Chavez (Venezuala) Loses Constitutional Amendment - PhillyBlog

raider.adam · #1 (**permalink**) 12-03-2007, 10:32 AM

http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news..._a_defeat.html

Quote:

President Hugo Chavez suffered a stinging defeat in a vote on constitutional changes that would have let him run for reelection indefinitely, the chief of National Electoral Council said today.

I thought this part was rather interesting:

Quote:

After the polls closed, it appeared that perhaps only half of the registered voters turned out for the referendum. Many Chavez opponents had called on voters to stay home to avoid legitimizing a result that they believed was preordained.

That seems like the worst thing they could have advised. It could have actually gotten the amendment passed legitimately. The goal should have been to get as many people out to vote as possible and that way if it was "fixed" they could have appealed to other nations and painted Chavez as anti-democratic. They should have made it more work to fix the election, not easier. Plus, if the election was legitimate (as it now seems) they would have wanted a larger margin of votes to send a message and help embolden dissenters.

The opposition almost sank their own ship.

seand · #2 (**permalink**) 12-03-2007, 10:48 AM

One thing this does show is Cahvez despite his heavy handedness and all the crazy, is still more committed to honoring the electoral process than Vladimir Putin is who allegedly had his supporters follow the old South Philly maxim "Vote and Vote Often".

eldondre · #3 (**permalink**) 12-03-2007, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seand

One thing this does show is Cahvez despite his heavy handedness and all the crazy, is still more committed to honoring the electoral process than Vladimir Putin is who allegedly had his supporters follow the old South Philly maxim "Vote and Vote Often".

I'd bet most Russians like Putin and don't care as much for democracy. the belief that Russia is best ruled by a benevolent autocrat has a long, deep history and doesn't seem to have dissipated.
As for Venezuela, it's easy to say what people should have done, but in their position it's also easy to understand why they thought it would be rigged. I was happy to see he accepted the results (at least for now) as I thought there would be a good chance he'd blame any loss on the US and dimiss the vote.

Towelie · #4 (**permalink**) 12-03-2007, 12:56 PM

I wonder if Cindy Coo Coo Sheenan is going to flip over these results also as Chavez appeared to be the only politician to give her attention this last year.

lutton · #5 (**permalink**) 12-03-2007, 05:43 PM

as Musa puts it:

Quote:

Let's see..the twice democratically elected president (and a recall attempt, not to mention the military coup) of Venezuela holds a public referendum to change the constitution, barely loses and graciously concedes defeat. If his policies were free market, he would be hailed as a beacon of light for democracies all over the world. Instead, since his policies actually address the needs of the majority of Venezuelans, he is excoriated in the U.S press as a dictator.

marclips · #6 (**permalink**) 12-03-2007, 08:10 PM

I got a huge chuckle out of what happened at a conference last month, when King Juan Carlos II of Spain told Hugo Chavez "why don't you shut up". Apparently, this is now a very popular ringtone in Spain.

Basically, at the conference was Chavez, the current Spanish Prime Minister (who's relatively liberal) and the King. Chavez kept going on and on about how the old (conservative) Premier, Jose Aznar, was an evil fascist. The current Premier, rightfully so, kept pointing out that (like his policies or not) Aznar was elected in a free and fair election and served his country in the way he thought best, but Chavez kept being a d-bag and the King finally had enough.

Musa's got it all wrong: his proposed constitutional changes were horribly undemocratic. Just because he's accepted the results (for now, as eldondre ominously but correctly put it), doesn't change the fact that he was completely in the wrong for proposing those changes in the first place. And it has nothing to do with his policies towards the poor or oil or the US, but because a dictatorship is inherently wrong whether it's a lefty like Chavez/Castro or a righty like Mussolini/Pinochet.

eldondre · #7 (**permalink**) 12-03-2007, 08:36 PM

nobody's gonna confuse musa with mensa, the person is clearly clueless. somehow rigging courts, outlawing criticism, and attempting to be elected autocrat for life is good but somehow we can't see that because he's not free market.

jedisalf · #8 (**permalink**) 12-03-2007, 09:07 PM

The only reason I think chavez accepted defeat, was the upcoming obviously bloodbath he would have commited against protesters.

Making him a "democrat" to the eyes of the world was just a plus.

Make no mistake, chavez is by far the worst president we ever had (bordering dictatorship), and venezuela had its tokens with dictators.

It's indeed a light at the end of the tunnel for us, but quite frankly, I dont see peace in venezuela for quite some time.

Tannhauser · #9 (**permalink**) 12-03-2007, 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seand

One thing this does show is Cahvez despite his heavy handedness and all the crazy, is still more committed to honoring the electoral process than Vladimir Putin is who allegedly had his supporters follow the old South Philly maxim "Vote and Vote Often".

Oh, you're just being that way because Mad Vlad got 99.2% of the vote from Chechnya. They happen to like him there, he's done a bang up job with the joint.

Dave · #10 (**permalink**) 12-03-2007, 10:12 PM

Right. Not sure about Russia itself, but there's a good amount of resentment towards Putin in the former Soviet Republics. People there tend to view him as trying to re-create the "buffer" that those countries used to be for Russia during the Soviet era, not necessarily through very pleasant means.