From the Green Left Daily, 2007. Okay, it’s a little old, but the point remains. Read this article at face value, assuming it’s arguments. Then post your response to the question in this post’s title above.
Wth, let’s make this an extra credit opportunity.
——————– from the web, a view on democracy in Venezuela, c. 2007 ———————–:
Much coverage of the Venezuelan revolution in the corporate-owned media presents a severely distorted picture of what is occurring in Venezuela and the nature and actions of the government of President Hugo Chavez.
James Jordan, the emergency response coordinator for the US-based Venezuela Solidarity Network, attempts to answer some of the key lies and distortions.
What’s wrong with Hugo Chavez and his country? Every time I turn on the news, I see another negative report! Why do the Venezuelan people keep electing him?
Maybe it is time we stopped believing the corporate media. Was corporate media telling the truth when it repeated every lie that took us into war in Iraq? The fact is the Venezuelan people do keep electing Chavez and his supporters to power. That’s called democracy, and whether the US government likes it or not
Is it true that democracy is being threatened in Venezuela?
Before Chavez was elected president, politics was dominated by two official parties (sound familiar?) that represented the interests of the wealthiest Venezuelans, but ignored the needs of the 80% who were living in poverty. When Chavez was elected, it was due to a coalition of popular forces that rejected “business as usual”. Corporate heads and corrupt union leaders tried to overthrow Chavez in 2002, but masses of people took to the streets to defend their democracy. In the last election, Chavez won with nearly 63% of the vote.
Communities are being given direct power to administer many social programs and the government is supporting an explosion of cooperative enterprises — from worker-run factories to tens of thousands of cooperatives. In a recent poll of South American countries, Venezuelans had the highest percentage of those who said that their country is “totally democratic”.
Why is Chavez trying to eliminate political parties, remove term limits, and ensure that he will be elected president for life?
Chavez is seeking to have the 24 parties that have supported the Bolivarian process unified into one party. This has no effect whatsoever on opposition parties, who are still free to organise and to run for office.
One of the reforms would remove presidential term limits. If anything, this is moving in the opposite direction of restricting democracy. If a country wants to keep reelecting someone for president, why shouldn’t they have that choice? Most countries do not have term limits for their heads of state, and in the case of countries like Britain and Australia, the general public doesn’t even get to vote for their top leader!
But won’t the proposed constitutional reforms limit people’s power and pave the way to dictatorship?
If anything, the constitutional reforms would broaden democracy by giving more power to community and worker councils. This is one of the core differences between representative democracy versus participatory democracy (which is what Venezuela is developing). In participatory democracy, the direct involvement of communities is maximised, rather than minimised in favour of bureaucracies and government officials, which is how representative democracy works.
The constitutional reforms also would require a much needed overhaul to humanise Venezuelan jails, make central bank management answerable to elected officials, recognise the historic and cultural importance of Afro-Venezuelans, and outlaw discrimination based on sexual orientation. These reforms will be subject to a popular vote, just like the constitution was.
How can we talk about democracy in Venezuela when there is so much repression of the media?
Just go to Venezuela and you’ll never ask that question again. You cannot walk around Caracas or any other Venezuelan city without hearing political discussion and debate. Kiosks sell copies of the constitution and most of the newspapers and magazines are corporate-owned and pro-opposition. Turn on the TV and you’ll find more of the same. Furthermore, the government is providing millions of dollars in funding for community-owned and-operated media.
There was a lot of noise made about the “closing” of RCTV, an opposition-aligned station. The fact is it was never closed, and is still available on cable and satellite. However, when RCTV’s license to use the public airwaves, free of charge, came up for renewal, it was denied. Considering that RCTV helped carry out the coup against Venezuelan democracy in 2002, one can only be amazed that this is the only restriction they have received.
I hear that runaway spending to support social programs is unsustainable because of Venezuela’s dependency on oil. Is Chavez ruining Venezuela’s economy?
It’s good to remember that social spending that educates people, keeps people healthy, and increases the buying power of the populace is basically good for the economy. In Venezuela, health care is being made available to everyone, the society is highly literate, and the buying power of the average Venezuelan is increasing. The Venezuelan economy has been steadily growing ever since workers broke the economic sabotage at the start of 2003.
Last year, for the first time since the oil boom of the ’70s, oil money has provided less than half of Venezuela’s national budget. Oil money is being used to diversify the economy. For instance, Venezuela is especially vulnerable in its agricultural development. However, since land reform laws were adopted under Chavez, 5 million acres of fallow land, plus training and farming equipment, have been given to cooperatives.
Isn’t it true that Chavez and the Venezuelan government are ignoring environmental concerns and pushing oil development without concern for its impact on nature? Isn’t it also true that the communities that suffer most from oil and mining development are indigenous communities, since so much resources are located on indigenous lands?
Venezuela, like other countries, has ecological problems. Most of these precede the Bolivarian revolution. Also, it is impossible to develop oil and mining resources without doing damage to the environment. Nevertheless, the seeds of ecological revolution can be found within the Bolivarian process.
One of the reasons Venezuela has given for demanding majority control of oil development is because of the bad environmental record of big oil companies. Venezuela is prioritising environmental restoration after undertaking new oil or mining projects, particularly in regards to protecting and restoring rivers. For the first time in Venezuelan history, affected indigenous communities are involved in all decisions about whether or not to develop these resources.
Venezuela has a policy of regarding its natural resources as being for the benefit of all the people. A percentage of oil profits are required by law to go into social programs, and oil money is funding many environmental protection and rehabilitation programs. Only the most foolishly idealistic would fail to see that it is Venezuela’s oil and mineral wealth that provides the funds necessary to move beyond oil dependency and toward environmental sustainability.
Bolivarian Venezuela has made a commitment to its indigenous communities, returning hundreds of thousands of acres of ancestral land and enacting constitutional protections that are an example to other American nations. Likewise, Venezuela has made a strong ecological commitment, actively seeking to raise consciousness throughout the nation. Environmental initiatives include efforts to plant young trees around the country, to expand public transportation, to restore urban waterways, support sustainable agriculture, and to restrict heavy industrial fishing. Venezuela has begun programs such as the Revolutionary Light Bulb programs, wherein people can trade in bags of garbage for food, and old, energy wasteful light bulbs for newer, more efficient ones.
for more go to: http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/38720
Democracy-government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system. (Dictionary.com)
When it comes to democracy the first idea that comes to mind is people having the power to influence their government and most likely, with respect to this idea, an indicator for the strength of a democracy could be how much the population of a country influences their government. In the United States we have a representative democracy or a form of government where we elect officials to make decisions on our behalf, keeping in mind our needs and wants, or so it is meant to be. Now in the article there is mention that Venezuela is aiming towards becoming a participatory democracy or a form of government where the people within their communities directly vote on an issue, thus removing the middle men or elected officials found in representative democracies. Now based on solely these two definitions, Venezuela’s form of democracy sounds as if people are more directly involved with the influence they bring to their democracy, that’s because they do. Measured on the idea that the greater the influence people have on their government the great a democracy is, Venezuela would clearly be more democratic that the USA, but I believe that the real question is whether the Venezuela is more democratic than the USA, because both countries have a form of democracy, but rather which one is more effective? Representative? Participatory?
Both forms of democracy have their pros and cons. Representative takes away the voice of the people; in participatory the majority is not always the correct path to go; representative is divided too greatly by parties and partisanship that nothing gets done; participatory has no checks and balances, and the list could go on and on. I think when we try to compare the efficacy of one form of government from one country to another country we fail to realize that not all forms of governments work everywhere because of several factors. When we look at Venezuela compared to the USA there is a clear difference in the size of both countries and their population (US: 3.794 million sq miles, 313.9 million people; Venezuela: 353,841 sq miles, 29.1 million people). So of course if we tried to establish a participatory democracy in the US it most evidently would not succeed because of the sheer size of the population that would be unable to all come together and agree on an issue and thus the need for a representative democracy where elected officials advocate for the voice of their constituents. However, in Venezuela a participatory democracy sounds ideal because of its smaller population that can have the capability of meeting up and voting on different issues and therefore feel the need to diverge away from a representative democracy. Looking it democracy in this manner I would say that both states are democratic equally democratic on different levels, that would be if Venezuela was truly heading for a participatory democracy.
While reading the interview I couldn’t help but feel that the answer represented Venezuela heading more for socialism than democracy. There are several flags that lead me to this conclusion like “worker-run factories” and “community-owned and-operated media”, but this could always be up for debate. One last issue I had with the article was that there was hardly a mention of the role the president plays, which probably, in my opinion, is the person they should have talked about. I found myself feeling as if the president could just be removed from the picture because the people had everything under their role.
This your term paper? If so A+, lol!
It’s just my response to the question. Although, I wouldn’t mind doing my essay on this.
Venezuela is more democratic than the United States of America. The United States of America’s Constitution was not designed to set up a democracy. Americans have never asked their government to be more democratic on a large scale. Although the citizens of Venezuela have rallied together within the past 12 years, to defend their country’s right to democracy. The citizens of the U.S.A. have not rallied in support of democracy for a long time.
Venezuela’s government appears to act in its citizens’ best interest. The government in the country asks the communities of area where oil will be drilled for before they authorize drilling. Despite its bad rap in the international community, the media in Venezuela has basically if not more rights than the media in the U.S.A. Only organizations that encourage an overthrow of the government are not allowed to report, similar to the U.S.A.’s limitations on media.
The citizens of Venezuela seem to be very aware of what their government is doing. Which is essential for a democracy to work; there must be a strong internal efficacy in a democracy. They elected a president who wanted to change Venezuela’s Constitution. Those changes on the surface look anti-democratic, but in actuality would give the citizens in local communities a larger say in the policies of the government. Giving citizens to have a larger say in their government through local representatives, that are elected directly and then elect the president increase the probality of having a good president, because the political strata is directly electing the most powerfull leader. This situation increases the chance of a democracy working fluidly.
Bam!
One caveat: I’m not sure there are effective internal efficacies under Chavez, as his rule was purely majoritarian, which stifles dissent. No protection for dissent under Chavismo.
Venezuela is definitely less democratic than the USA. However at this point; Venezuela is struggling in a storm of confusion due to the unstable actions that the government and the people have reasoned with. The reasons being that in Venezuela the right of political involvement is not as protected or as regulated by the government. Therefore there is no engagement for political stratum among the people, which has been something that the government influenced. Also, the respect for civil rights and political rights are not as addressed. The internal efficacy response that the government advocates is not clear. Thus there is more turmoil about which party owns more power rather than maintaining the focus on the government’s goal to achieve success for the country.
The reason why I mention conflict under the ruling of Venezuela is because in 2011 the Latin America Herald Tribune published an article addressing the protests that have been occurring in Venezuela. For example; in 2010 a 15-yearl old (member of the Youth of the United Socialist Party of Venezuela) was killed by “opposition members” in the western state of Merida. Yet James Jordan states, “The fact is the Venezuela people to keep electing Chavez and his supporters to power”. This clash of different points of view between the members of the government and the people is unsteadily developing. It seems that there isn’t a clear communication system developed for the people to clearly address a concern they have.
I think the democracy that Venezuela is trying to achieve is still at its roots. And due to the leadership that Hugo Chavez, represented isn’t necessary democratic as America’s. Although it seems that Venezuela exercises rule under less democracy than the U.S.A. we also need to consider the different conditions under which these two places grew with. We also need to consider the geography, the culture, the influence, the relationship with other countries, and the different needs that both countries have.
In my opinion it isn’t logical to say that Venezuela is achieving a representative or direct democracy because the country has lost the meaning of a democracy. In fact other central and southern American countries struggle to define democracy. Venezuelans whom struggle in the lower class and middle class are unbalanced in terms of their economical status; a status that has tremendous impact on the education and the economical status that the people develop in. Poverty and social exclusion still remains. Venezuela needs to be more clear in what rights the people have. Because although it may seem that Venezuela is supporting people it’s also not (protecting it) it. In Venezuela country people are limited of their expression in media, in the universities. It seems that democracy in Venezuela is assimilation or an appearance.
We have to be reflective on the idea that Perhaps the USA has a different definition for democracy than Chavez does for Venezuela?
What kind of rules does the constitution of Venezuela has?
Is it relevant to compare these two countries’ democracy system when these two countries have been developing differently; economically and socially?
Different types of democracies that still exist and existed; for more information check this out: http://www.livescience.com/20919-democracy.html
This is also this is a “good” source to comprehend better if not the corruption, the certain fallacies that have fallen under the ruling of Venezuela. This article also appeared in the “USA Today Magazine”.
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/corruption-democracy-venezuela
http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/6556
http://www.mongabay.com/history/venezuela/venezuela-workers_and_the_urban_lower_class.html