Lula backs Chávez's democracy; third presidential term

[Judi Lynn]

Source: El Universal (opposition newspaper)

Caracas, Wednesday November 14 , 2007
Lula backs Chávez's democracy; third presidential term

Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva jumped in defense of his Venezuelan counterpart Hugo Chávez when saying that democracy in Venezuela or Chávez's eagerness to remain in office for a third term could not be criticized.

Lula claimed that the criticism made to the changes to the Constitution advanced by Chávez and including indefinite presidential reelection was not made in the past with regard to the consecutive terms in office of multiple European leaders, such as Margaret Thatcher or Felipe González, AFP quoted.

"People complain about Chávez wanting a third term. Why did nobody complain when (ex British Prime Minister) Margaret Thatcher spent so many years in power?" Lula wondered.

"Please, invent anything to criticize Chávez, except for lack of democracy. I have being in office for five years and run twice for president and twice for mayor. As far as I am concerned, during that very period, there have been three referendums, three elections and four plebiscites. Everything but discussion lacks in Venezuela," Lula said.




Read more: http://english.eluniversal.com/2007/11/14/en_pol_art_lula-backs-chavezs_14A1195317.shtml

[Benhurst]

1. At least Chavez was elected, unlike some pResidents we know.

[cali]

2. Because Margaret Thatcher

didn't propose changing the law in order to stay in office. It's really that simple.

[Flanker]

3. The law itself states that the law can be changed

Well actually the constitution, If anything this is the SECOND time the constitution was changed to allow for relection, the previous consitution barred reelection, and you could only run again 10 years after finishing your first term. The people want re-election and then the people will have it, that simple.

[Andrushka]

4. And if they change their mind,

they can activate a recall.

I am sure if this was proposed under any other leader of Venezuela or otherwise (and I say "under" as this referendum is the result of a long process to have it included in the list to be voted on) we wouldn't see as much hysteria about it.

[eridani]

12. So if the law already says you can have more than one term, that's OK? n/t

[cali]

18. this is really simple. Chavez is seeking to change the law

in a way that directly benefits Chavez. I don't care that much. I don't live there, but I sincerely hope, if you're American, that you don't have the same low standards when it comes to American politicians.

[eridani]

19. But German and Britsh prime ministers can serve 15-20 years--

--and that's OK?

[cali]

20. One. more. time. Chavez seeks to change the law to benefit Chavez.

I don't approve of anyone doing that. And how long has Chavez served already? 8 years? No, I don't like the fact that German and British leaders can serve for over a decade- I don't think it's healthy for democracy to have an entrenched leadership, and I particularly don't like someone seeking a change in the law to benefit themself.

[Peace Patriot]

22. The changes to the Constitution have been argued and hammered out for

several years, in an open and democratic process, and have been voted on by the National Assembly (congress), and are now going to be voted on by the Venezuelan people, in an open, transparent, democratic election system. They include protection of gay rights and the rights of other minorities, increased labor protections, and increased status and funding for the grass roots community councils which encourage maximum citizen participation in government decisions, and in the use of the country's resources. What "dictator" EVER subjected himself or his government to such an open, democratic process? Chavez is a leader, for sure, and a strong one, but in the mold of FDR and the "New Deal"--a radical transformation of government so that it represents the interests of all of the people, rather than just the rich, ruling elite--rather than in the mold of Stalin or the less tyrannical (but still undemocratic) mold of Castro, both of whom achieved power by force (on the crest of violent revolutions), and, in the case of Stalin, went nuts, and, in the case of Castro, actually mellowed out, but never relinquished authoritarian control (in no small part because of the constant threat of U.S. invasion and interference). Chavez and his government are achieving these momentous changes PEACEFULLY, and as the clear will of the people. And your statement that "Chavez seeks to change the law to benefit Chavez" is inaccurate in several important ways. One, Chavez will not be the entity who changes the law ("...seeks TO change"). The people of Venezuela will be changing the law, with a democratic VOTE, in response to changes PROPOSED BY the Chavez government. Two, who is to say that this change will "benefit" Chavez? Got any evidence that he is corrupt? Got any idea what it is like to live with a Bush Junta target painted on your back?

It WILL, however, benefit the vast majority--the poor, the workers, the indigenous, the peasant farmers, the grass roots Bolivarian activists, and those who believe in an equitable society, and in independence and self-determination for the people of Venezuela and the region. Like the north American majority that got battered nearly to death by the unregulated robber barons and rich elites of the "Roaring 20's," the poor need a champion, someone who is not afraid to use the power of government to beat back the fascists and their unmitigated greed. It's called a "balance of power." That is what is occurring in Venezuela, and throughout South America--a re-balancing of power, after decades of IMBALANCE and brutal oppression. And that is why the Venezuelan people are going to vote in favor of it. They know what it is. They know what they are voting for. They know why they want Chavez (or his Bolivarian successor) to remain as president for a long time, subject to democratic elections. They need this revolution, and they need a strong president to lead it.

The same process is occurring in Bolivia and Ecuador (and occurred in a different way in Argentina). Venezuela is just the first to reach the point of a vote: RE-WRITING the Constitution, to root out the old, corrupt, rightwing elite, and its entrenched power, and to create a more democratic structure that will assist recovery from their greedy ravages in cahoots with global corporate predators. Rafael Correa, in Ecuador, just won a referendum, with 80% approval of the voters, to begin the process of re-writing the constitution. Evo Morales, in Bolivia, has also started this process. And, in both cases, a critically important component of reform will be STRENGTHENING the presidency, crippled by decades of U.S. interference and rightwing entrenchment.

You say that, "I don't think it's healthy for democracy to have an entrenched leadership." True enough. But what do you do when all the "entrenchment" is rightwing or fascist, locked into power--and made extremely corrupt--by U.S. "client state" policy in South America? You can't have a namby-pamby "liberal" opposition to it. It won't work. It WILL be undermined, coopted and corrupted--as the situation in Peru clearly shows. You have to find the middle ground between strong leadership and democracy. And if you have an FDR in office, you don't throw him over for some vague principle like "term limits" which some of our own Founders considered undemocratic. (The people should be able to elect whomever they wish.) "Term limits" is a rightwing Republican notion anyway. And the 2-term limit on the U.S. president was engineered by rightwing/corporate elements who never wanted to see another champion of the people, like FDR, hold power for that long again. They needed LESS stability in the U.S. government, to figure out how to loot Social Security, undo the "New Deal," re-create slave labor, stop the government from taxing the rich, and hijack the U.S. military for corporate resource wars.

In any case, this matter in Venezuela is not for you to decide. Or do you think that north Americans have some special right to judge the Venezuelan people, in their democratic choices? You say, "I don't approve...," and "I don't like..," and "I particularly don't like...", and that is your right, of course, to have a personal opinion of the matter. But millions of Venezuelans and South Americans--including a good portion of the leadership--disagree with you. Lula da Silva, president of Brazil, just endorsed the constitutional proposals of the Chavez government yesterday. HE is not concerned that Chavez "seeks to change the law" to "benefit Chavez," as you so inaccurately put it. What arguments and evidence do you have, in support your personal disapproval of this change--one among several proposed changes? (And what do you think of protection of gay rights, and a 4-day work week?) I don't see any facts to support your notion that Chavez is "benefiting Chavez" by proposing a change on term limits, for a vote of the people. I do see considerable evidence that it will benefit THE PEOPLE.

[Judi Lynn]

24. The only political entrenchment in Venezuela has been the oligarchy which sold the Venezuelan people

a long time ago, locked them out of life, condemned eternally to a ravaged, stricken, diminished, impoverished existance, even supporting a monster President who had his army fire directly into crowds of protesters who rushed into the streets in desperation over his fiendish economic squeeze on them, killing from 2,000 to 3,000 in the El Caracazo massacre.

The same entrenched oligarchy has created a white Venezuela on tv, in the news, magazines, and kept the massive poor sector completely unaware while they kidnapped the President, and installed their own monster who started stripping away every element of the previous government, including the Constitution itself, and what few rights they claimed.

It took real determination on the people's part for them to finally find out what had happened, as all the airwaves and tv channels were blocked from any news which would have informed them, deliberately, as has been testified, and the newspapers certainly weren't giving away the secret, either. It was all planned. They thought they had it all sewn up.

Only the efforts of that one small community tv station to put itself back on the air using emergency equipment finally got the news to them at all.

The entrenched oligarchy STILL controlls the news in Venezuela, all of it coming out and going in through its iron-fisted grip on almost everything relating to journalism there. They are the ones who hand out the "news" to foreign wire services, and U.S. agencies. We get it from THEM, and the idiots among us swallow it as the gospel truth.

The only truth of it is it is the truthful product of a right-wing ruling class and its machine working together with the _Bush administration to overthrow the people's elected President, just the way it has happened in Chile, and all over the world.

Nixon controlled Chile's largest, most powerful newspaper, El Mercurio and its owner, Austin Edwards' radio/tv outlets, before he arranged the destruction of Salvador Allende, too, after his plan to "make the Chilean economy scream" worked out for him.

Pity these people won't invest a moment's time doing their homework on the subjects they claim to understand so well.

[Flanker]

32. All laws benefit someone, whether directly or indirectly.

The key obviously is that the "decider" is not the same person receiving the perks, in this case Chavez was only part decider, the National Assembly had a say, the people have a say, and the Supreme court indirectly has a say.

Again if anything this is the SECOND time something like this has happened, and it will be happening in Ecuador and Bolivia soon.

[reorg]

5. For people outside of the US these complaints have a parochial tinge

To Germans, they sound completely absurd. We have a term limit for the largely ceremonial office of "Bundespräsident" (President of the Federal Republic), but the actual government members including the Chancellor usually try and stay in office as long as they get enough votes.

Chancellors: Adenauer (49-63, 14 years = 3,5 terms), Kohl (82-98, 16 years, 4 terms), Schmidt and Schröder only stayed for two terms, but ran for a third and certainly would have stayed longer in office if they had been elected. Dietrich Genscher, the Vice Chancellor of Schmidt (74-82), stayed in office when his party changed partners in 82. He stayed for more than 4 terms in office (74-92, 18 years).

Nobody ever complained about that, including our dear friends and NATO partners in America.

[Judi Lynn]

6. Really! Now that's so helpful. Believe me, it's awfully interesting! We never are led to believe

anything like that whatsoever. Apparently we run on the principle that our corporate media will inform us of what we need to know, and they get their directions from the power structure.

I think you're probably driving someone nuts showing those of us who simply didn't know, those of us who haven't traveled to Germany that this has been happening! We haven't heard ONE WORD OF DISAPPROVAL, on the way your leaders do their jobs.

At this same time, Colombia's President, Alvaro Uribe, has had his own Congress change the constitution, and allow him to run for an unprecidented 2nd term, and now he is working them for a third, which seems very likely to pass. In his country, however, there is no provision, as there is in Venezuela, for the people to vote to approve on this measure first, or to recall him one half way through his term.

Apparently the only people who can't run for office again are the ones our right-wing clowns despise for the fact they have put the interests of their people above those of the right-wing scum in the U.S. government and in U.S.-based corporations.

Thanks for setting the record straight on the actual lengths of time in office of German leaders.

[Progressive Friend]

7. Yep, there is never any complaining from Washington when a right-winger wins over and over

[Dave From Canada]

8. What about when King Hugo is on his 4th and 5th terms? Of course Chavez's eagerness can be

criticzed. One could make an arguement that it shouldn't, but to say it can't is absurd. What's also absurd is comparing British democracy with Venezuealan democracy. There hasn't been many dictatorships in power in Britian in quite some time. The same cannot be said for Venezuelan. One cannot ignore the history of that country and see the dictator-like road King Hugo is heading down. Especially when his political idol is Fidel Castro. What term is Castro in now, his 20th? Oh wait, there are no elections.

[EFerrari]

9. Do you have any idea how you sound?

Oh, British democracy can't be compared to Venezuelan democracy!

That would be wrong.

[RufusTFirefly]

10. sfexpat, my friend, you just don't get it, do you?

Chavez isn't even Spanish, after all. He's (gulp) indigenous!
Besides, South Americans are savages. Civilized people drink tea with a pinkie raised.
It's just that simple.

[EFerrari]

21. There must be something wrong with me because I don't get it.

Sorry. :)

[Ravachol]

11. Would you also consider...

Pierre Elliott Trudeau a dictator or wannabe dictator? After all, the guy was elected Canada's PM for four terms: almost sixteen years of power. And he even ran for a fifth one. Of course no, eh?

And Mackenzie King, in power for a total of 22 years, serving five, if not six terms?

So we judge Chavez on the fact that he MIGHT, ONE DAY, assume dictatorship control just like any other president/prime minister in the world and already brand him DICTATOR, despite Venezuela's many free elections, referendums and so on?

Bull.

[Judi Lynn]

14. You've added more information to this thread to make it a certain keeper! Imagine how some of us

labored over the last year or so, while dipsticks yammered and foamed at the mouth over a possible change in term limits for a leftist. (The right-wingers don't seem to bother them in the least.)

Now you're giving us facts we didn't have before. What makes Trudeau especially interesting is the fact that not only did he serve the four terms you mention, he was also very friendly with Fidel Castro from the early days, with his family even asking him to be a pall bearer at Trudeau's funeral.

http://content.answers.com.nyud.net:8090/main/content/wp/en/thumb/b/bf/275px-Castrotrudeau.jpg http://www.enterstageright.com.nyud.net:8090/archive/articles/101600castrocarter.jpg

Mackenzie King, good for 22. Amazing.

Welcome to D.U., Ravachol. :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi:

[Dave From Canada]

28. None of them ruled by decree. None of them shut down opposition media and free speech. None of

changed the constitution in order to consolidate power.

[eridani]

13. Were Adenauer and Kohl "kings" of Germany? n/t

[Peace Patriot]

23. The Venezuelans have a lot better democracy than the Brits, at the moment--

80% to 90% of whom opposed any UK participation in the horror that is the Iraq War, and who got overruled by...British Petroleum, the World Bank, Bush's "poodle" Tony Blair, or some such combo of the rich and powerful.

The Venezuelans are meanwhile experiencing the great joy of having a leader who tells Bush to go to hell, and who believes that a country's resources ought to benefit the people who live there.

Who has a better democracy?

We can't even count on the BBC any more to tell a straight story--so pressured are they by the war profiteers.

It's true that Chavez reveres Castro, but he doesn't imitate Cuban communism. Venezuela and South America are headed the other way, as a matter of fact--away from violent revolution (and replacing the NEED for violent revolution), away from obsessive ideology, and toward the most effective, most democratically achievable mix of socialist/capitalist economics and democratic procedure. What is happening in South America is, indeed, the triumph of democracy and political freedom. You could even look at it as a rebuke to Cuban communism (if you had your head on straight). And to dwell on Castro, as a revered hero to the Bolivarians--not because of his authoritarianism, but because of the obvious economic justice of the Cuban system--is to ignore their OTHER hero, Simon Bolivar, an aristocrat who led the revolution against colonial Spain, freed the slaves, and dreamed of a "United States of South America," with the combined, cooperative, political and economic clout on the "United States of North America," for the benefit of the people. "Divide and conquer" has been the means of preventing a democratic South American powerhouse of cooperating countries from ever developing. The Bolivarians mean to overcome this long history of pitting one South American (and Latin American) country against another, by bold new initiatives toward regional cooperation, like the Bank of the South.

We also need to realize that Castro is revered by MANY of the new leftist leaders in South America, and by many millions of their supporters. Most South Americans don't have this peculiar and highly distorted view of Cuba that has been forced upon us by Miami anti-Castroites and by global corporate predators. Cuba had a violent revolution against oppression. Well, so did we. So did the French. And Cuba didn't go the way of Russia and China, who had no new world democratic traditions whatsoever in their histories, and quickly fell prey to truly heinous dictators. Whatever you think of Castro, it is simply not possible to paint him as a heinous dictator. He isn't. And, whatever you think of Castro, you have to reckon with the fact that millions of people besides Hugo Chavez consider him a hero--for holding out against constant U.S. threats, for holding fast to a notion of economic fairness, and for surviving the fall of the Soviet Union. Cuba has some of the highest indicators of social health of any country in the western hemisphere (and the world)--things like infant mortality and literacy, health care and educational levels. It has one of the most respected medical education systems in the world--FREE medical educations. Something must be going right in that country--something that we are not permitted to see, but that South Americans see and admire.

We also tend not to see the bloody awful history of U.S.-supported rightwing rule in Latin America, which was the CAUSE of armed leftist rebellion. When you give people no hope, they WILL take up arms against you. That's what happened in the mid-20th century. That's what Che Guevara was all about, and Castro and others. Yeah, it was bloody. But so was the American Revolution (not to mention the French Revolution, which went far astray on the matter of bloodiness). But this is a new day. NOBODY wants to return to those days--nobody with any sense. Nobody except the Bushites and their fascist operatives in South America. The long hard work that many people and organizations have put in, on transparent elections and other democracy building, is paying off--in a PEACEFUL, DEMOCRATIC revolution.

You can revere George Washington and Thomas Paine and Lafayette and others, without wanting to ever see bloody revolution again. And you can admire Castro and his undemocratic government for what they have done right, and lament the things that they couldn't do, did wrong, or didn't want to do. And you can kind of understand their contempt for liberal democracy, considering what it has inflicted on the world in the last 50 years, in the form of unjust and truly horrendous wars--in Southeast Asia and the Middle East--and has inflicted on Latin America, in the form of torture, mass murder, assassinations of democratic leaders, and the imposition of fascist dictators, and its latest form of oppression, "free trade."

Who are the REAL "authoritarians"? Our global corporate predator-run government, or the Cuban communists? And who are the REAL democrats--our "Blue Dog" traitors to the people, who are funding Bush's war--or the Bolivarian revolutionaries, who don't have to rely on corporate money and corporate-controlled "TRADE SECRET" vote counting to get elected?

Criticize Chavez. Criticize Castro. Criticize away. It's a good thing to do. But do it in a context of historical and current knowledge and facts--and not with selective phrases like "his political idol is Fidel Castro." This kind of contemptuous phrase misses everything--including Chavez's WIDE-RANGING friendships among Latin American leaders, and the favorable opinion of Castro by the many, many people who support and repeatedly vote for Chavez. THEY see Castro much differently than we do, while choosing a far different path to economic justice than that of Cuba. They are taking the best elements of that system, and combining it with the best elements of our system, and are producing something new, at least in this hemisphere. (Some EU, Scandinavian and UK Commonwealth countries have similar mixed economy systems and democratic government.) The phrase "his political idol is Fidel Castro" asks us to be stupid and uninformed, and to ignore history, context and reality.

[Peace Patriot]

15. This is what I've been saying all along. Chavez has friends, allies, supporters

and brothers-in-peaceful-democratic-revolution throughout the continent. And this is one gage of Chavez's character. Does Evo Morales think he's a "dictator"? Does Lula da Silva? Does Rafael Correa? Does Nester Kirchner? Does Daniel Ortega? Does Tabare Vasquez? Indeed, would even the rightwing leaders in Latin America say that about him?

It was amazing to me--and hardly reported here--that the rightwing president of Mexico, Felipe Calderon, when Bush visited there last March, publicly lectured Bush on the sovereignty of Latin American countries, and mentioned Venezuela as an example. I was really surprised by this. It was probably a reference to a then-current Bushite plot against Chavez and the legitimate government of Venezuela, because it was echoed by other leaders, left and right, throughout Bush' trip. So even the rightwing leaders were treating this Bushite disinformation about "Chavez, the dictator," as nonsense.

But it is the leftwing leaders who count in my book. Would they be supporting a "dictator"? They not only support Chavez, the three Bolivarians--Morales, Correa and Kirchner--consider him their "brother." Kirchner even said so, explicitly. When the Bushites issued their dictate that Latin American leaders must "isolate" Chavez, Kirchner replied, "But he's my brother."

And when you combine the many evidences of friendship, alliance, common purpose, and the grass roots democracy nature of the millions of supporters of these leaders, with what Chavez has actually done (and not done), the Bushite "talking point" that he is a "dictator" becomes ridiculous.

It is disinformation. And everybody here at DU who repeats it is helping the Bush Junta to demonize Chavez and topple his democratically elected government, and re-impose rightwing dictatorship. This is the irony of all this Chavez-bashing. When the Bush-supported rightwing military coup occurred in 2002, they immediately suspended the Constitution, the National Assembly, the courts and all civil rights. THAT was a DICTATORSHIP! Bush, who spies on Americans without a warrant, slaughters half a million people in an unjust war, tortures prisoners and writes his own laws, is a DICTATOR. THEY are the dictators--not Chavez, who puts everything to a goddamned vote of the people!

I noted that, back in December, when Chavez was getting bashed by Bushites for calling the little dictator "the Devil"--and was, once again, RUNNING FOR OFFICE by a VOTE OF THE PEOPLE in TRANSPARENT elections--Lula da Silva went out of his way to visit Chavez in Venezuela, two weeks before the election, for a big ceremonial opening of the new Orinoco Bridge. He thus gave his blessing to Chavez, and implicitly endorsed him for president--and gave the middle finger to the Bushites.

I'm glad to see Lulu doing it again. And, once again, it informs our understanding of Chavez as a leader, and of Venezuela as a democracy, and, indeed, as one of the best democracies in the western hemisphere. Lula da Silva, a former steelworker and the very popular president of Brazil, has no fears that, if Chavez runs for a third term and wins, he will "become a dictator," and has faith that the Venezuelan people know how to run their own affairs. If they think they need this strong leftist leader for another term, so be it. They have things they want to accomplish, and Chavez is their man--much like FDR was chosen by the people of the U.S. for FOUR TERMS IN OFFICE. Furthermore, it informs us, implicitly, of the positive effect that Chavez's leadership is having on the region. I recently read that Brazil is going to join the Bank of the South--which was largely a Venezuelan/Chavez idea, and has had a rousing impact on the economies of the Andean region. And if Lula da Silva had any qualms about Chavez wanting to be a "dictator," he certainly wouldn't be joining that project, and wouldn't have endorsed Chavez, and wouldn't be making these recent remarks about the benign nature of the constitutional changes in Venezuela that are coming up for a VOTE OF THE PEOPLE.

Are you going to believe Lula da Silva--or Bush? Are you going to believe Evo Morales--or the Associated Press (those dirtbags)? Are you going to believe Nestor Kirchner--or the rightwing anti-Castro crowd in Miami? Are you going to believe the people of Venezuela--or the fascist Catholic cardinals of Venezuela, who joined the members of the rightwing military coup and appeared with them on RCTV, and who were the first to start the lie that Chavez is "increasingly authoritarian" (because he wanted to cut their state subsidies)?

Who are you going to believe--all these democratic leaders, and millions of South American voters, or the people here who call Chavez a "buffoon" and a "thug," and keep saying that, despite every evidence to the contrary, he. is. going. to. BECOME. a dictator.

[Judi Lynn]

16. The points you bring out could not be clearer. Apparently some are simply refusing to read them,

or are ignoring them as soon as they see them. This was especially intense, and interesting, from your post:

.....This is the irony of all this Chavez-bashing. When the Bush-supported rightwing military coup occurred in 2002, they immediately suspended the Constitution, the National Assembly, the courts and all civil rights. THAT was a DICTATORSHIP! Bush, who spies on Americans without a warrant, slaughters half a million people in an unjust war, tortures prisoners and writes his own laws, is a DICTATOR. THEY are the dictators--not Chavez, who puts everything to a goddamned vote of the people!
(snip)

How do they continue to ignore what's right in front of their round noses? Sheesh! If they actually become acquainted with the facts, it will surely crimp their style!

[Prophet 451]

17. Thatcher never had a term limit in the first place

The British political system doesn't contain any term limits. Any politician can stay in power so long as he can keep getting elected. Blair won three terms too. So that was a bad example.

The point is sound though. Chavez is doing this by the letter of the law. As I understand it, he went to the country to get the term limit repealed and he'll go to the country again to try and win a third term. Calling him a dictator in anything other than the ancient sense (originally, "dictator" just meant the leader during a crisis) is simply inaccurate. He's made a few mistakes and, like any politician, should be watched like a hawk for abuse of power but so far, he hasn't shown any dictatorial tendancies. He's done everything legally. For some reason, the MSM insists on describing him as a dictator regardless (probably because Chavez is a leftie).

When/if he refuses to leave office after losing an election, then is the time to call him a dictator.

[Andrushka]

25. Good post

And nothing in it that any reasonable Bolivarian Revolution supporter here would argue with!

[northzax]

26. of course he did

if he didn't, all of his country's financial interations with Venezuela would be under 'review'

[boricua79]

33. yes..of course

and, in other news...the sky is falling.

I'll admit that if the type of power concentration that i see in Venezuela were to happen in the United States, I'd be afraid, but that's because the American people have shown themselves to either be at sleep at the wheel or supportive of the aggressive tendencies of their government. Whether it came to be from a democratic groundswell or from elite rulership wouldn't really matter to me.

In the case of Venezuela, I haven't seen any evidence that the Venezuelan people intend harm to their democracy or to their neighbors by giving their government these powers. Therefore...if this is what the Venezuelan people want, this is what they want. The day don't like it, they can remove it by the same constitutional means they put it in place. And the day Chavez turns dictatorial, I'll be the first in line to condemn him.

What I don't feel is justified is the constant, tongue-in-cheek sniping at Chavez for his "dictatorial tendencies" when he hasn't done anything to justify it. On the contrary, think of all the pains he takes to avoid the "he's a dictator" label.

And frankly, I like that he's telling truth to power in a very rough way. I like it that he ruffles the feathers of the Spanish. I like it that he tells the imperialists off. The alternative is the same "take a backseat, Latin America" imperial policies that kept the continent subjugated for centuries. If the Venezuelans want to do something within their borders, let them. We have no right to judge.

[fascisthunter]

27. Margarete Thatcher was a Fascist Tool for the Wealthy... that's why

Chavez represents the poor and indigenous.

[Judi Lynn]

29. Longer article from Brazzil Magazine on Lula's comments on Chavez:

~snip~
In defense of Chávez, Lula said that Venezuela is a democratic country. "You can criticize Chávez for any thing. But never for lack of democracy in Venezuela. In Venezuela, they already had three referendums, three elections, four plebiscites," the Brazilian president stated.

Lula once again compared the staying of European leaders for many years in power and the constitutional reform proposed by Chávez, which would allow the president of Venezuela to be re-elected as many times as he wishes, if approved in a referendum to be held December 2.

"Why nobody complained when Margaret Thatcher stayed so long in power?," he asked. "It is continuism and there is nothing different here. All that changes is the system. Presidentialism in one case, parliamentarism in another. The regime doesn't matter, it's the exercise of power that does," Lula added.
(snip/...)

http://www.brazzilmag.com/content/view/8881/1/

[ohio2007]

30. Come to think of it, he could have used FDR as a reference also. nt

[Flanker]

31. The absolute record holder is Tage Erlander with 23 consecutive years

Funny how standard bearers of leftwing democracy (Canada, Germany, Sweden, US under FDR) all had these left wing leaders that served many many terms. They all could have stepped aside and let their party do their thing but they stayed on.

Could term limits be the reason why latin american democracies failed so misserably at bringing prosperity?