that gives the government control over the Internet). We watched it happen in Cuba many years ago. This is the sequel, Cuba II.

[Imajika]

28. Yup, it is pathetic...

The Chavez cheerleaders were never interested in democracy. Don't forget, these are the same people that laughably try to argue that Cuba is a democracy.

If/when they appear on this thread it will be to distract, divert, and otherwise change the subject.

[Roy Rolling]

14. voting along party lines?

Where have we heard that before? The "Gang of 42" in the U.S. Senate (Republicans who vowed not to work until they got tax cuts) use tactics like socialist dictators! Are they in cahoots? :pals:

Where's Glenn Beck when you need him? How about a show with the Gang of 42 as puppets with Chavez pulling the strings? Too close for comfort, Glenn?

[NashVegas]

17. I Dunno. It'd Be Kind Of Nice, Wouldn't It, If Democrats Here Voted For What the Party Campaigns On?

That wouldn't bother me at all, really.

[Imajika]

19. You think it would be kind of nice...

...if individual Democrats had to vote with the party by law? By force of law?

Are you out of your mind?

[LeftishBrit]

80. It might be.

It would not be so nice if it was imposed by law.

If politicians rebel too much against their party leadership, they can be, and often are, sidelined or actually deselected.

If they break pledges important to their constituents, they can face protests and hostility, and ultimately be voted out of office.

The two are often not the same thing: e.g. LibDems in the UK were faced with the choice of rebelling against their party leadership on raising tuition fees, or breaking their pledge to their constituents.

At any rate, forcing people to obey the leadership *by law* does not seem in accordance with democracy.

[Unvanguard]

20. This is a terrible idea for a simple reason.

NOT because it means politicians can't "vote their conscience", etc. Party loyalty is good. But because it erases the distinction between a large majority and a small majority, which impairs democratic accountability.

[Imajika]

30. Party loyalty is not necessarily good at all...

If the party leadership decides it wants to do something particularly awful, the idea that individual lawmakers of that party couldn't stand against it is about as undemocratic as you can get.

Barbara Lee stood against the Afghan war when her entire party voted for it. This sort of law would prevent that. Some progressives stood against Patriot when the rest of the Democratic party was busily going along with Bush. Again, this sort of law would prevent a vote of "conscience".

If you think party loyalty is super great, then you should believe that no Republicans should cross the aisle to vote for START, DADT, etc.

People belong to a political party because it generally reflects their views, not necessarily because they intend to vote with its leadership 100% of the time.

What Chavez and his party are doing is neutering any opposition to him in the next legislative session. Chavez has used the democratic process to achieve dictatorial powers. He is a nothing more than a left wing strong man at this point, and anyone who supports this guy is throwing in with totalitarianism.

[Unvanguard]

33. Obviously party loyalty is not good in every imaginable circumstance.

But it is generally a good thing for democracy, because it means people know what they are getting when they vote for a candidate.

START and DADT required Republican votes only because the Senate is awash in idiotic supermajority requirements. The direction of your point is quite right; as we have seen over the past two years, it is problematic to strengthen parties and party loyalty in the US system for that reason (and other related ones.) But Venezuela has a unicameral parliament, and I'd bet that it only requires a majority vote to pass things, so they do not have this problem. (Edit: And, actually, while policy success trumps this consideration, there IS reason to see Republican votes for Democratic policies as a problem: it obscures to voters the greater reality that voting for Republicans, even moderate Republicans, enhances the power of the Republican caucus as a whole, which has policy consequences greater than any one legislator's vote. No blue state should ever elect Republicans to national office--not in a statewide election, anyway.)

As I already suggested in my previous post, I agree with you about the motive in this, and I agree also that it is a terrible idea.

[David__77]

21. I have no problem with this.

People vote for parties' programs. If someone wants to be an independent, let them run as such. Too many times, in this country too, people were elected to do something, and then when they are not subject to party discipline, they flip over to a whole different program.

[Cutatious]

23. It's mostly a good idea to vote with your party but

It's a moronic and dictatorial idea to force it by law. It's time for Hogo to go. Hopefully the people will get rid of this dictator wannabe in the next election...if he even allows an election to occur. Was an ass he is.

[bemildred]

24. It is easy to understand the motivation, party control is an issue whenever there are parties.

But it ought not be put into law, that is a mistake.

[ronnie624]

45. I agree.

But I'm still not alarmed about it. Venezuela's democratic process will work things out in the end. When President Chavez begins a blood bath like that inspired by the CIA/ITT coup in Chile in '73, then I'll become concerned. Until then, I'll just have to leave the issue to the Venezuelan people.

[joshcryer]

64. What's interesting to me is how this will work if the parties ever flip.

[Imajika]

27. Well, if that is the case...

..then you believe ALL Democrats should have been FORCED to vote for the tax cut deal Obama cut with the Republicans. Further, you believe that NO Republicans should have gone along with DADT, START, Child Nutrition, etc, etc, etc.

Please. People need to stop making excuses for Chavez. The ends do not justify the means. This is about as undemocratic as you can get, yet the cheerleaders will continue to find excuses for Chavez and his party.

Everyone knows what this is really about. The opposition won about half the vote and wound up with enough lawmakers to infringe on Chavez's ability to rule unopposed. So the outgoing Congress passed another enabling act giving Hugo powers to rule by decree to get around any opposition, and now is passing laws to prevent anyone from within his own party from voting with the opposition.

"People vote for parties' programs"

Nonsense and you know it. By your logic lawmakers like Barbara Lee would, by law, HAVE to have voted to authorize war in Afghanistan simply because her party supported it. Same would be true with progressives that opposed the Patriot Act, etc, etc.

This law completely wipes out the very notion of a "vote of conscience".

[COLGATE4]

36. Yep. And Chavez celebrated being granted his decree powers

by crowing words to the effect of "let's see the little Yankees (the opposition) pass any laws now". Chavez's version of democracy in action. Now that he has decree power for 18 months the mask has come off.

[joshcryer]

65. It is somewhat alarming.

[EFerrari]

39. Yes, it's such a shame that Venezuelan legislators won't be able to vote with their conscience

like ours do.

:rofl:

[COLGATE4]

40. No, the shame is that legally they are not allowed to do so.

[EFerrari]

41. Hypocrisy unplugged.

[Ikonoklast]

53. Mirrors can be scary.

Hugo must have had them all smashed.

[EFerrari]

60. Hang onto all your name calling and dire predictions and check yourself

in six months. If you can stand it.

Mirrors -- the whole reason the US is ramping up in Latin America is because the democratic governments won't fall in line any more. It's a little pathetic.

[Ikonoklast]

61. So, we are FORCING Hugo to be an autocrat.

You are laughable.

[Imajika]

44. At least ours will have the opportunity...

In Venezuela, apparently Chavez's socialist party plans to make it so you are literally forced to tow the party line.

Are you actually defending this?

[EFerrari]

54. At least ours have the opportunity to sell out to the highest bidder.

And sure, I defend Venezuela's right to arrange their legislature as they want it. It's not like our Politburo is functional enough for the Venezuelan comparison to come off badly.

We really need to figure out that 1) other countries do things their own way and 2) this is another one of those stupid stories that turn out to be bullshit.

Okay, that's another two minutes I'll never get back. Ciao.

[COLGATE4]

55. Denial isn't just a river in Egypt, apparently

[Bacchus39]

57. it doesn't sound like its bullshit, it sounds like this is a law being proposed or already passed

well, Venezuela won't have a functioning legislature for the duration of the 18 month dictatorship period, so I would say our Congress compared favorably.

[joshcryer]

68. Other countries do things their own way, sure, but would you have your country do things that way?

Would you have the Democratic Republic that the United States have force parties to vote the party line? That was the original objection, and you failed to provide substantiative reasons why it didn't apply to Venezuela.

[cali]

75. it's simply not a particularly good idea to dictate by force of law

that a legislator must vote with his party. That doesn't mean that lobbyists here are a good idea.

And this story is not bullshit- obviously. However, I tend to agree with those upthread who said it will be found unconstitutional.

Not everything that Chavez does is above reproach.

[joshcryer]

66. Um, you completely dismissed the problem that the poster was discussing.

Try to be substantiative next time, please.

[joshcryer]

63. No, politicians are supposed to vote for the interests of their constituants.

This is why you'll have some GOPers in New England voting for, eg, DADT, but voting against other policies.

[David__77]

67. That's a novel concept. We'll see if it happens.

Until then, I adopt a pragmatic view about the laws of parliamentary procedure - whatever will accrue forward movement for humanity. Democracy is always a means not an end in itself, as for as I'm concerned.

[joshcryer]

73. Apparently it is actually unconstitutional as discovered by some DUers:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=405&topic_id=46035&mesg_id=46158

Note, I know that American politicians are dirty scumbags who get election funding from all sorts of nefarious sources, but by and large these politicians do, whether sane or not, try to vote the way their constituents ask them to.

For a capitalist society we're doing "OK," not as good as some others, but better than some.

[LeftishBrit]

82. Maybe. But there is a difference between enforcing party discipline at a political level and making

it a matter of law.

Voting the wrong way may appropriately make a politician subject to being sidelined by their party, or defeated by the voters. It should not make them subject to legal penalties.

Also, what happens when it's the *party leadership* that move the party in a direction that goes against the voters' wishes? To give examples in the UK, the Labour MPs who voted against the war in Iraq in defiance of the party leader but in accordance with the will of most voters, or the LibDem MPs who voted against increasing tuition fees in defiance of the party leader but in accordance with their pre-election pledges, were arguably acting in support of their party principles, but against their party leadership. According to proposals like that of Chavez, they would have been breaking the law. Would this have been a good thing?!

[UTUSN]

22. K&R #7 for, La la la la la !1 n/t

[Akoto]

31. This is an absurd law. Chavez is Palpatine-esque.

I try to give the benefit of the doubt, but everything Chavez does seems to follow the Emperor Palpatine pattern of power grabbing. Point to an enemy, take some more power. By the time most Venezuelans realize he isn't going to give it all back, it'll be too late.

What is the point of having individual votes if you're legally compelled to vote with your party? What you really have now is just a handful of votes with no true diversity of views.

[COLGATE4]

34. What this does it make it impossible for any member of the officialist

party to vote with the minority (although for 18 months (perhaps) the situation is moot due to Chavez's emergency powers)

[Bacchus39]

43. yep, I think thats the strategy n/t

s

[joshcryer]

74. He's had those powers the majority of his term in office. I think he's trying to make them permanent

He keeps having those powers given to him, and by forcing his party to vote in a block, he's assuring himself that they will always give those power to him, even if some of the people object.

[HuckleB]

35. So they're copying the Republicans in the US?

:shrug:

[hack89]

48. Republicans crossed party lines to help repeal DADT. nt

[HuckleB]

49. Yup.

And how about the rest of the last two years?

[hack89]

50. Are you familiar with the term RINO?

the far right is convinced that their entire agenda was betrayed by republicans voting with democrats. The idea of republican lockstep unity is nonsense.

[HuckleB]

51. Actually, it hasn't been nonsense.

To say so, is to ignore the past two years.

[SpartanDem]

58. The Stimulus, Lilly Ledbetter

credit card bill,

[slackmaster]

46. They could save a lot of money by replacing lawmakers with simple computer systems

Program in a set of rules based on party policy.

[joshcryer]

62. Chile tried that, see Project Cybersyn. The coup killed it.

[SpartanDem]

78. Are people really trying argue

that this is even remotely democratic?

[joshcryer]

83. Yes, some of the more deluded posters here.

There have been some surprising side changes, though.

[Demstud]

84. Not everyone on this board believes in democracy

There are some extreme communists or socialists who think socialism or communism should be imposed on people rather than voted on, and will jump at the chance to praise anti-democratic dictatorships. Some STILL spread pro-USSR propaganda long after that government fell.

[FLPanhandle]

79. If it looks like a dictator, acts like a dictator, sounds like a dictator...

It probably is a dictator.

[Old Troop]

81. Why have elected "lawmakers" at all? A few party officials could decide

party policies for everyone and save the time and expense of elections since the new law would require members to back the party line anyway.

[boppers]

85. Hey, that's the Iranian system of democracy...

They have elections all the time, too!

[COLGATE4]

86. Don't joke about that - it might be the next decree from Fearless Leader