How not? We have seen that the majority wants him in power? Therefore by constantly focusing on the minority who don't want him in power, (often because his policies are against them) you are doing the exact same thing (with the difference being Chavez is backed by the majority).

True, with the not un-important comment that the votes of people who work for the government are being registered and passed on to their supervisors.

The difference is that the minority that currently keeps Assad in place is part of the past. The students we talk to that represent the minority against Chavez is part of the future.

If I were Chavez, that would concern me.

He's "ruined democracy", you say that with a straight face? Yes neighborhood councils and empowering poor people is "ruining democracy". No, rather, it is ruining "business as usual", which is what the Escualidos want. Anybody who thinks that Venezuela was a better democracy under the pacted system that orchestrated a coup against Chavez in 2002 has no credibility whatsoever. Nor does Invictus who famously wished death upon Chavez not long ago. These aren't "democrats" we're engaging with, friends. They're the worst kind of neoliberal authoritarians who think 3rd world countries ought to keep quiet and be content with their position as cheap sources of labor & resources for the rich world.

Assad is backed by the majority.

These imperialists can't stand it. They hate it when the people prevail over big money.

When is the UK and France going to impose term limits? How come "term limits" only seem to matter when it's a government people like Invictus doesn't like?

Putin, I agree on Assad, but the fact is irrelevant, for this, trying to show them the inconsistency of their position (as you demonstrate with the UK France post). The Venezualan democratic system is renowned for its reliability, protection against fraud etc. And no the majority that support Chavez are the past, present and future, they are the oppressed throwing off their chains! The bourgeois minority is not the future, just a relic of the past (and if they are the future it is only because society is failing to progress!)

@stranger - I said gasoline, not oil. Read beyond the first sentence or so and you'll see the mention about how even before the blast they were importing gasoline.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2012/08/25/refinery-blast-in-venezuela-kills-24/

Its not like PDVSA can ask Chavez to use their own profits to upgrade the infrastructure. He's too busy spending all their money on other purposes. Oh, and the last time when they went on strike in 2002 ***he fired every single employee...all 18,000 of them***

Oh, and even though they're sitting on top of the 2nd largest natural gas reserve in the western hemisphere, they're importing natural gas too (look at the consumption figures)

http://www.eia.gov/countries/cab.cfm?fips=VE

I gotta find the article, but Chavez also ram-rodded over 47 hours of advertisements for himself on the state-controlled television stations (by which I mean all television stations in Venezuela) in the last month before his election.

And seriously, did anyone read the journal article I posted on how un-democratic and authoritarian Venezuela is? I mean, you guys yell at us when we don't read your stuff...

Indeed I think the fact that the rich opposition even accepted portions of the Bolivarian Revolution proves that the old days of a wealthy few lording over the impoverished masses are over, as does the fact that the Bolivarian Revolution in some form has been exported throughout Latin America to Bolivia, Argentina, Ecuador, etc.

If Assad were backed by the majority they'd have what they call "real elections" in Syria, don't you think?

Also:
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_6_de_la_Constitution_de_la_Cinquième_République_française

And:
Iran also imports gasoline and exports oil

Actually, the Brits also have term limits. Their heads of state serve one seemingly endless term.

"It's not that their opinions don't matter, but it's like saying the minority Assad belongs to wants him in power, ergo he should be in power" - Socrates

"How not? We have seen that the majority wants him in power? Therefore by constantly focusing on the minority who don't want him in power, (often because his policies are against them) you are doing the exact same thing (with the difference being Chavez is backed by the majority). " - Socrates

"Assad is backed by the majority. " - Putin

"Putin, I agree on Assad," - Socrates

What were you saying about inconsistencies, Socrates? Please tell me I took some of that out of context, because I don't believe I did.

Haven't got time to respond to everything but to the last point goldfinger 'but the fact is irrelevant, for this, trying to show them the inconsistency of their position', the point is not whether assad is backed by the majority or not, but here, i assumed you were all of the opinion that he is backed by the minority not the majority, and ergo was trying to demonstrate inconsistencies in the support for one minority and one 'majority' - it was the easiest example i thought i could use without detracting from the conversation (so i went with a basic point to establish it - even though i disagree with it - that is irrelevant to the inconsistency) more later.

Goldfinger, your article requires people to pay for it. How am I supposed to read it?

Anyway these two scholars you cite wrote a polemical book here, so not exacty dispassionate analysis here.

http://www.amazon.com/Dragon-Tropics-Political-Revolution-Initiative/product-reviews/0815704976

"Actually, the Brits also have term limits."

No, they do not. Please learn basic facts about political systems. The Prime Minister can serve as long as he enjoys the support of parliament, which can be indefinite and has often been a very long time, as with Thatcher & Blair.

@Putin - it does? My apologies. I was able to download it without a hassle, and I don't believe I'm paying for that site. But then again, I'm on a university's internet, so maybe I have paid access and was unaware. My apologies though.

From a foreign policy article I can surmise what they are complaining about. That he got rid of institutional sources of legislative gridlock means that he is a democrat in "disguise". Nevermind that these constitutional changes were approved by popular and legislative vote, that evidently doesn't matter. Their standard for 'democracy' is keeping all sources of checks on popular power, and getting rid of that is authoritarian. Naturally they have no problem with the opposition controlling the media, and they don't dare claim that Chavez has restricted political rallies in any way, and happily gloss over the fact that the legislature is half comprised of the opposition. They insinuate that he somehow rigs elections, but provide no evidence for this whatsoever.

Uh, France does have term limits. they even SHORTENED the president's term from 7 to 5 years. As for Britain, yeah a Prime Minister can serve indefinitely. Even that only lasts about a decade tops, though. And just the nature of the offices of prime minister and president are so different that the comparison isn't too apt. A PM has power because his party has power, not because the people elected him personally. And the leader can easily change during the term. I throw the Reagan in 1988 and 1992 scenario back at you, Putin33. I'll bet dollars to donuts that you would have opposed that since you're opposed to Reagan. You just like the idea of a politician serving indefinitely because you happen to agree with Chavez. I believe in rotation in office and term limits without reservations.

^Invictus, I actually made both these points already. See the wiki on "Cinquieme Republique" and my joke about the British queen (that Putin didn't pick up :-( ).

The French only imposed term limits in 2008. So I guess before 2008 they were "authoritarian", if you believe the nonsense Invictus has been saying. Most democracies don't have "term limits", and the nonsense about parliamentary systems getting a pass because the people don't elect PMs doesn't cut it, because the PM in especially the British system is more powerful than the US President relative to the other institutions in their respective countries. Indeed generally speaking prime ministers are more powerful than Presidents because in the former systems there is no divided power with one party controlling the legislature and the other the executive. The claim is that PMs last only as long as a decade. No, not really. Look at the Finnish Prime Ministers. They've had ministers serving nearly two decades. I fail to see why a President serving 3 four year terms is different than a Thatcher or a Blair serving 12 years a piece.

I don't get why the Reagan scenario is supposed to impress me. There was no functional difference between Reagan and his henchman Bush by 1988. There might have been in 1980, but not in 1988. So Bush ruling from 89-92 was Reagan continued. What difference would term limits have made? Plus by that time Reagan was getting ver old and experiencing symptoms of his disease, so the idea that he would even want to run is pretty far fetched.

Life's too short.

Putin - I don't claim that he rigged the elections. I believe he won, but with strong-armed tactics and took heavy advantage of his position within the government to dole out rewards. I'm sure there was no ballot-box stuffing, or intimidation at the poles. But he bought his election victory through his social programs. The problem is that the money could be used more efficiently and effectively by someone else. Their oil output could jump 30% or more if they invested some more in it.

And yes, he was democratically elected and democratically given his powers, but I believe he was granted many of his powers in 2007, by a parliament that was nearly 100% his followers due to a boycott of the 2005 elections by the opposition parties. And Hitler was popularly elected too, and all those changes he made were done with the consent of the Reichstag. NOTE - I am not comparing Chavez, or his policies to Hitler. Chavez is not Hitler, nor a crazed mass murderer. He did, however, manipulate a democratic system in a similar fashion to the way Hitler did to assume an almost authoritarian position. He won't go and declare himself dictator, or do any crazy shit. He just wants to stay in power.

The fact is the power of the incumbency is not very strong in the United States, as was evident with "Clinton fatigue" in the late 1990s, which Gore had to deal with. By all accounts Gore should have defeated Bush in 2000 if incumbency mattered, but he "lost". Also we wouldn't see things like the President's party routinely getting beaten in mid-term elections, as is tradition in the US. Term limits are meaningless.

But Putin - you stated by opposition to Chavez pretty well in one of your earlier posts. He doesn't have any checks. Something - be it a strong court system, parliamentary opposition, private enterprise, or term limits - should stand in his way, but there is no institution that is.

@ Invictus: "It's dangerous for the state itself to become as closely identified with one man as Chavez has become with Venezuela, and just makes the INEVITABLE transition to someone else's time as president more difficult."

I completely agree. I very rarely agree with Invictus but here he makes a very strong, and clearly presented case. I like very few things about America's system of government but one of the things I do like about it is the fact that US presidents can only serve two terms in office. I would support a rule here in the UK that said an MP could only be Prime Minister for a limited period. Eight years, as in the US, actually seems about right.

For example, I have always been very impressed by Tito's achievements in Yugoslavia. However, his great failing was to stay in power for too long, and when he died, it didn't take long for things to go wrong.

Just because someone is no longer president, and has passed the torch to a younger member of their movement, that doesn't mean they can't stay around to give their wisdom and advice to their successor. If Tito had done that, perhaps Yugoslavia would still be unified today and thousands upon thousands of lives could have been saved. Likewise, while I am very pleased to see the socialists win another election and remain in power in Venezuela, and I hope they continue to achieve great things for their people, I hope Chavez himself seriously considers passing on the torch in the next few years. He has been continuously in power for 13 years, and while he seems to have recovered well from cancer and is only 58 years old, if he is still president when he's 65, he will only be storing up problems for the leader who comes after him.

That said I must end by congratulating Hugo Chavez on his great achievements as president, and on his latest popular victory. Long live the Bolivarian Revolution!

"But he bought his election victory through his social programs. "

Love it. So if you do anything for the poor, you're "buying elections". However if you're a superrich opposition candidate getting tens of thousands of dollars from the USA and privately control huge portions of the media, that's not buying an election.

"The problem is that the money could be used more efficiently and effectively by someone else. "

Yeah the Venezuelan mob as represented by Carilles.

"And Hitler was popularly elected too, and all those changes he made were done with the consent of the Reichstag. "

No, they were not. Hitler's decree immediately after the Reichstag Fire, which was used to intimidate and shut down the KPD, which was not present for the vote on the Enabling Act as a result, and his use of paramilitary thugs throughout the 20s and 30s, is no way comparable to Chavez. You can't claim youre not comparing Chavez to Hitler when youre doing precisely that. But it's a common tactic of rightwingers when they want to overthrow a democracy to say "Hitler was democratic too".

I wonder why not much attention is paid to Honduras where political opponents are assassinated on a routine basis. I guess because that's an *actual* authoritarian system and it does your bidding.

"I wonder why not much attention is paid to Honduras where political opponents are assassinated on a routine basis. I guess because that's an *actual* authoritarian system and it does your bidding. "

No, its because they're not a major geopolitical figure, I think.

If you love term limits, youll love Mexico, where the possibility of consistency and institutional memory between one government and the next is rendered impossible by the Congressional and Presidential term limits. It's a mess. What incentive is there for rulers to reach out to the opposition to get anything done if they are term limited? They won't be held accountable in another election, so what do they care?

"No, its because they're not a major geopolitical figure, I think."

Maybe people don't recall the 80s, when Central America was *the* main geopolitical area of interest for this country. Remember we spent the entire decade calling the Sandinistas in Nicaragua the same kind of names we now call Chavez, and organizing terrorists to fight them via Honduras and El Salvador?