Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
djones520 wrote: ...and they don't frequently call my President the Devil.
Not to pick on you, because I respect your opinion on several things, but why should that matter to citizens of the most powerful country in the world?
And plenty of our own citizens call our own president the devil
djones520 wrote: ...and they don't frequently call my President the Devil.
Not to pick on you, because I respect your opinion on several things, but why should that matter to citizens of the most powerful country in the world?
And plenty of our own citizens call our own president the devil
yeah but it's different when someone else does it.
JSF wrote:... this is really quite an audacious move by GW, throwing out any pretext that this is a game and that its customers exist to do anything other than buy their overpriced products for the sake of it. The naked arrogance, greed and contempt for their audience is shocking.
Back to OP: Will there be real democratic elections? Or is there some Chavez family member jonesing for the job?
His elections have been declared free and fair, that's never been the issue with his rule.
er...wat?
You might wanna brush up on your reading there a bit. Declared by who?
Chavez was a defacto dictator...
He controlled the central government, controlling the courts, the legislature, and the electoral council...
Probably more telling is that the country’s independent media have been purged out, and the regime has taken over many radio and television stations..
Nationalized most of the industry such that their economy is in shambles.
Besides that fact that his personal wealth is in the billions.... yeah, he sure is "the man of the people".
Does Venezuela look like any semblance of a free society?
Yeah... Chávez technically won reelection back in October... but, his regime controlled the environment such that they were able to distort those supposed "free elections".
Elections have traditionally been interpreted as fair and competitive just as long as they were free of blatant fraud on election day. Modern authoritarians took note. Increasingly, they have developed strategies that aim to fix the outcome of political contests weeks, months, or even years before the ballots are cast. Their goal is to win elections while avoiding the brazen acts of vote rigging that inevitably trigger international opprobrium.
This phenomenon was clearly evident last month in two elections whose outcomes were widely interpreted as legitimate victories for incumbents. In Venezuela, President Hugo Chávez overcame his challenger, Henrique Capriles Radonski, with about 55 percent of the vote. In Ukraine, the results of parliamentary elections were a bit murkier, but it would appear that the ruling Party of Regions, loyal to President Viktor Yanukovych, held its own against a divided opposition.
While both elections drew critical comments from specialized monitoring organizations, the consensus of media and political opinion is that they were flawed, but the overall results were legitimate. Unlike in last December’s parliamentary contests in Russia, a process marked by obvious ballot stuffing in favor of the ruling United Russia forces, the election-day polling in Ukraine and Venezuela proceeded smoothly and did not provoke sustained protest.
In fact, in both cases the conventional assessments are well off the mark. Only by limiting one’s observations to conditions on election day can one conclude that the results in Ukraine and Venezuela reflect the free choices of the electorate.
Election rigging today is a holistic process that entails control of the judiciary, the legislature, electoral commissions, and the media. It is designed to shape the outcome without losing a crucial veneer of plausibility. With some exceptions, modern authoritarians find it worth their while to retain the trappings of democracy. They want to avoid being relegated to the status of Belarus’s dictator, Alyaksandr Lukashenka, who rolls up preposterous figures of 80 percent or more in national elections, uses violent police tactics to quell the inevitable protests, and as a result is treated as an international pariah. Instead, their preference is to control the ballot with professional finesse, permitting the opposition to compete, but preparing the terrain and distorting the process so thoroughly that the leader’s defeat is next to impossible.
In Ukraine, the elections were seriously marred by the erosion of democratic institutions under the current government, which took power in early 2010. The extent of this decline has been laid out in a monitoring report by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe’s Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR).
The ODIHR election-observation mission takes note of the use of government workers and resources to support the Party of Regions, the quick passage of a flawed electoral law a year before the voting, and a media environment in which unbiased news was scarce. The report also zeroes in on the prosecution, on spurious charges, of two important leaders of the opposition—former prime minister Yulia Tymoshenko and former interior minister Yuriy Lutsenko. The message is clear: an election cannot be regarded as fair if charismatic and appealing opposition figures are arbitrarily disqualified with the help of a pliant judiciary.
Superficially, the Venezuelan balloting came off as more consistent with democratic standards than many had predicted. Capriles conducted an impressive campaign, showing great self-discipline and patience in the face of repeated provocations by Chavistas. The voting itself took place without serious violence or major complaints of irregularities.
But to a far greater degree than in Ukraine, the results in Venezuela were determined by the regime’s actions well before the elections.
There is, first and foremost, Chávez’s iron grip on the media. The system he has built since taking power in 1999 controls six of eight national television stations and about half of the country’s radio stations. In some regions, he has a virtual information monopoly. The opposition was effectively shut out of the Chávez-controlled outlets, earning mention only as cartoonish villains. Indeed, commentators on state media regularly indulged in florid tirades against Capriles and his supporters.
Chávez benefited especially from a practice whereby all radio and television stations are obliged to preempt normal programming to accommodate his speeches to the nation. Throughout 2012, Chávez took advantage of this tool to dominate 100 hours of broadcasting, 47 of them in the 90 days prior to the election. Aurelio Concheso, an analyst with Transparency Venezuela, placed the value of this free air time at $1.8 billion. Another government mandate requires radio and television stations to broadcast ten 30-second spots free of charge each day; the state messages, not surprisingly, dovetailed with the arguments of the Chávez campaign. Concheso estimates the value of this free air time at $292 million. In addition, the government spent an estimated $200 million on advertising with private radio and television stations. By contrast, the opposition had access to five minutes a day in air time, at a cost of $102 million. Capriles was thus limited to an incredible 4 percent of the air time enjoyed by Chávez.
There is more. According to Concheso, the state oil company, PDVSA, spent some $20 billion on gifts of home durables, apartments, and outright cash subsidies to purchase the allegiance of Venezuelan voters and underscore the message that without El Comandante, this largesse would dry up.
Finally, a measure of fear was introduced through a campaign suggesting that although the balloting was secret, the government had ways of ascertaining a voter’s choice. This threat had a special effect given public memories of an episode in 2004, in which those who signed a petition for a referendum to remove Chávez from office were blacklisted and excluded from government jobs, benefits, and contracts.
The good news is that serious election-monitoring entities like ODIHR are increasingly focusing their attention on developments in the months prior to election day, and are thus identifying the most important methods used to distort the political process, like media manipulation and the jailing of opposition leaders on spurious charges. The not-so-good news is that neither the international press nor democratic governments fully appreciate how the mechanisms of modern authoritarianism are threatening the very possibility of competitive elections in countries like Ukraine, and destroying them in settings like Hugo Chávez’s Venezuela.
So... if you would forgive me... I won't be lamenting his death.
Sure, and so was FDR, the real question is what does, and does not, constitute a free and fair (democratic) election. All too often Americans assume that the election of people they don't like entails the absence of such. And further that American election are paragons of freedom and fairness*.
*They are better than they were in the near past, but they still aren't free, or fair, in an absolute sense.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
Sure, and so was FDR, the real question is what does, and does not, constitute a free and fair (democratic) election. All too often Americans assume that the election of people they don't like entails the absence of such. And further that American election are paragons of freedom and fairness*.
*They are better than they were in the near past, but they still aren't free, or fair, in an absolute sense.
That's a fair statement...
I was just pointing out to Seb that IMO, Chavez was NOT elected in a fair/free manner.
You might wanna brush up on your reading there a bit. Declared by who?
As per your article later in the thread, declared such by multiple monitoring organisations. Now the article charges for various reasons (which I'll comment on later in the post) those agencies were myopic in their view of the election, but there can't be any doubt that monitoring agenices declared the result free and fair.
He controlled the central government, controlling the courts, the legislature, and the electoral council...
Probably more telling is that the country’s independent media have been purged out, and the regime has taken over many radio and television stations..
Nationalized most of the industry such that their economy is in shambles.
Besides that fact that his personal wealth is in the billions.... yeah, he sure is "the man of the people".
Dude, seriously, read my actual statement. I said the elections were declared free and fair, and that was never the issue with his rule. That should be read that there were issues with his rule (lots of them, interference with the courts and other elements of government were just the tip of the iceberg).
That's a really important part of sticking to the actual substance of the issue - it is possible to recognise that a person has done a lot wrong, without needing to declare they've done everything wrong.
Does Venezuela look like any semblance of a free society?
It looks like it has the democracy and personal protections that are common in many developing, but not first world, countries.
I mean, proper and completely fair government costs money. Takes resources. Takes elaborate and complex legal systems, and a steady flow of trained lawyers through the system. You know how in that other thread you were complaining about the size of government in your country, and I was pointing out how as GDP expands so does government. Well one of the things you get with that large government system is the checks and balances that protects democracy and individual rights.
I mean, go read about your country when it wasn't so rich, when it hadn't yet built the system of government it has today. Read about 19th century New York politics (vote early, vote often). Read about LA in the first half of the 20th century.
Anyhow, onto the article.
There is, first and foremost, Chávez’s iron grip on the media. The system he has built since taking power in 1999 controls six of eight national television stations and about half of the country’s radio stations. In some regions, he has a virtual information monopoly. The opposition was effectively shut out of the Chávez-controlled outlets, earning mention only as cartoonish villains. Indeed, commentators on state media regularly indulged in florid tirades against Capriles and his supporters.
Sure, media control is bad for democracy, which needs to have a platform for all. But it doesn't make an election unfair by itself. If that were the case then we'd be calling Berlusconi a dictator. That'd be a pretty stupid claim, especially after he, you know, lost an election.
There is more. According to Concheso, the state oil company, PDVSA, spent some $20 billion on gifts of home durables, apartments, and outright cash subsidies to purchase the allegiance of Venezuelan voters and underscore the message that without El Comandante, this largesse would dry up.
And if pork barrelling made a government a totalitarian regime, then we'd call the liberal democrats in Japan a totalitarian regime (seriously, there pork barrelling has to be seen to be believed - roadworks that start on the boundary of an electorate that voted for them, and stop as soon as they hit an electorate that didn't). But, of course, calling them a totalitarian regime would be very stupid, especially when they only recently returned to government after time in opposition.
So... if you would forgive me... I won't be lamenting his death.
No-one said you had to. I'm just saying that it is important to understand that the reason Chavez is picked out of all the various thugs of international politics is due not to being any worse than the rest (indeed he's well and truly on the mild end of the scale), but because of the filter of US politics. If he didn't sound off about America and make populist left wing claims, I doubt anyone in this thread would have even heard of the guy.
I mean, have you heard of Emomalii Rahmon, president of Tajikistan? Because his government is a major player in the trafficking of women as sex slaves. And again, his government is still nowhere near the top of the list.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2013/03/08 03:03:20
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
d-usa wrote:And plenty of our own citizens call our own president the devil
I think the antichrist stuff has faded away by now, hasn't it? I believe calling him "Hitler" is the flavour du jour.
sebster wrote:I mean, have you heard of Emomalii Rahmon, president of Tajikistan? Because his government is a major player in the trafficking of women as sex slaves. And again, his government is still nowhere near the top of the list.
I've heard of Rahmon, and his government should be considered near the top of the list insofar as 2nd-world countries go. (I think it's important to make the distinction between 1st-, 2nd- and 3rd-world dictatorships and governments; otherwise you're basically comparing boats to planes to cars)
sebster wrote:I mean, have you heard of Emomalii Rahmon, president of Tajikistan? Because his government is a major player in the trafficking of women as sex slaves. And again, his government is still nowhere near the top of the list.
I've heard of Rahmon, and his government should be considered near the top of the list insofar as 2nd-world countries go. (I think it's important to make the distinction between 1st-, 2nd- and 3rd-world dictatorships and governments; otherwise you're basically comparing boats to planes to cars)
sebster wrote:I mean, have you heard of Emomalii Rahmon, president of Tajikistan? Because his government is a major player in the trafficking of women as sex slaves. And again, his government is still nowhere near the top of the list.
I've heard of Rahmon, and his government should be considered near the top of the list insofar as 2nd-world countries go. (I think it's important to make the distinction between 1st-, 2nd- and 3rd-world dictatorships and governments; otherwise you're basically comparing boats to planes to cars)
2nd World?
Yeah, "developing nations". Not first-world yet, but not full-blown wastelands like Somalia or Detroit.
...what, did you think that there was nothing in between first-world and third-world nations?
sebster wrote:I mean, have you heard of Emomalii Rahmon, president of Tajikistan? Because his government is a major player in the trafficking of women as sex slaves. And again, his government is still nowhere near the top of the list.
I've heard of Rahmon, and his government should be considered near the top of the list insofar as 2nd-world countries go. (I think it's important to make the distinction between 1st-, 2nd- and 3rd-world dictatorships and governments; otherwise you're basically comparing boats to planes to cars)
2nd World?
Yeah, "developing nations". Not first-world yet, but not full-blown wastelands like Somalia or Detroit.
...what, did you think that there was nothing in between first-world and third-world nations?
MeanGreenStompa wrote: Let's get some clarity here, I'm fairly left of the perceived center on dakka. I'll not toast this man's death, nor will I mourn him, he implemented some very good ideas and on paper, his country has thrived under his leadership, however he most certainly did behave intolerably towards opponents or obstacles and set himself up into a dictatorship, drifting further and further into domination as time went by.
But Sebster's point is very valid, listening to the right wing dakkanauts here toasting the death of a 'great enemy of personal freedoms', the US has most certainly climbed into bed, under Republican presidents (even St Reagan, especially St Reagan) with some of the most violent and sadistic tinpot dictators in history, denying populations 'democracy' to prevent them choosing the result the US didn't want. Compared to the monsters the US has funded and enabled, Chavez was a pussycat.
I'm not sure "thrived" is the word you were looking for. His legacy is an economy in tatters despite crazy oil revenues and keeping Venezuela in the list of tinpot "up with the proletariat, comrade!" nonsense countries.
sebster wrote:I mean, have you heard of Emomalii Rahmon, president of Tajikistan? Because his government is a major player in the trafficking of women as sex slaves. And again, his government is still nowhere near the top of the list.
I've heard of Rahmon, and his government should be considered near the top of the list insofar as 2nd-world countries go. (I think it's important to make the distinction between 1st-, 2nd- and 3rd-world dictatorships and governments; otherwise you're basically comparing boats to planes to cars)
2nd World?
Yeah, "developing nations". Not first-world yet, but not full-blown wastelands like Somalia or Detroit.
...what, did you think that there was nothing in between first-world and third-world nations?
Except that's not what second world means. The whole "# world" thing is a relic of the cold war: NATO is the first world, warsaw pact and related is the second, and everyone else is third (the "third world" thing was coined by India, with some vague attempt at creating a third alliance out of the unaligned states). Come the close of the cold war and the collapse of the second world (with the nations composing it winding up either in the "first world", by dint of geography and new alliances, or "third world" through lack of the above) the terms first and third world took on different meanings, as they lined up along economic divisions as well as political ones.
In college my political science teacher railed against the "# world" convention as being outdated and uninformative, insisting on the "developed/developing" standard. My geography teacher railed against that as vague and uninformative, insisting on the "# world" convention instead. It was quite amusing, really.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/03/09 07:07:01
MeanGreenStompa wrote: Let's get some clarity here, I'm fairly left of the perceived center on dakka. I'll not toast this man's death, nor will I mourn him, he implemented some very good ideas and on paper, his country has thrived under his leadership, however he most certainly did behave intolerably towards opponents or obstacles and set himself up into a dictatorship, drifting further and further into domination as time went by.
But Sebster's point is very valid, listening to the right wing dakkanauts here toasting the death of a 'great enemy of personal freedoms', the US has most certainly climbed into bed, under Republican presidents (even St Reagan, especially St Reagan) with some of the most violent and sadistic tinpot dictators in history, denying populations 'democracy' to prevent them choosing the result the US didn't want. Compared to the monsters the US has funded and enabled, Chavez was a pussycat.
I'm not sure "thrived" is the word you were looking for. His legacy is an economy in tatters despite crazy oil revenues and keeping Venezuela in the list of tinpot "up with the proletariat, comrade!" nonsense countries.
I really think you should read about what it was like before he came along. I think Venezuela had something close to 8 coup d'etats of various degrees of success since 1948, and government corruption peaked with the administration prior to Chavez.
But we both know you won't read up on any of that, because it'll conflict with your existing worldview.
azazel the cat wrote: I really think you should read about what it was like before he came along. I think Venezuela had something close to 8 coup d'etats of various degrees of success since 1948, and government corruption peaked with the administration prior to Chavez.
But we both know you won't read up on any of that, because it'll conflict with your existing worldview.
My "world view" is that he was an insanely corrupt statist who made Venezuela's economy worse than it was when he found it, but none of that stops the "no one should get paid more than me!" crowd in the developed world loving him because he wore track suits and met with Sean Penn. My world view has this odd bias towards reality, it turns out.
But don't worry, man. When I start selling shirts with his face on them to liberal arts majors and the like, I promise I'll hold one aside.
Sure, and so was FDR, the real question is what does, and does not, constitute a free and fair (democratic) election. All too often Americans assume that the election of people they don't like entails the absence of such. And further that American election are paragons of freedom and fairness*.
*They are better than they were in the near past, but they still aren't free, or fair, in an absolute sense.
Sad part being, as long as humans are involved there never really will be a true 100% free and fair democratic election
azazel the cat wrote: I really think you should read about what it was like before he came along. I think Venezuela had something close to 8 coup d'etats of various degrees of success since 1948, and government corruption peaked with the administration prior to Chavez.
But we both know you won't read up on any of that, because it'll conflict with your existing worldview.
My "world view" is that he was an insanely corrupt statist who made Venezuela's economy worse than it was when he found it
My world view has this odd bias towards reality, it turns out.
These two statements of yours are incongruous and serve as demonstration for exactly what I was talking about.
And now that I know everything you'll respond with will feel like a rerun, I'll merely say "good day to you, sir".
whembly wrote: Sheesh..it's hard to keep up with ya seb...
I ain't going to fisk your responses, so I'll keep it short.
In other words, we should just stay the feth out of other people's business...right?
Sort of, or that if we are going to look at the world, we should make sure we're aware of how the politics of our own country filters what we see of the rest of the world. Realise that the truth is generally a lot more complex than the simple narratives we're provided with.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
azazel the cat wrote: I've heard of Rahmon, and his government should be considered near the top of the list insofar as 2nd-world countries go. (I think it's important to make the distinction between 1st-, 2nd- and 3rd-world dictatorships and governments; otherwise you're basically comparing boats to planes to cars)
I'm impressed you knew his name, I had to look him up, and was only aware of him after reading a piece on his government's collusion in the sex trade.
But I agree with in terms of them being better than a lot, and the need to keep a countries development in mind when looking at the quality of their democracy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote: My "world view" is that he was an insanely corrupt statist who made Venezuela's economy worse than it was when he found it, but none of that stops the "no one should get paid more than me!" crowd in the developed world loving him because he wore track suits and met with Sean Penn. My world view has this odd bias towards reality, it turns out.
But don't worry, man. When I start selling shirts with his face on them to liberal arts majors and the like, I promise I'll hold one aside.
And now you prop up your argument not with evidence but just with a broad attack on the left.
This is getting really boring, Seaward.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/03/11 02:58:08
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
So..... Throughout the course of Chavez reign.
1. Several nations in Asia either initializes, or finalizes democratic reforms.
2. And since Deng Xiaobing, many socialist nations in Asia had tossed Socialism and embraces Capitalism.
through the roads towards democracy in Asia is still an ardious ones, it saw a progress, a significant ones
- Indonesia has a stable politics for the first times since Suharto
- Myanmar chose the paths that Juan Carlos of Spain has done for his country, yet they need 30 years or more to finalize the reforms. but with it. Myanmar will no longer needs to export narcotics.
- In Thailand, Since the big protests of 2006, followed by the Coup d'Etat, and series of events that culminated in the 19th May 2010 Massacre. Public awareness on politics is now a serious forces to push thier nation towards the progress. the citizen-imposed inspection decreases any tendency of either politicians (regardless which factions they belong to), or bureaucrats, to skim off national budget and made them wealthy. Yet another obstacle that needs to overcome was a group of Kartells (of big business clans, some dated back to the days of King Chulalongkorn) whom might try to prevent the 'reforms' due to their fear of 'new entry threats'. but once the reform is done, Robber barony will becomes unfeasible.
3. Argentina went through the crises and re emerges, one said that some aspects of socialism (especially the "State Enterprise" did indeed ruin Argentinian economy)
4. And Brazil joined G20. aspiring to replaces the United States of America.
I don't think Chavez is evil. he has to become a bane to the USA because of "American robber barons". Let's hope that the next president of Venezuela will be a clever leader, ones that match the Shinawatras.
sebster wrote:I mean, have you heard of Emomalii Rahmon, president of Tajikistan? Because his government is a major player in the trafficking of women as sex slaves. And again, his government is still nowhere near the top of the list.
I've heard of Rahmon, and his government should be considered near the top of the list insofar as 2nd-world countries go. (I think it's important to make the distinction between 1st-, 2nd- and 3rd-world dictatorships and governments; otherwise you're basically comparing boats to planes to cars)
Where do you hear that Rahmon is responsible of flooding Pattaya with 'Russian modelswomen'?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/03/11 12:28:44
