Despotism vs Democracy: Putin Wins. Chavez Loses

POSTED BY: citizen
UPDATED: Sunday, July 19, 2026 16:36
VIEWED: 2487
PAGE 1 of 3

1 2 3 NEXT PAGE

CITIZEN

Tuesday, December 4, 2007 1:40 PM

By Manila Ryce
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez lost a referendum on constitutional changes by a narrow margin of 51% to 49%. The election had an abstention rate of 44%, suggesting that Chavez supporters who did not endorse the reforms stayed home while opposition voters turned out in droves. Among the proposals were plans to shorten the working day from 8 to 6 hours, lower the voting age from 18 to 16, remove autonomy of the central bank, and remove presidential terms limits. Chavez conceded defeat and said, “To those who voted against my proposal, I thank them and congratulate them.” He remains steadfast to further the reforms he has already put in place, which have vastly improved the lives of the country’s poor.

Since he was voted into office in 1998, the US and anti-Chavez elite have painted Chavez as a dictator. Whether you agree with the constitutional reforms or not, Chavez’s gracious reaction to the defeat certainly does not match the actions of a dictator. The fact that a fair election occurred at all suggests that Venezuela’s democracy is healthier than that of the United States. After all, what kind of dictator allows himself to be defeated? After two fixed presidential elections here in the states, we could use a little bit of the “undemocratic rule” that the people of Venezuela enjoy. Had Chavez actually won the referendum, the CIA was prepared to stage another coup.

It is important for us to take the US position towards a democratic leader like Chavez in context to our support for a despot like Putin. The one thing America truly fears is democracy. The same Western pundits that have slammed Chavez for his socialist views have excused Putin’s tyrannical rule as something necessary. A supposedly “liberal” pundit like Bill Maher comes to mind as one such apologist. Putin’s recent “win” has secured him 70 percent of the seats in the Russian parliament, but there’s no need to accuse the Kremlin of ballot-rigging because Bush trusts Putin.

In Russia, the Communist Party has cited some 10,000 violations, and said it will ask the Supreme Court to rule on the validity of the vote. Liberal opposition parties have basically ceased to exist, and the Kremlin has hailed the rigged result as a signal that Russian voters want Putin to retain power after he leaves office. This is the kind of police state “democracy” we support over the progressive reforms taking place in Venezuela, which have actually given the populace enough power to vote against the very government which gave them that power in the first place.

To further juxtapose socialist-libertarianism with authoritarian capitalism: While pro-democracy protesters are often jailed as their leaders meet mysterious ends in Russia, many of the Venezuelans involved in the actual 2002 coup against Hugo Chavez have never even been arrested or put on trial. While we know the CIA will continue in their efforts to install a strongman in Venezuela, we can also rest assured that Chavez will continue to fight for democracy. Viva La Revolución!
http://www.jwharrison.com/blog/2007/12/03/despotism-vs-democracy-putin
-wins-chavez-loses/

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

GEEZER

Tuesday, December 4, 2007 2:21 PM

"Whether you agree with the constitutional reforms or not, Chavez’s gracious reaction to the defeat certainly does not match the actions of a dictator."

Time will tell.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

ANTHONYT

Tuesday, December 4, 2007 4:35 PM

Hello,

While I agree that Putin is scary, I also think that Chavez is scary. (And not because he hates the U.S.) I'm taking a 'wait and see' approach as well.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

KIRKULES

Tuesday, December 4, 2007 9:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
By Manila Ryce
Chavez conceded defeat and said, “To those who voted against my proposal, I thank them and congratulate them.” He remains steadfast to further the reforms he has already put in place, which have vastly improved the lives of the country’s poor.

The article left out a sentence following his "gracious reaction". What he actually said is "To those who voted against my proposal, I thank them and congratulate them... You won it. I wouldn't have wanted that Pyrrhic victory...
We haven't achieved our objectives - for the time being."

Sounds like this isn't over yet.

AURAPTOR

Tuesday, December 4, 2007 9:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
"Whether you agree with the constitutional reforms or not, Chavez’s gracious reaction to the defeat certainly does not match the actions of a dictator."

Time will tell.

Ditto that. Time will do the tellin'.

"Hillary tried to get a million dollars for the Woodstock museum. I understand it was a major cultural and pharmaceutical event. I couldn't attend. I was tied up at the time." - John McCain

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

RALLEM

Tuesday, December 4, 2007 9:52 PM

I think people get the terms Democracy and Republic mixed up and of course our News Agencies and even the Politicians don't seem able to tell the differences between the two. With that said I looked up Venezuela on Wikipedia and it says that it is a Social Democratic Republic which means it is a socialist state. The nations of the Soviet Block were all referred to as Democratic Republics because they were Socialist States, so the nation of Venezuela it seems went one step further and called itself a Social Democratic Republic. I do not know that much about the workings of a Socialist State other than it is neither a Democratic nor Republican form of Government, but I doubt this so called loss in the polls by the President was actually a loss at all, and in some ways it might be an avenue of a victory, because I have no doubt this topic will be voted on again and he will win.

On the subject of Democracy in the United States, I would like to point out that it is a fallacy, because our Constitution quite clearly states in paragraph four of Article four that the United States Government must be run in a Republican form. The differences in my mind to a Democracy and a Republic are that in a Republic its citizens are regionally represented and in a Democracy it is one vote per Citizen, also in a Republic a Citizen’s rights are paramount, but in a Democracy only the rights of the majority are considered.

RUE

Tuesday, December 4, 2007 9:59 PM

What's in a name? that which we call a rose By any other name would smell as sweet ...

Venezuela
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ve.ht
ml

Democratically elected governments have held sway since 1959.

Government type:
federal republic

Constitution:
30 December 1999

Legal system:
open, adversarial court system

Suffrage:
18 years of age; universal

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

CITIZEN

Tuesday, December 4, 2007 10:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rallem:
I think people get the terms Democracy and Republic mixed up and of course our News Agencies and even the Politicians don't seem able to tell the differences between the two.

I said it in a previous thread, but it depends on what you define as a democracy. The general accepted modern definition of 'Democracy' is a country who's government is formed through election, which makes your average Republic a form of Democracy.

Quote:
With that said I looked up Venezuela on Wikipedia and it says that it is a Social Democratic Republic which means it is a socialist state.

Hardly. Adhering to Socialist economic and social ideals would make it 'Socialist'.

Quote:
The nations of the Soviet Block were all referred to as Democratic Republics because they were Socialist States, so the nation of Venezuela it seems went one step further and called itself a Social Democratic Republic.

I'm not sure I see you're logic. Guilt by arbitrary association? If Kazakhstan had been called the United States of Kazakhstan, would that make the US a Communist protectorate? Democratic Republic doesn't mean "Socialist State". Neither were those states 'socialist', they were communist.

Quote:
I do not know that much about the workings of a Socialist State other than it is neither a Democratic nor Republican form of Government, but I doubt this so called loss in the polls by the President was actually a loss at all, and in some ways it might be an avenue of a victory, because I have no doubt this topic will be voted on again and he will win.

Huh? Socialism isn't mutually exclusive with Democracy, and you seem to be doing some real mental gymnastics to get to your position here. They had a referendum, they say they're socialist, and apparently socialism excludes democracy, which would logically follow that they wouldn't have had a referendum. But they did...

Quote:
The differences in my mind to a Democracy and a Republic are that in a Republic its citizens are regionally represented and in a Democracy it is one vote per Citizen, also in a Republic a Citizen’s rights are paramount, but in a Democracy only the rights of the majority are considered.

I have no idea what you mean by Democracy here. Democracy used to refer to the system used in Athens, but that system is nothing like what we currently refer to as Democracy. Democracy is a catch all for any system with an elective government, which would include a representative republic.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

RUE

Tuesday, December 4, 2007 10:18 PM

I think people get mixed with between form of government and form of economy.

They think somehow 'capitalism' is written into 'democratic' constitutions (it isn't). So a democratic country democratically electing to follow a socialist economy (as in many South and Central American countries) becomes irreconcilable.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

KIRKULES

Tuesday, December 4, 2007 11:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I think people get mixed with between form of government and form of economy.

They think somehow 'capitalism' is written into 'democratic' constitutions (it isn't).

In the US all Socialists would have to do is win 60% of the seats in the Senate and 50% in the House and they'd be in power. They wouldn't even need to change the Constitution. If they could get the City and State governments to go along they could use current "eminent domain" laws to seize private property and businesses.

1 2 3 NEXT PAGE