quote:

---

CARACAS (Reuters) - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez appeared headed for victory on Sunday in a referendum on allowing him to remain in power as long as he keeps winning elections, two government-linked sources said, citing exit polls.

Three exit polls showed Chavez won by between six and eight points in a vote where turnout was low, they said.

---

[ 03 December 2007: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

Nah, just kidding.

quote:

---

If its true, expect a shit-fit about 'o woe is democracy' from the usual babblers in 3... 2... 1...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by anchovy breather:
If its true, expect a shit-fit about 'o woe is democracy' from the usual babblers in 3... 2... 1...

---

I hope someone can rationally explain how the powers Chavez wants in this referendum are totalitarian. (Please no rants).

The main sticking point appears to be the removal of term limits. Canada doesn't have term limits. How is this a dictatorship?

Chavez wants the Central Bank under presidental control. How is this dictatorial? Wouldn't it be better for Canada if the Bank of Canada answered directly to Parliament like other ministries?

I honestly don't see how this referendum turns Chavez into Stalin. There may be more centralized authority than we have in Canada, but many countries in Europe are excessively centralized in my opinion, yet we still consider them democracies.

ETA: Note that Caracas is on the same time as our Atlantic Standard Time, so when they mention specific clock times, you can translate for your time zone.

[ 02 December 2007: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

If you read that actual articles of the referendum, there seems to be decentralization:

quote:

---

Art. 184 - Decentralization of power, by its transfer from state and municipal level to the communal level, will include the participation of communities in the management of public enterprises. Also, communal councils are defined as the executive arm of direct democratic citizen assemblies, which elect and at any time may revoke the mandates of the communal council members.

---

The articles would also outlaw discrimination against gay people:

quote:

---

Art. 21 - Inclusion of prohibition against discrimination based on sexual orientation and on health.

---

[ 02 December 2007: Message edited by: -=+=- ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by -=+=-:
I hope someone can rationally explain how the powers Chavez wants in this referendum are totalitarian. (Please no rants).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Free_Radical:

You should take a look at the articles that curtail judicial independence and judicial review (judges can be removed with a simply majority vote from the legislature, meaning that any judge which strikes down legislation as unconstitutional can easily lose their job)

---

So it's ok for the government to appoint judges, but not to remove them? Once they are "on the bench" they should be answerable to no one?

And you disturbed by the fact that American judges are elected (and therefore can be "removed")?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Free_Radical:

You should take a look at the articles that curtail judicial independence and judicial review (judges can be removed with a simply majority vote from the legislature, meaning that any judge which strikes down legislation as unconstitutional can easily lose their job),

---

How is this totalitarian? A democractic legislature removes a judge. Not something we do in Canada, but it seems to be inside the tradition of parliamentary democracy.

quote:

---

and the emergency powers handed to the office of president - they are extensive, easily invoked (including for "political emergencies") and easily extended (well, actually there are no limits).

---

After looking through the articles, I honestly don't see how the emergency powers are different than the emergency powers we currently have in Canada (War Measures Act, Security Certificates etc -- these are not extensive or easily invoked?). Yet Canada is not a dictatorship. If Venezuela has similar powers, how is it a dictatorship?

quote:

---

Besides, many of the provisions for popular participation Chavez included in the 1999 constitution have been weakened, referenda will require significantly more signatures to initiate. I guess he decided that he wasn't a big fan after learning that they could be used against him.

---

Again, let's compare Canada and Venzuela. If you look through the articles of the referendum, you see the % of signatures needed for popular constitutional amendments was increased from 15% to 20%. When Stockwell Day wanted to introduce direct democracy in Canada, I recall he set the bar at 50%. Yet, Canada is not a dictatorship. But Venzeula is.

I don't get it.

[ 02 December 2007: Message edited by: -=+=- ]

quote:

---

referenda will require significantly more signatures to initiate. I guess he decided that he wasn't a big fan after learning that they could be used against him.

---

They were used against him. And when emergency powers were available. Emergency powers used against Venezuelans poorest civilians many, many times in the past.

Chavez, however, did not invoke an emergency. He fought the recall and won yet another election.

The Venezuelan constitution being voted on, that is voted on, today, guarantee many rights not guaranteed by our own constitution.

Yes, the constitution provides measures for a national emergency not unlike every modern nation. And just like the majority of modern nations, having emergency laws does not make necessary the declaring of a state of emergency.

There are many who for purely ideological reasons want the Venezuelan experiment to fail. There are others who want it to fail because Chavez just isn't sophisticated enough for cocktail parties.

Given what he has delivered so far, I believe his motives are decent. If they are not, there are enough piranhas in the pond to ensure quick work.

That is what those so all concerned about Venezuela's democracy and social progress don't want to talk about. What is the alternative to a democratically elected Chavez? The Oligarch. And what is there record on human rights and democracy?

Why don't we talk about that?

That is the choice for the vast majority of Venezuelans: Chavez and his social reform or the oligarchs and their social order.

[ 02 December 2007: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
Yes, the constitution provides measures for a national emergency not unlike every modern nation. And just like the majority of modern nations, having emergency laws does not make necessary the declaring of a state of emergency.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Free_Radical:

You should take a look at the articles that curtail judicial independence and judicial review (judges can be removed with a simply majority vote from the legislature, meaning that any judge which strikes down legislation as unconstitutional can easily lose their job)...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
Canadian judges can be removed from office by a joint address of the House of Commons and the [unelected] Senate.

Scary, huh?

---

quote:

---

Yes, the constitution provides measures for a national emergency not unlike every modern nation. And just like the majority of modern nations, having emergency laws does not make necessary the declaring of a state of emergency.

---

FEMA anyone? Is FEMA accountable to anyone?

The Truth About FEMA

quote:

---

EXECUTIVE ORDER 10990 allows the government to take over all modes of transportation and control of highways and seaports.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 10995 allows the government to seize and control the communication media.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 10997 allows the government to take over all electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels and minerals.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 10998 allows the government to take over all food resources and farms.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11000 allows the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11001 allows the government to take over all health, education and welfare functions.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11002 designates the Postmaster General to operate a national registration of all persons.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11003 allows the government to take over all airports and aircraft, including commercial aircraft.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11004 allows the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate communities, build new housing with public funds, designate areas to be abandoned, and establish new locations for populations.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11005 allows the government to take over railroads, inland waterways and public storage facilities.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11051 specifies the responsibility of the Office of Emergency Planning and gives authorization to put all Executive Orders into effect in times of increased international tensions and economic or financial crisis.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11310 grants authority to the Department of Justice to enforce the plans set out in Executive Orders, to institute industrial support, to establish judicial and legislative liaison, to control all aliens, to operate penal and correctional institutions, and to advise and assist the President.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11049 assigns emergency preparedness function to federal departments and agencies, consolidating 21 operative Executive Orders issued over a fifteen year period.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11921 allows the Federal Emergency Preparedness Agency to develop plans to establish control over the mechanisms of production and distribution, of energy sources, wages, salaries, credit and the flow of money in U.S. financial institution in any undefined national emergency. It also provides that when a state of emergency is declared by the President, Congress cannot review the action for six months. The Federal Emergency Management Agency has broad powers in every aspect of the nation.

---

quote:

---

And you disturbed by the fact that American judges are elected (and therefore can be "removed")?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by -=+=-:
When Stockwell Day wanted to introduce direct democracy in Canada, I recall he set the bar at 50%. Yet, Canada is not a dictatorship. But Venzeula is.

---

I recall people were thrilled with Chavez direct-participation provisions, now apparently they're no big deal.

quote:

---

Originally posted by M.Spector:
Canadian judges can be removed from office by a joint address of the House of Commons and the [unelected] Senate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RosaL:
And you disturbed by the fact that American judges are elected (and therefore can be "removed")?

---

My, I love this age-old Rabble game - raise a point and suddenly the burden is on you to answer for every sin of the United States. Ah, good old deflection, where would most of the posters here be without you?

.

Anyway, while the content itself is problematic, more important is to ask why these changes were deemed necessary? Why did Chavez think it should be easier to removes judges? Why did he change his mind about the direct-democracy measures that gained him so much support? Difficult questions that I'm sure everyone will manage to brush off somehow.

[ 02 December 2007: Message edited by: Free_Radical ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Free_Radical:
Difficult questions that I'm sure everyone will manage to brush off somehow.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
In other words, your mind is closed, and nothing anybody says in reply is going to have any effect on your position.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
He's right, no matter what anyone points about Chavez's autocratic tendencies

---

quote:

---

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez appeared headed for a narrow win on Sunday in a referendum on scrapping term limits on his rule, government officials said, but opposition leaders said the vote was too close to call.

Exit polls and early counts by party members showed the race tightening with the anti-U.S. leader ahead by as little as four percentage points, senior government officials said. Three ministers who asked not to be named earlier said the margin was between six and eight points.

Vice President Jorge Rodriguez told reporters the vote was "close." Opposition politicians also said the outcome was tight and questioned the government's data that put Chavez ahead.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Free_Radical:

My, I love this age-old Rabble game - raise a point and suddenly the burden is on you to answer for every sin of the United States. Ah, good old deflection, where would most of the posters here be without you?
[ 02 December 2007: Message edited by: Free_Radical ]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by a lonely worker:
Apparently its really close:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Free_Radical:
Still a higher threshold than Venezuela now has - the Supreme Court judges are included in the joint address, and final approval is up to the GG.

---

Supreme Court judges are appointed by the head of government in Canada. The GG appoints them on recommendations from the head of federal government.

quote:

---

Originally posted by RosaL:

And our prime ministers can be PM for life!

---

I didn't know that. Hey we need a revolution in this country!

Viva La Revolucion!

[ 02 December 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

---

From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged

quote:

---

Originally posted by RosaL:
Actually, I assumed you would think elected judges were ok.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
Supreme Court judges are appointed by the head of government in Canada. The GG appoints them on recommendations from the head of federal government.

---

We're talking about their removal. Do try and keep up.

[ 02 December 2007: Message edited by: Free_Radical ]

I would have thought that comments like this

quote:

---

Take your "free trade" and drop dead, Yanqui.

---

quote:

---

Choke on it, Yanqui. Choke on it and die.

---

quote:

---

Prepare for a thumping Yanqui and may your minions wail like banshees.

---

quote:

---

Venezuela's elitists have only the Yanqui vanguard to blame for leaving them hung out to dry as an outbreak of democracy took place in their own backyard.

---

quote:

---

Apparently, some are willing to overlook the massive damage, liberty-smashing & civilian deaths caused by US imperialism, and they end up spouting Pentagonal doctrine.

---

quote:

---

The US diverts billions in taxpayer dollars to build a massive military-industrial-prison complex, causing the highest domestic incarceration rate, the deaths of millions of civilians in hasty & unneccesary wars (Iraq, Vietnam) and secretive foreign prisons employing torture. How can any here be blind to this ?

---

quote:

---

The CIA and Bushler tried to overthrow Chavez three times already, and you're worried about one more accusation against Warshington, USSA? My god you're pathetic.

---

quote:

---

The USSA, herr Bushler, and Uribe's right-wing death squad government represent a menace to democracy still.

---

quote:

---

Those who are willfully ignorant of the history of US imperialistic meddling in Central & South America, are doomed to unwittingly support it in the future.

---

quote:

---

It's very encouraging, however, this prospect of thwarting the Sauron-like intentions of the U.S. and its minions towards Venezuela.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Free_Radical:
And why is that?
[ 02 December 2007: Message edited by: Free_Radical ]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ghoris:
I would have thought that comments like this

in the previous thread would have made it abundantly clear that for the vast majority of posters, this is not about improving the lot of the Venezuelan people, but rather about giving George W a poke in the eye.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RosaL:
And you disturbed by the fact that American judges are elected (and therefore can be "removed")?

---

Federal judges are not subject to periodic elections. The President appoints all federal judges, subject to confirmation by the Sentate. If the Senate confirms a federal judge, the judge holds the position for life...unless the House of Representatives votes to impeach the judge and, after an impeachment trial in the Sentate, at least 2/3rds of the Senators vote to remove the judge.

In the 225+ year history of the US, only thirteen federal judges have been impeached (out of several thousand holding office) and only seven of those thirteen have been convicted by the Senate and removed from office.

quote:

---

It would just be nice once in a while to get a real response instead of "Look! Over there! America!"

---

You know what would be nice? If people, such as yourself, who are clearly anti-Chavez, could answer why you are so obsessed with Venezuelan democracy and are so easy to brush off the anti-democratic nature of the US. (You can pick another country but since you seem so keen on democracy the US is a shining example of how good democracy works eh).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

Federal judges are not subject to periodic elections. The President appoints all federal judges, subject to confirmation by the Sentate. If the Senate confirms a federal judge, the judge holds the position for life...unless the House of Representatives votes to impeach the judge and, after an impeachment trial in the Sentate, at least 2/3rds of the Senators vote to remove the judge.

In the 225+ year history of the US, only thirteen federal judges have been impeached (out of several thousand holding office) and only seven of those thirteen have been convicted by the Senate and removed from office.

So, the US federal judiciary is very independent.

---

I'm astonished that anyone would consider that an independent judiciary! They choose their own and they serve them well, so well they seldom feel the need to remove them.

[ 02 December 2007: Message edited by: RosaL ]

quote:

---

So you're basically saying that the historical context of Latin America, especially with respect to foreign interference, is irrelevant?

---

Not at all. But the comments being made have moved well beyond 'context', don't you think?

And now, time for me to take my own advice. See you folks on the other threads.

[ 02 December 2007: Message edited by: ghoris ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by RosaL:

I'm astonished that anyone would consider that an independent judiciary!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

So, how would you define an "independent judiciary"?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ghoris:
I would have thought that comments like this

in the previous thread would have made it abundantly clear that for the vast majority of posters, this is not about improving the lot of the Venezuelan people, but rather about giving George W a poke in the eye.

---

Herr Bushler is done. The next cosmetic leader in Warshington will have size small rain cap and statesmanly shoes to fill indeed.

This is more than about defying a vicious empire. And if I might borrow from John Pilger's words on the situation, this is about courageous people reclaiming noble words like liberation, freedom, justice, and democracy. This is about poor people trying to free themselves from modern day slavery.

quote:

---

Originally posted by RosaL:
They choose their own and they serve them well, so well they seldom feel the need to remove them.

---

You're obviously unware of the fact that the federal judiciary has the power to overturn and invalidate laws (legislation passed by both houses of Congress and signed into law by the President) as unconstitutional. And, the federal judiciary makes good use of that power. If "They choose their own and serve them well", that wouldn't happen.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stargazer:
Well, I wouldn't say that your post demonstrated independent whatsoever. The Supreme Court is stacked with right wing judges doing the bidding of politicians. Hardly independent.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

The judiciary doesn't "serve" the president and Congress. That's laughable.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RosaL:

They serve the ruling class.

---

Of course, you seem unable to define, from your perspective, what an "independent judiciary" means.

ETA: You should read the "Federalist Papers". I think you'd find it instructive.

[ 02 December 2007: Message edited by: Sven ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
That's certainly the way it should work in theory, Sven.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

Of course, you seem unable to define, from your perspective, what an "independent judiciary" means.

ETA: You should read the "Federalist Papers". I think you'd find it instructive.

[ 02 December 2007: Message edited by: Sven ]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

Why don't you give us all some examples of a more independent judiciary, Fidel...

---

quote:

---

My, I love this age-old Rabble game - raise a point and suddenly the burden is on you to answer for every sin of the United States. Ah, good old deflection, where would most of the posters here be without you?

---

quote:

---

Anyway, while the content itself is problematic, more important is to ask why these changes were deemed necessary? Why did Chavez think it should be easier to removes judges? Why did he change his mind about the direct-democracy measures that gained him so much support? Difficult questions that I'm sure everyone will manage to brush off somehow.

---

I think some people need to read up both on the definition and the histories of dictatorships to understand what they mean. Jeff House compared Chavez to Marcos Perez Jimenez this is what the Guardian was saying about Jimenez.

quote:

---

Censorship, political persecution, torture and assassination were blended with authoritarian efficiency and a flourishing public works programme in the dictator's New National Ideal. Between 1953 and 1957, Perez's government constructed lasting monuments unequalled under the democratic regime that followed his demise - the Central University (UCV) campus, the Francisco Faj-ardo and Caracas-La Guaira motorways, the Guayana steelworks and the Morón petrochemical complex.

Simultaneously, the secret police were hunting down all those considered a threat to "national security", as they defined it. On their barracks walls were mugshots of Rómulo Betancourt, Jaime Lusinchi and Luis Herrera Campins - all of them later elected to the presidency of the republic. The ranks of Venezuelan political exiles swelled in countries as far apart as Bolivia and the Soviet Union, though even at those distances dissidents were far from safe.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:

I never said there was. Independence and "at-arm's length" are oxymoronic terms that don't describe the real world.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RosaL:

"independent" is just another word for "servant of the ruling class" in a system that claims not to have a ruling class

---

A lack of an independent judiciary means that the legislative and executive branches can do whatever they want, regardless of what the constitution may say to the contrary. In other words, if a right is constitutionally protected, the legislative and executive branches could simply negate that right by simply passing legislation that does so.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

A lack of an independent judiciary means that the legislative and executive branches can do whatever they want, regardless of what the constitution may say to the contrary. In other words, if a right is constitutionally protected, the legislative and executive branches could simply negate that right by simply passing legislation that does so.

An independent judiciary is designed to help prevent that.

---

NO: 6.534.648

SI: 5.864.560

Dif: 670.088 (5,4%)

(dated 11:56pm - about 20 minutes ago)

www.venezuelapress.com

Unfortunately, I don't speak Spanish so can't tell you what the test of the site says or exactly where these figures came from - though there is some reference to the CNE.

Maybe the Dewey-Truman reference wasn't so premature . . . boy, wouldn't that have been ironic

[ 02 December 2007: Message edited by: Free_Radical ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by RosaL:

I don't share your presuppositions.

---

My "presupposition"?

I don't think you understand the basic principles of a constitutional government.

ETA: Again, Federalist Papers Nos. 78 through 83 would be instructive to you.

[ 02 December 2007: Message edited by: Sven ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

My "presupposition"?

I don't think you understand the basic principles of a constitutional government.

---

I'm listening to Radio venezuela right now and they're saying its extremely close with rumours of victory on both sides. There has not been one announcement and all parties have agreed to not release any results until all ballots are counted.

They said at first the rumours were a "yes" win, then it became a "no" win, now they're saying its too close to call. They've said they've never experienced anything this close since Chavez won his first vote.

ETA: They're now saying the polls that closed late were the opposition ones and its causing a delay in the results. They are thinking this might have been deliberate to create chaos and get their message out while everyone's waiting.

They're also saying the Reuters polls predicting a win earlier tonight are not "credible" because one of the polling companies quoted said they never conducted this poll.

Apparently the rumours and chaos (such as power outages) are totally untrue and there's a lot of confusion out there.

[ 02 December 2007: Message edited by: a lonely worker ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by a lonely worker:
They've said they've never experienced anything this close since Chavez won his first vote.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by a lonely worker:
"No Oficiales" means not official.

I'm listening to Radio venezuela right now and they're saying its extremely close with rumours of victory on both sides. There has not been one announcement and all parties have agreed to not release any results until all ballots are counted.

They said at first the rumours were a "yes" win, then it became a "no" win, now they're saying its too close to call. They've said they've never experienced anything this close since Chavez won his first vote.

---

However, how people come to be appointed judges, the fact that many, perhaps most, judges are bag men for the leading political parties, about this the "doctrine" has nothing to say. Nothing. It is as if there is one person before the appointment and another person after the appointment to the bench.

If we look at another profession in which tenure is involved, what do we see? Let's look at intellectual life in a country like Canada. Professors at universities get tenure. Let's leave aside the right wing attack on this for the moment. We see a remarkable unanimity, a sad lack of diversity of views, a silencing of dissenting views. Just take Economics as an example.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

My "presupposition"?

I don't think you understand the basic principles of a constitutional government

---

To begin with, Bush's accession to President was in violation of your own Constitution. It's true that herr Bushler received a minority of the popular vote, and your U.S. Constitution provides for the President's election by an electoral college made up of Supreme Court justices. But Dubya received the College vote by fraud after losing the popular vote by losing the electoral vote in Florida. Jeb Bush, of the same crime family and Governor of Florida and with the aid of Secretary of State, deprived hundreds of thousands of African Americans and presumably Democratic voters of the vote by way of imprisonment in state gulags, intimidation and tampering with voters lists.

quote:

---

Originally posted by a lonely worker:
Sven, read the parts I just edited on my last post while you were posting.

---

quote:

---

Some results I just came across:
NO: 6.534.648

SI: 5.864.560

Dif: 670.088 (5,4%)

(dated 11:56pm - about 20 minutes ago)

www.venezuelapress.com

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by a lonely worker:
ETA: They're now saying the polls that closed late were the opposition ones and its causing a delay in the results. They are thinking this might have been deliberate to create chaos and get their message out while everyone's waiting.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.R.KISSED:
Funny how they could do that before there was anything on the official CNE website.

---

I've also seen some references to leaked pro-Chavez numbers from officials throughout the evening too. It'll probably go back and forth until final official numbers come out.

[ 02 December 2007: Message edited by: Free_Radical ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
However, how people come to be appointed judges, the fact that many, perhaps most, judges are bag men for the leading political parties, about this the "doctrine" has nothing to say.

---

quote:

---

Several blogs I've seen referred to the student movement issuing a call for students to not show up at polls until around 2.00pm - when they were only a couple of hours away from closing. The rationale was that this way they would have more people present to observe while the polls were shut down and the results sent in, and make sure everything was done properly.

---

That's what the blogs might say but the word in
Caracas is it was done to delay releasing the results to let the games begin like "unofficial results", rumours of power outages and giving opposition figures the ability to make speeches in the silence.

[ 02 December 2007: Message edited by: a lonely worker ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by a lonely worker:
That's what the blogs might say but the word in Caracas is it was done to delay releasing the results to let the games begin like "unofficial results", rumours of power outages and giving opposition figures the ability to make speeches in the silence.

---

Chavez ministers are not talking positive which could mean either a defeat or a razor thin win.

quote:

---

Originally posted by a lonely worker:
Apparently the opposition is demanding the results be released now but there is resistance because traditionally the last votes to be counted are from remote areas which mostly support Chavez.

---

http://wwitv.com/tv_channels/8409.htm

I see lots of soldiers in riot gear at the CNE

Babelfish tells me that witnesses from the No side are not being allowed to observe the final tabulation.

[ 02 December 2007: Message edited by: Free_Radical ]

quote:

---

Sven: How would you select judges?

---

I don't know. Probably a mixture of methods with more promotion of FN, minority and women judges. I haven't really studied the selection of the judiciary in socialist-oriented countries to make any more remarks. However, that's not the main point I was making.

The doctrine of "independence" just doesn't seem all that solid to me ... and rests upon a seeming doctrine of a "clean slate" once the candidate is selected. It seems more like a division of labour than anything else.

The CNE is on the air right now.

[ 02 December 2007: Message edited by: a lonely worker ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by a lonely worker:
No results yet just discussions about the process.

---

And that is that.

Block A:

No 50.7%
Yes 49.29%

Block B

There were some good reforms proposed. I hope many of them get continued in some fashion.

[ 02 December 2007: Message edited by: anchovy breather ]

quote:

---

Chavez is now on TV.
So much for talk about dictator.

---

This is part of the new politics of Venezuela. Compare this to past frauds. now we have an open political process.

Contrary to our critics this isn't anti-democratic in fact these results show we are the essence of democracy.

To all who voted you have said "this is our road". We can never forget the games and destabilisations of our institutions of the past. this is our democracy and its continuing to strengthen on this project since we started in 1999.

I pray you open your heart and I hope you understand mine.

And so, the dilemma that i have is; are we going to put our country in uncertainty to wait for days to get the final results? I said no, Venezuela doesn't need this tension. We don't need this doubt waiting for days.

I prefer it like this. "

I remember past elections and the abuse I couldn't handle it. I almost got demoted.

How many votes have been robbed in the past>

Again, I say with calmness that I prefer it like this.

My ethics is worth all. I could never stand with doubt of winning with something like 0.7%

Those who want to celebrate please do. This victory is yours.

I congratulate this victory. We are on a long journey.

For now we couldn't ...

(applause)

I respect our institutions.

We fulfilled with our constitution and democracy the proof that we are one people.

Congratulations to all. There are no doubts. This is completely transparent. To our critics this is how democracy works not by calling for insurrection. This is a democracy not a dictatorship.

We had observers from 50 countries. To the world media thanks for coming. This is a true freedom of expression you saw here today.

This is complete freedom.

I understand this proposal was very profound. Without the proposal, our current constitution is still in effect. And now we have to defend it and build on it.

(applause)

I accept full responsibility it wasn't achieved. We almost achieved it but the political will was not there.

What matters is people voted and 49% voted for socialism. This is a huge jump and a great sign of our future.

We will continue in our battle for socialism in the framework of our constitution. ...

[ 02 December 2007: Message edited by: a lonely worker ]

We must evaluate this and find out what happened. This might be fear and we must overcome this.

We opened a road. It is called socialism. We've opened a new horizon. We've worked for 8 years for this horizon. I invite all who now have proof of the openess of our our constitution and institutions that we work together and strengthen ourselves as a people.

For me, this is not a loss and I hope the opposition leaders who think I wouldn't recognise this reality can now be calm and celebrate as us Bolivarans will always respect all the people.

To those who didn't go and vote. that's what defeated us. this is a lesson for us all.

Finally, remember unlike Bolivar's first republic; this republic will not fall. we are veterans and will be back to turn these types of defeats into victories.

To Colombia, I'm still here to help and we need to work for humanity as brothers and sisters (huge applause).

We need to respect differences and walk together to reject the path of violence and hostility.

I say to the workers, sisters, brothers; these social reforms were the most advanced on the planet and we will continue to work towards equality within our constitution and together as one.

We will not abandon social security. I know this was a very popular proposal and we will work for you to receive it.

Congratulations.

Enjoy your families.

Hasta la victoria siempre!!!!" (ever onward to victory)

--------------------------

That's all. what a great speech. This just blows away everything our corporate media and its apologists have said about him.

-------------------------------

[ 02 December 2007: Message edited by: a lonely worker ]

Reuters has also updated with the same info.

[ 02 December 2007: Message edited by: DrConway ]

Some commentary in Venezuela is now saying this defeat could actually be helpful because it shows he respects democracy and is sending a pretty big wake up call to the 3 million of his base who didn't bother to vote.

I hope they're right and he keeps pushing ahead.

ETA: so far the corporate media are overall ignoring his remarks as they go against everything they've been demonising about.

[ 02 December 2007: Message edited by: a lonely worker ]

Venezuela's Chavez loses 'president-for-life' vote

IAN JAMES
Associated Press
December 3, 2007, 2:36 AM EST

CARACAS — Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez suffered a stunning defeat Monday in a referendum that would have let him run for re-election indefinitely and impose a socialist system in this major U.S. oil provider.

and,
US mainstream-media response:
http://tinyurl.com/2tn2ja

The outcome is a stunning development in a country where Mr. Chávez and his supporters control nearly all of the levers of power. Almost immediately after the results were broadcast on state television, Mr. Chávez conceded defeat, describing the results as a “photo finish.”

“I congratulate my adversaries for this victory,” he said. “For now, we could not do it.”

Opposition leaders were ecstatic. “Tonight, Venezuela has won,” said Manuel Rosales, governor of Zulia State and the opposition’s candidate in presidential elections last year.

In recent weeks, members of previously splintered opposition movements joined disillusioned Chávez supporters in an attempt to defeat the referendum on constitutional changes. The plan would abolish term limits, allow Mr. Chávez to declare states of emergency for unlimited periods and increase the state’s role in the economy, among other measures.

The defeat slows Mr. Chávez’s socialist-inspired transformation of the country. Venezuela, once a staunch ally of the United States, has become a leading opponent of the Bush administration’s policies in the developing world. It has also taken the most profound leftward turn of any large Latin American nation in decades.

[ 03 December 2007: Message edited by: Geneva ]

quote:

---

Humbled by his first electoral defeat ever, President Hugo Chavez said Monday he may have been too ambitious in asking voters to let him stand indefinitely for re-election and endorse a huge leap to a socialist state.

"I understand and accept that the proposal I made was quite profound and intense," he said after voters narrowly rejected the sweeping constitutional reforms by 51 percent to 49 percent.

---

How does that compare with the phony democrats who have demonized Chavez and who support the oligarchs and the imperialists?

I read the news reports coming from the so-called "free press". From the corporate media. Not one provides unbiased, truthful reporting.

To get an even handed report of the election results free of hyperbole,outright lies, and racist code words like "strongman", and "president for life", one needs to go all the way to India:

Venezuela Hands Narrow Defeat to Chávez, amendments rejected

quote:

---

What matters is people voted and 49% voted for socialism.

---

Another view:

quote:

---

Bush: If it’s our oil, why do Venezuelans get to vote on it?

...

Chavez has committed other crimes in Washington’s eyes. Not only has this uppity brown man spent Venezuela’s oil wealth in Venezuela, he withdrew $20 billion from the US Federal Reserve. Weirdly, Venezuela’s previous leaders, though the nation was dirt poor, lent billions to the US Treasury on crap terms. Chavez has said, Basta! to this game, and has called for keeping South America’s capital in … South America! Oh, no!

Oh, and did I mention that Chavez told Exxon it had to pay more than a 1% royalty to his nation on the heavy crude the company extracted?

And that’s why they have to kill him.

....

So there you have it. Some guy who thinks he can take Venezuela’s oil and oil money and just give it away to Venezuelans. And these same Venezuelans have the temerity to demand the right to pick the president of their choice! What is the world coming to?

In Orwellian Bush-speak and Times-talk, Chavez’ referendum was portrayed before the vote as a trick, Saddam goes Latin. Maybe their real fear is that Chavez has brought a bit of economic justice through the ballot box, a trend that could spread northward. Think about it: Chavez is funding full health care for all Venezuelans. What if that happened here?

---

[ 03 December 2007: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

quote:

---

I haven't heard what the turn-out was

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:

I haven't heard what the turn-out was but let's say for the sake of argument that it was 60% - that would mean that only about 30% of Venezuelans voted for this constitutional change. Even if it had passed 51% to 49% instead of losing by that margin, it would have been a very weak mandate.

---

Well we could apply similar logic in Canada. Neither of Harper's or Dion's parties received 24% of eligible Canadian vote in the last election. Our two big business and big banking parties don't have a real majority between them. And in 2004, voter turnout was only a little better than average voter participation over the 1990's, which was said to be comparable to participation rates for Fiji and Benin in a comparison of 163 countries.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
He's smart enough to know that the jig is up. Good for him.

DeGaulle also called a referendum in 1969 on changing the French constitution and lost that doesn't make him any less autocratic. I might add that when Pinochet had a referendum in Chile that asked voters to ratify him being in power in definitely - the Chileans also voted no and Pinochet resigned and free elections were held. That doesn't make him any less of a butcher for what he did in the years leading up to that vote.

---

no harm done politically ... ?

[ 03 December 2007: Message edited by: Geneva ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
I haven't heard what the turn-out was but let's say for the sake of argument that it was 60% - that would mean that only about 30% of Venezuelans voted for this constitutional change. Even if it had passed 51% to 49% instead of losing by that margin, it would have been a very weak mandate.

---

And yet you will argue, every time the subject of low voter turnout in Canada comes up, that if people really care they would go out and vote? Nice double standard. In all the time I've seen you on EM or babble, I've yet to see any evidence that you actually bother to read sources we provide, or provide any back-up to your often seemingly made-up claims.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
He's smart enough to know that the jig is up. Good for him.

---

What the hell does "the jig is up" mean?

It's not like the country is against Chavez' program. The overwhelming majority of the Venezuelan people continue to want the country to be strong, democratic and progressive(unlike you, who want it to lower itself to surrendering to the Washington Consensus, like your hero
the mass murder Carlos Andres Perez.)

And you know perfectly well it was never fair to compare Chavez to murderous bastards like Pinochet. Chavez never harmed anybody and never would have harmed anybody.

Democracy doesn't have to be limited to the bland center and the rabid right.