Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez dies
- Thread starter Serpentine
- Start date
.
Kyusuibu Honbu
BANNED
- Joined
- May 21, 2010
- Messages
- 15,305
- Reaction score
- -21
- Country
- Location
In India i don't think anyone will miss him except for the communists.
Cable reference id: #05CARACAS847
Appreciate his anti-imperialism policy though don't like his socialist ideology.
He probably saw India as one of the important nations in a multi-polar world
Cable reference id: #05CARACAS847
Cable reference id: #05CARACAS847
Appreciate his anti-imperialism policy though don't like his socialist ideology.
He probably saw India as one of the important nations in a multi-polar world
Cable reference id: #05CARACAS847
bdslph
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2011
- Messages
- 3,746
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
bdslph
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2011
- Messages
- 3,746
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Hugo Chavez: Never lost for words
Hugo Chavez: Never lost for words ? RT News
Chavez's pal or US-backed rich kid: Who will inherit Venezuela?
http://rt.com/news/maduro-capriles-will-chavismo-survive-chavez-883/
wish Chavezs Pal win
Hugo Chavez: Never lost for words ? RT News
Chavez's pal or US-backed rich kid: Who will inherit Venezuela?
http://rt.com/news/maduro-capriles-will-chavismo-survive-chavez-883/
wish Chavezs Pal win
jhungary
MILITARY PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2012
- Messages
- 19,295
- Reaction score
- 387
- Country
- Location
People in this forum tend to look at thing over Simplified.
If you hate america or the west, then Chavez is a good man, decent man, because he hates imperialist and the west.
If you love america or the west, then Chavez is a bad guy, dictator, cuase he hate Imperialist and the west.
I want to ask you all one question, How many of you, Pro-Chavez or Pro-West have ever been in Venezuela?? How many of you even speak espanol to begin with??
I am not going to go deep on wether or not a dictator can be liked. Nor if he elected democratically or whatever, it all DOES NOT MATTER. As my mother say, DON'T JUDGE A MAN ON WHAT HE DO, BUT HIS LEGACY.
He is a head of states, he have to make friends within to get into that position, and with friends, comes enemies. If you are for him, you will always see him as a good man, a savior, if you are against him, you will always see him as a jerk.
The same can be said with Che and Castrol. If you love him, you love him, If you don't, you don't.
Sure, he have done a lot of good things for his own society, but all that HAVE TO BALANCED with the bad things that he'd done, and don't tell mehe have not done anything wrong.
So, in the end of the day, as a human being, it's sad to see another human being pass. But it would be the next generation who decide wether or not he is a great leader or a lousy dictator. Not us.
Buenas Suerte i Buenas Noches
If you hate america or the west, then Chavez is a good man, decent man, because he hates imperialist and the west.
If you love america or the west, then Chavez is a bad guy, dictator, cuase he hate Imperialist and the west.
I want to ask you all one question, How many of you, Pro-Chavez or Pro-West have ever been in Venezuela?? How many of you even speak espanol to begin with??
I am not going to go deep on wether or not a dictator can be liked. Nor if he elected democratically or whatever, it all DOES NOT MATTER. As my mother say, DON'T JUDGE A MAN ON WHAT HE DO, BUT HIS LEGACY.
He is a head of states, he have to make friends within to get into that position, and with friends, comes enemies. If you are for him, you will always see him as a good man, a savior, if you are against him, you will always see him as a jerk.
The same can be said with Che and Castrol. If you love him, you love him, If you don't, you don't.
Sure, he have done a lot of good things for his own society, but all that HAVE TO BALANCED with the bad things that he'd done, and don't tell mehe have not done anything wrong.
So, in the end of the day, as a human being, it's sad to see another human being pass. But it would be the next generation who decide wether or not he is a great leader or a lousy dictator. Not us.
Buenas Suerte i Buenas Noches
No he was no great socialist. It never works with complete command economy. He should have realized that when he read about marxism.
TruthSeeker
PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2008
- Messages
- 6,390
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
Hugo Chávez Dead at 58: Good Riddance!
By Michael Moynihan, Mar 5, 2013 5:49 PM EST
All one needs to know about Hugo Chávez’s poisonous political legacy can be determined from the circumstances in which he died. Or how little we know about the manner in which—or when, or how—he died. As Venezuela’s bombastic caudillo was expiring in Cuba—and then at a military hospital in Caracas—various newspapers, pundits, and bloggers had already declared him dead, speculated on the cause of his supposed death, and examined the fragmentary evidence of his condition in an attempt to determine with what he was afflicted.
His handpicked successor, the fanatically loyal former union leader Nicolas Maduro, denounced those who speculated that the president was dying as “mentally ill,” “sick with hatred, sick with evil,” and hopelessly right wing. A Spanish news report suggesting that he was sliding off this mortal coil was written by “Francoists.” In Bolivarian Venezuela, where politically subtlety disappeared along with political stability, to question the government—which still hasn’t revealed the nature of his illness—was tantamount to treason against the republic.
Today, at last, Maduro, who possesses both the charm and politics of Erich Honecker, held a Chávez-like press conference to tell Venezuelans that their leader’s medical situation had worsened, and that it was the United States that likely gave him cancer. It was clear that Chávez had either already died (or was barely hanging on) when Maduro announced that the United States was planning a coup and, in response, he was expelling an American diplomat. If the military rises—and such a thing is unlikely, because after the 2002 coup Chávez ensured their loyalty—it would be the sinister machinations of the empire at work. A little preemptive explanation.
From accusing the White House of trying to kill him to hanging out with Ahmadinejad and Gaddafi, here's a quick look at some reasons why Chavez was thought to hate America.
Hugo Chávez Frias was not a dictator, a semantic point to which his supporters devoted much argument, but he was most assuredly not a democrat. Having burst onto the Venezuelan political scene in 1992 as the leader of a failed military coup, he would later reposition himself as a champion of the ballot box, though one without much concern for the niceties of democracy. In the early days of Chavismo, despite his golpista background, Chavez commanded support from beyond the barrios, but his popularity waned significantly as he consolidated power by shuttering opposition media, rewriting the constitution, and expanding the supreme court. As his rule become more arbitrary and power centralized, thousands fled into exile. He won elections in conditions that, had they taken place in this country, would likely provoke revolution (and, in 2002, actually did in Venezuela). Chavez took his semi-democratic mandate as license to rule undemocratically and rebuild state institutions, now staffed with loyal supporters.
The fatherland is a shambles, Bolivarian socialism has failed, and Comandante Chávez is dead.
Chávez presided over a political epoch flush with money and lorded over a society riven by fear, deep political divisions, and ultraviolence. Consider the latest crime statistics from Observatorio Venezolano de la Violencia, which reckons that 2012 saw an astonishing 21,692 murders in the country—in a population of 29 million. Last year, I accompanied a Venezuelan journalist on his morning rounds at Caracas’s only morgue to count the previous night’s murders. As the number of dead ballooned, the Chávez regime simply stopped releasing murder statistics to the media.
All of this could have been predicted, and wasn’t particularly surprising from a president who believed that one must take the side of any enemy of the “empire.” That Zimbabwe’s dictator Robert Mugabe was a “freedom fighter,” or that Belarusian dictator Alexander Lukashenko presided over “a model of a social state.” Saddam Hussein was a “brother,” Bashar al-Assad had the “same political vision” as the Bolivarian revolutionaries in Venezuela. He saw in the madness of Col. Gaddafi an often overlooked “brilliance” (“I ask God to protect the life of our brother Muammar Gaddafi”
. The brutal terrorist Carlos the Jackal, who praised the 9/11 attacks from his French jail cell, was “a good friend.” He praised and supported FARC, the terrorist organization operating in neighboring Colombia. The list is endless.
His was a poisonous influence on the region, one rah-rahed by radical fools who desired to see a thumb jammed in America’s eye, while not caring a lick for its effect on ordinary Venezuelans. In his terrific new book (fortuitously timed to publish this week) Comandante: Hugo Chávez's Venezuela, The Guardian’s Rory Carroll summed up the legacy of Chávez’s Venezuela as “a land of power cuts, broken escalators, shortages, queues, insecurity, bureaucracy, unreturned calls, unfilled holes, uncollected garbage.” One could add to that list grinding poverty, massive corruption, censorship, and intimidation.
This was Chávez’s reign and his legacy; extralegal, vindictive, and interested in the short-term gesture rather than the more difficult, long-term solution. From his revolutionary comrades in Cuba, he borrowed the slogan “patria, socialismo o muerte”—fatherland, socialism or death. The fatherland is a shambles, Bolivarian socialism has failed, and Comandante Chávez is dead. May the “revolution” die with him.
Hugo Chavez Dead at 58: Good Riddance! - The Daily Beast
Remembering Hugo Chávez: A Demagogue’s Career in Quotes
By Andrew Katz, March 05, 2013
Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez died Tuesday from complications related to a near two-year battle with cancer. He was 58. Chávez, a populist firebrand who has defined a whole era of Latin American politics, was not known for holding his tongue. Here are some choice examples of the socialist’s oratory:
“Christopher Columbus was the spearhead of the biggest invasion and genocide ever seen in the history of humanity.” — Chávez, in 2003, on the discovery of the New World.
“I give you a replica of liberator Simon Bolivar’s sword. For you who, like Bolivar, took up arms to liberate your people. For you who, like Bolivar, are and will always be a true freedom fighter. [Mugabe] continues, alongside his people, to confront the pretensions of new imperialists.” — Chávez, speaking about Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe, in 2004.
“Don’t mess with me, sir, or you will get stung.” – Chávez, in 2005, when addressing former Mexican President Vicente Fox.
“Terrorism, putting fear into other nations, putting fear into their own people. Families go and begin to disguise their children as witches. This is contrary to our way.” — Chávez, in a weekly broadcast in 2005, inveighing against the American tradition of Halloween.
“Remember, little girl, I’m like the thorn tree that flowers on the plain. I waft my scent to passers-by and prick he who shakes me. Don’t mess with me, Condoleezza. Don’t mess with me, girl.” — Chávez, to then U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, in 2006.
“Don’t be shameless, Mr Blair. Don’t be immoral, Mr. Blair. You are one of those who have no morals. You are not one who has the right to criticize anyone about the rules of the international community. You are an imperialist pawn who attempts to curry favor with Danger Bush-Hitler, the number one mass murderer and assassin there is on the planet. Go straight to hell, Mr. Blair.” — Chávez, in 2006, to former British Prime Minister Tony Blair.
“You are a coward, a killer, a [perpetrator of] genocide, an alcoholic, a drunk, a liar, an immoral person, Mr Danger. You are the worst, Mr. Danger. The worst of this planet… A psychologically sick man, I know it.” – Chávez, about U.S. President George W. Bush, in 2006.
“Capitalism is the way of the devil and exploitation. If you really want to look at things through the eyes of Jesus Christ — who I think was the first socialist — only socialism can really create a genuine society.” — Chávez, on Christ’s economic views, in 2006.
“Yesterday the devil came here. Right here. And it smells of sulfur still today.” — Chávez in 2006, on George W. Bush, who appeared before the U.N. General Assembly at the same podium a day earlier.
“I think it’s imprudent for a king to shout at a president to shut up. Mr. King, we are not going to shut up.” — Chávez, in 2007, regarding a spat with Spain’s King Juan Carlos.
“I chew coca leaves every morning, and look at me!” — Chávez, in 2008, on certain natural health benefits.
“Bombing the brave Libyan people to save them? What a brilliant strategy by the mad empire. Where are the international rights? This is like the caveman era.” — Chávez, in 2011, on the NATO bombing campaign in Libya.
“You are a fraud, Obama,” Chávez said in 2011. “Go and ask many people in Africa, who might have believed in you because of the color of your skin, because your father was from Africa. You are an Afro-descendant, but you are the shame of all those people.”
“I think that Barack Obama – aside from ‘the president’ – is a good guy” — Chávez, a year later.
“Ahmadinejad and I are going into the … basement now to set our sights on Washington and launch cannons and missiles.” — Chávez, referring to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, in 2012.
Read more: http://world.time.com/2013/03/05/remembering-hugo-chavez-a-demagogues-career-in-quotes/#ixzz2Mmf2Mkxp
By Michael Moynihan, Mar 5, 2013 5:49 PM EST
All one needs to know about Hugo Chávez’s poisonous political legacy can be determined from the circumstances in which he died. Or how little we know about the manner in which—or when, or how—he died. As Venezuela’s bombastic caudillo was expiring in Cuba—and then at a military hospital in Caracas—various newspapers, pundits, and bloggers had already declared him dead, speculated on the cause of his supposed death, and examined the fragmentary evidence of his condition in an attempt to determine with what he was afflicted.
His handpicked successor, the fanatically loyal former union leader Nicolas Maduro, denounced those who speculated that the president was dying as “mentally ill,” “sick with hatred, sick with evil,” and hopelessly right wing. A Spanish news report suggesting that he was sliding off this mortal coil was written by “Francoists.” In Bolivarian Venezuela, where politically subtlety disappeared along with political stability, to question the government—which still hasn’t revealed the nature of his illness—was tantamount to treason against the republic.
Today, at last, Maduro, who possesses both the charm and politics of Erich Honecker, held a Chávez-like press conference to tell Venezuelans that their leader’s medical situation had worsened, and that it was the United States that likely gave him cancer. It was clear that Chávez had either already died (or was barely hanging on) when Maduro announced that the United States was planning a coup and, in response, he was expelling an American diplomat. If the military rises—and such a thing is unlikely, because after the 2002 coup Chávez ensured their loyalty—it would be the sinister machinations of the empire at work. A little preemptive explanation.
From accusing the White House of trying to kill him to hanging out with Ahmadinejad and Gaddafi, here's a quick look at some reasons why Chavez was thought to hate America.
Hugo Chávez Frias was not a dictator, a semantic point to which his supporters devoted much argument, but he was most assuredly not a democrat. Having burst onto the Venezuelan political scene in 1992 as the leader of a failed military coup, he would later reposition himself as a champion of the ballot box, though one without much concern for the niceties of democracy. In the early days of Chavismo, despite his golpista background, Chavez commanded support from beyond the barrios, but his popularity waned significantly as he consolidated power by shuttering opposition media, rewriting the constitution, and expanding the supreme court. As his rule become more arbitrary and power centralized, thousands fled into exile. He won elections in conditions that, had they taken place in this country, would likely provoke revolution (and, in 2002, actually did in Venezuela). Chavez took his semi-democratic mandate as license to rule undemocratically and rebuild state institutions, now staffed with loyal supporters.
The fatherland is a shambles, Bolivarian socialism has failed, and Comandante Chávez is dead.
Chávez presided over a political epoch flush with money and lorded over a society riven by fear, deep political divisions, and ultraviolence. Consider the latest crime statistics from Observatorio Venezolano de la Violencia, which reckons that 2012 saw an astonishing 21,692 murders in the country—in a population of 29 million. Last year, I accompanied a Venezuelan journalist on his morning rounds at Caracas’s only morgue to count the previous night’s murders. As the number of dead ballooned, the Chávez regime simply stopped releasing murder statistics to the media.
All of this could have been predicted, and wasn’t particularly surprising from a president who believed that one must take the side of any enemy of the “empire.” That Zimbabwe’s dictator Robert Mugabe was a “freedom fighter,” or that Belarusian dictator Alexander Lukashenko presided over “a model of a social state.” Saddam Hussein was a “brother,” Bashar al-Assad had the “same political vision” as the Bolivarian revolutionaries in Venezuela. He saw in the madness of Col. Gaddafi an often overlooked “brilliance” (“I ask God to protect the life of our brother Muammar Gaddafi”
. The brutal terrorist Carlos the Jackal, who praised the 9/11 attacks from his French jail cell, was “a good friend.” He praised and supported FARC, the terrorist organization operating in neighboring Colombia. The list is endless.His was a poisonous influence on the region, one rah-rahed by radical fools who desired to see a thumb jammed in America’s eye, while not caring a lick for its effect on ordinary Venezuelans. In his terrific new book (fortuitously timed to publish this week) Comandante: Hugo Chávez's Venezuela, The Guardian’s Rory Carroll summed up the legacy of Chávez’s Venezuela as “a land of power cuts, broken escalators, shortages, queues, insecurity, bureaucracy, unreturned calls, unfilled holes, uncollected garbage.” One could add to that list grinding poverty, massive corruption, censorship, and intimidation.
This was Chávez’s reign and his legacy; extralegal, vindictive, and interested in the short-term gesture rather than the more difficult, long-term solution. From his revolutionary comrades in Cuba, he borrowed the slogan “patria, socialismo o muerte”—fatherland, socialism or death. The fatherland is a shambles, Bolivarian socialism has failed, and Comandante Chávez is dead. May the “revolution” die with him.
Hugo Chavez Dead at 58: Good Riddance! - The Daily Beast
Remembering Hugo Chávez: A Demagogue’s Career in Quotes
By Andrew Katz, March 05, 2013
Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez died Tuesday from complications related to a near two-year battle with cancer. He was 58. Chávez, a populist firebrand who has defined a whole era of Latin American politics, was not known for holding his tongue. Here are some choice examples of the socialist’s oratory:
“Christopher Columbus was the spearhead of the biggest invasion and genocide ever seen in the history of humanity.” — Chávez, in 2003, on the discovery of the New World.
“I give you a replica of liberator Simon Bolivar’s sword. For you who, like Bolivar, took up arms to liberate your people. For you who, like Bolivar, are and will always be a true freedom fighter. [Mugabe] continues, alongside his people, to confront the pretensions of new imperialists.” — Chávez, speaking about Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe, in 2004.
“Don’t mess with me, sir, or you will get stung.” – Chávez, in 2005, when addressing former Mexican President Vicente Fox.
“Terrorism, putting fear into other nations, putting fear into their own people. Families go and begin to disguise their children as witches. This is contrary to our way.” — Chávez, in a weekly broadcast in 2005, inveighing against the American tradition of Halloween.
“Remember, little girl, I’m like the thorn tree that flowers on the plain. I waft my scent to passers-by and prick he who shakes me. Don’t mess with me, Condoleezza. Don’t mess with me, girl.” — Chávez, to then U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, in 2006.
“Don’t be shameless, Mr Blair. Don’t be immoral, Mr. Blair. You are one of those who have no morals. You are not one who has the right to criticize anyone about the rules of the international community. You are an imperialist pawn who attempts to curry favor with Danger Bush-Hitler, the number one mass murderer and assassin there is on the planet. Go straight to hell, Mr. Blair.” — Chávez, in 2006, to former British Prime Minister Tony Blair.
“You are a coward, a killer, a [perpetrator of] genocide, an alcoholic, a drunk, a liar, an immoral person, Mr Danger. You are the worst, Mr. Danger. The worst of this planet… A psychologically sick man, I know it.” – Chávez, about U.S. President George W. Bush, in 2006.
“Capitalism is the way of the devil and exploitation. If you really want to look at things through the eyes of Jesus Christ — who I think was the first socialist — only socialism can really create a genuine society.” — Chávez, on Christ’s economic views, in 2006.
“Yesterday the devil came here. Right here. And it smells of sulfur still today.” — Chávez in 2006, on George W. Bush, who appeared before the U.N. General Assembly at the same podium a day earlier.
“I think it’s imprudent for a king to shout at a president to shut up. Mr. King, we are not going to shut up.” — Chávez, in 2007, regarding a spat with Spain’s King Juan Carlos.
“I chew coca leaves every morning, and look at me!” — Chávez, in 2008, on certain natural health benefits.
“Bombing the brave Libyan people to save them? What a brilliant strategy by the mad empire. Where are the international rights? This is like the caveman era.” — Chávez, in 2011, on the NATO bombing campaign in Libya.
“You are a fraud, Obama,” Chávez said in 2011. “Go and ask many people in Africa, who might have believed in you because of the color of your skin, because your father was from Africa. You are an Afro-descendant, but you are the shame of all those people.”
“I think that Barack Obama – aside from ‘the president’ – is a good guy” — Chávez, a year later.
“Ahmadinejad and I are going into the … basement now to set our sights on Washington and launch cannons and missiles.” — Chávez, referring to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, in 2012.
Read more: http://world.time.com/2013/03/05/remembering-hugo-chavez-a-demagogues-career-in-quotes/#ixzz2Mmf2Mkxp
TruthSeeker
PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2008
- Messages
- 6,390
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
THE MIAMI HERALD | EDITORIAL
Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez and his legacy of plunder
Hugo Chávez’s folksy charm and forceful personality made him an extraordinary politician. His enviable ability to win a mass following allowed him to build a powerful political machine that kept him in office from February of 1999 until his death on Tuesday. But as a national leader, he was an abject failure who plunged Venezuela into a political and economic abyss.
Dead at 58, Hugo Chávez leaves behind a country in far worse condition than it was when he became president, its future clouded by rivals for succession in a constitutional crisis of his Bolivarian party’s making and an economy in chaos.
A former paratrooper, Mr. Chávez had a radical vision for “21st Century Socialism,” which was never fully explained. His skillful rhetoric, which filled supporters with utopian dreams, was used to justify the methodical destruction of Venezuela’s democratic institutions and the free market.
Shortly after coming to office, he rewrote the constitution to his liking and aggressively set out to rig elections and stifle adversaries in the legislative branch and the courts. Unable to brook criticism, he turned his fire on the independent news media, eventually silencing most voices of opposition by bully tactics and economic intimidation.
His Bolivarian regime rewarded supporters and punished opponents, giving rise to enormous corruption and the creation of a new class of greedy oligarchs with political connections. Unfortunately for Venezuela and for all his political skills, the president was both an incompetent executive and a worse economist.
In an energy-rich country that once knew no blackouts, electrical shortages are frequent, the result of Mr. Chávez’s plundering of the country’s public oil company. In a country that once enjoyed a thriving free market, prices are controlled and food items often scarce.
In recent weeks, while Mr. Chávez was hospitalized, Venezuela was once again forced to devalue its currency, this time by one-third. This was the inevitable outcome of a series of disastrous economic decisions that included nationalizing the telephone company and other utilities, which scared off foreign investors and spurred capital flight.
For Venezuelans, the worst aspect of the Chávez years was the soaring crime rate. Venezuela has become one of the most violent countries in the world, with nearly 20,000 murders recorded in 2011 and a homicide rate that some experts say is four times greater than in the last year before Mr. Chávez took power.
On the international front, Mr. Chávez eagerly accepted Fidel Castro as his mentor, providing Cuba with cut-rate oil and making common cause with Iran and other rogue regimes. His departure leaves the anti-American front leaderless on a hemispheric level and could eventually threaten the subsidy that Cuba relies on to keep its economy barely functioning.
As a result of all this, Venezuela today is a polarized society divided between the intolerant supporters of Mr. Chávez’s Bolivarian Revolution and a democratic opposition that, against all odds, has waged a courageous fight for a democratic alternative.
The president’s death means a new election must be called soon. Under Hugo Chávez, the electoral machinery was stacked against the opposition and that will doubtless be the case again, but the United States and democracies throughout the hemisphere should insist on a fair and transparent electoral process to select the new president.
The Organization of American States, which was once seen as a defender of political and civil liberties in the hemisphere but has made itself largely irrelevant in recent years, could regain some of its stature by taking a prominent role in ensuring that the people of Venezuela can make the most of this opportunity to restore their democracy.
None of Mr. Chávez’s would-be successors, including Nicolás Maduro, his vice president and designated political heir, possesses the fallen leader’s forceful personality or political skill, though his popularity may extend beyond death to give the regime’s official candidate an edge in the next election.
But without discarding “Bolivarian” principles and restoring the country’s democratic institutions, no one will be able to stop the downward spiral of Venezuela that began the day Hugo Chávez was elected president.
Read more here: Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez and his legacy of plunder - Editorials - MiamiHerald.com
Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez and his legacy of plunder
Hugo Chávez’s folksy charm and forceful personality made him an extraordinary politician. His enviable ability to win a mass following allowed him to build a powerful political machine that kept him in office from February of 1999 until his death on Tuesday. But as a national leader, he was an abject failure who plunged Venezuela into a political and economic abyss.
Dead at 58, Hugo Chávez leaves behind a country in far worse condition than it was when he became president, its future clouded by rivals for succession in a constitutional crisis of his Bolivarian party’s making and an economy in chaos.
A former paratrooper, Mr. Chávez had a radical vision for “21st Century Socialism,” which was never fully explained. His skillful rhetoric, which filled supporters with utopian dreams, was used to justify the methodical destruction of Venezuela’s democratic institutions and the free market.
Shortly after coming to office, he rewrote the constitution to his liking and aggressively set out to rig elections and stifle adversaries in the legislative branch and the courts. Unable to brook criticism, he turned his fire on the independent news media, eventually silencing most voices of opposition by bully tactics and economic intimidation.
His Bolivarian regime rewarded supporters and punished opponents, giving rise to enormous corruption and the creation of a new class of greedy oligarchs with political connections. Unfortunately for Venezuela and for all his political skills, the president was both an incompetent executive and a worse economist.
In an energy-rich country that once knew no blackouts, electrical shortages are frequent, the result of Mr. Chávez’s plundering of the country’s public oil company. In a country that once enjoyed a thriving free market, prices are controlled and food items often scarce.
In recent weeks, while Mr. Chávez was hospitalized, Venezuela was once again forced to devalue its currency, this time by one-third. This was the inevitable outcome of a series of disastrous economic decisions that included nationalizing the telephone company and other utilities, which scared off foreign investors and spurred capital flight.
For Venezuelans, the worst aspect of the Chávez years was the soaring crime rate. Venezuela has become one of the most violent countries in the world, with nearly 20,000 murders recorded in 2011 and a homicide rate that some experts say is four times greater than in the last year before Mr. Chávez took power.
On the international front, Mr. Chávez eagerly accepted Fidel Castro as his mentor, providing Cuba with cut-rate oil and making common cause with Iran and other rogue regimes. His departure leaves the anti-American front leaderless on a hemispheric level and could eventually threaten the subsidy that Cuba relies on to keep its economy barely functioning.
As a result of all this, Venezuela today is a polarized society divided between the intolerant supporters of Mr. Chávez’s Bolivarian Revolution and a democratic opposition that, against all odds, has waged a courageous fight for a democratic alternative.
The president’s death means a new election must be called soon. Under Hugo Chávez, the electoral machinery was stacked against the opposition and that will doubtless be the case again, but the United States and democracies throughout the hemisphere should insist on a fair and transparent electoral process to select the new president.
The Organization of American States, which was once seen as a defender of political and civil liberties in the hemisphere but has made itself largely irrelevant in recent years, could regain some of its stature by taking a prominent role in ensuring that the people of Venezuela can make the most of this opportunity to restore their democracy.
None of Mr. Chávez’s would-be successors, including Nicolás Maduro, his vice president and designated political heir, possesses the fallen leader’s forceful personality or political skill, though his popularity may extend beyond death to give the regime’s official candidate an edge in the next election.
But without discarding “Bolivarian” principles and restoring the country’s democratic institutions, no one will be able to stop the downward spiral of Venezuela that began the day Hugo Chávez was elected president.
Read more here: Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez and his legacy of plunder - Editorials - MiamiHerald.com
TruthSeeker
PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2008
- Messages
- 6,390
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
Chavez failed Venezuela
James S. Robbins, 11:41a.m. EST March 6, 2013
Given the unqualified failure of his socialist experiment, dying young was probably the best thing Hugo Chavez could have done for his country.
The political opponents of Chavez risked their lives if they criticized him.
The poor he claimed to help suffered from increased malnutrition, crime and inflation.
He squashed democratic institutions and undermined an independent judiciary.
Late Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez proved that one person can make a huge difference. In his case, it was almost universally negative.
Chavez was a committed revolutionary and charismatic dictator driven to build what he called "Socialism of the 21st Century." After being elected president of Venezuela in 1998 he implemented a new constitution seeking a fundamental transformation of the country, promising extensive rights and benefits to the downtrodden and radically augmenting his personal power. He nationalized industries, redistributed wealth, and bowled over any who go in his way.
Like almost all socialist experiments, Chavez's "Bolivarian Revolution" was pointless and harmful. It has left Venezuela with a basket-case economy. Venezuela's currency, the bolivar, suffers from 20% inflation and has been devalued five times in a decade. Chavez increased economic equality by spreading the poverty around. His attempts to promote nutrition through price controls resulted in food shortages and malnutrition. He spent millions on unfinished or never started public works projects. Chavez kept Venezuela afloat by exploiting the guaranteed income from the nationalized oil industry, which accounted for over half of government revenue. Nevertheless, he ran up massive budget deficits and increased foreign debt holdings, principally by China.
Not everyone approved of Chavez's revolution, but they risked their lives if they went public with their criticism. Chavez jailed critical journalists and harassed press outlets that questioned his rule. Armies of pro-Chavez street thugs intimidated, beat and sometimes killed political opponents. A pliant, Chavez-controlled judiciary gave a rubber-stamp of legitimacy to the revolutionary repression. Workers were forbidden from organizing except in approved, state-controlled unions. Elections and referenda were rigged, and international election monitors were kicked out of the country if they tried to do their jobs too effectively.
In his foreign policy, Chavez pursued a consistently anti-American line. He created the "Bolivarian Alliance," an alliance of fellow socialists in Cuba, Bolivia, Ecuador and Nicaragua, bound by dogmatic opposition to the United States. He supported the drug-running terrorist group called the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and sought military cooperation with Iran.
Chavez's passing could usher in a new era of peace and prosperity for Venezuela. Free-market economic reforms could see the country following the growth path of regional powerhouse Brazil. And there is no reason to continue with Chavez's destructive, anti-U.S. foreign policy. Given the unqualified failure of his socialist experiment, dying young was probably the best thing Hugo Chavez could have done for his country.
Chavez failed Venezuela: Column
Chavez’s Legacy of Ruin
By the Editors, Mar 5, 2013 9:47 PM ET
The death of President Hugo Chavez marks the beginning of a perilous and hopeful moment for Venezuela and the Western Hemisphere.
There is no denying the impact of the charismatic ex- paratrooper, a plotter and survivor of coups who demolished Venezuela’s political power structure, won three elections with wide support and used the wealth from the world’s largest oil reserves to advance, across the Andes and beyond, his home- brewed ideology of “Bolivarian socialism.”
How long that incoherent ideology will survive its creator is an open question. The challenge now facing Venezuela and its neighbors is to ensure a peaceful transition to a new elected government. Under Venezuela’s constitution, an election must be held within 30 days. Given the supercharged atmosphere surrounding Chavez’s death -- just hours earlier, Vice President Nicolas Maduro blamed Chavez’s enemies for his cancer, and claimed that opposition groups were sabotaging the nation’s power grid -- the potential for unrest during the campaign looms large.
In last October’s election, Chavez used the tools of incumbency, including not just government largesse but also dominance of the news media and other soft authoritarian strategies, to disadvantage his challenger Henrique Capriles Radonski. That pattern will repeat itself, with the added uncertainty and tension that may come from rivalries between Maduro, National Assembly President Diosdado Cabelloand others within the post-Chavez camp.
Good Neighbors
It will fall to Venezuela’s democratic neighbors, led by Brazil and Colombia, to exert influence for a clean and lawful campaign. Any public pressure by the U.S. will be as ineffective as it is unwelcome -- in the short run, Chavez’s followers are likely to resort even more readily to anti-American invective to whip up popular support, as Maduro did the day Chavez died by expelling two U.S. diplomats for allegedly seeking to destabilize the country.
The disappearance of the larger-than-life Chavez does create more of an opening for the Organization of American States to call, if needed, for intervention under the Inter- American Democratic Charter. It also provides an opportunity to defeat a cynical “reform” aimed at weakening one of the hemisphere’s human-rights monitors. Chavez, along with his ally President Rafael Correa of Ecuador, had led an attack on the OAS’s Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, which had called attention to Venezuela’s authoritarian drift. In a measure to be taken up this month in Washington, they propose to cut funds to the judicial watchdog and particularly to its special rapporteur for freedom of expression, who defends liberty of the press and journalists. Some deft and forceful diplomacy could blunt that effort, which would weaken protection for opposition groups at a particularly bad time.
Seismic political upheaval in Venezuela, however, is neither imminent nor desirable. Not only are 20 out of 23 governorships in the hands of Chavez supporters (many of them former military officers), but over the course of his dozen years in power he built up a 125,000-strong militia, of whom 30,000 could be considered armed combatants. Having them pour out into the streets is in nobody’s best interests.
Instead, if moderate change is to come, it will be driven largely by economic necessity. Chavez’s policies, especially his most recent pre-election spending splurge, have led to growing debt, among the highest borrowing costs of emerging market countries, one of the world’s highest inflation rates, and widespread shortages of milk, meat, toilet paper and other basic goods. A recent devaluation will help government finances but make imported goods even more expensive and seems like a short- term fix.
’Homegrown Charm’
Such economic tribulations didn’t seem to dim the adulation of Chavez’s supporters, who backed him repeatedly. His likely successors, however, may not have his “immediate friendliness and…homegrown charm” -- qualities that Gabriel Garcia Marquez singled out in calling Chavez “a natural storyteller.” And they probably won’t have as much money to mix with the magical realism. Starved of investment and milked to fund Chavez’s special projects, Venezuela’s state-run oil company produces one-quarter less oil than it did when he first took office.
In the days and months ahead, Chavez’s champions and critics will debate the extent to which his policies reduced poverty and inequality, and how accountable he should be held for the near-quadrupling of murders from 1998 to 2011, when more than 19,000 Venezuelans were killed (about the same as the total for the U.S. and the European Union combined). They may plumb the mysteries of Chavismo, including the wisdom of forging ties with Iran and Syria and giving away billions of dollars in oil each year to Cuba. But the luxury of mulling history’s verdict will be denied to whoever takes Chavez’s place, because the economic mess he left behind will demand all of his successor’s attention.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-06/chavez-the-popular-autocrat-leaves-a-legacy-of-ruin.html
James S. Robbins, 11:41a.m. EST March 6, 2013
Given the unqualified failure of his socialist experiment, dying young was probably the best thing Hugo Chavez could have done for his country.
The political opponents of Chavez risked their lives if they criticized him.
The poor he claimed to help suffered from increased malnutrition, crime and inflation.
He squashed democratic institutions and undermined an independent judiciary.
Late Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez proved that one person can make a huge difference. In his case, it was almost universally negative.
Chavez was a committed revolutionary and charismatic dictator driven to build what he called "Socialism of the 21st Century." After being elected president of Venezuela in 1998 he implemented a new constitution seeking a fundamental transformation of the country, promising extensive rights and benefits to the downtrodden and radically augmenting his personal power. He nationalized industries, redistributed wealth, and bowled over any who go in his way.
Like almost all socialist experiments, Chavez's "Bolivarian Revolution" was pointless and harmful. It has left Venezuela with a basket-case economy. Venezuela's currency, the bolivar, suffers from 20% inflation and has been devalued five times in a decade. Chavez increased economic equality by spreading the poverty around. His attempts to promote nutrition through price controls resulted in food shortages and malnutrition. He spent millions on unfinished or never started public works projects. Chavez kept Venezuela afloat by exploiting the guaranteed income from the nationalized oil industry, which accounted for over half of government revenue. Nevertheless, he ran up massive budget deficits and increased foreign debt holdings, principally by China.
Not everyone approved of Chavez's revolution, but they risked their lives if they went public with their criticism. Chavez jailed critical journalists and harassed press outlets that questioned his rule. Armies of pro-Chavez street thugs intimidated, beat and sometimes killed political opponents. A pliant, Chavez-controlled judiciary gave a rubber-stamp of legitimacy to the revolutionary repression. Workers were forbidden from organizing except in approved, state-controlled unions. Elections and referenda were rigged, and international election monitors were kicked out of the country if they tried to do their jobs too effectively.
In his foreign policy, Chavez pursued a consistently anti-American line. He created the "Bolivarian Alliance," an alliance of fellow socialists in Cuba, Bolivia, Ecuador and Nicaragua, bound by dogmatic opposition to the United States. He supported the drug-running terrorist group called the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and sought military cooperation with Iran.
Chavez's passing could usher in a new era of peace and prosperity for Venezuela. Free-market economic reforms could see the country following the growth path of regional powerhouse Brazil. And there is no reason to continue with Chavez's destructive, anti-U.S. foreign policy. Given the unqualified failure of his socialist experiment, dying young was probably the best thing Hugo Chavez could have done for his country.
Chavez failed Venezuela: Column
Chavez’s Legacy of Ruin
By the Editors, Mar 5, 2013 9:47 PM ET
The death of President Hugo Chavez marks the beginning of a perilous and hopeful moment for Venezuela and the Western Hemisphere.
There is no denying the impact of the charismatic ex- paratrooper, a plotter and survivor of coups who demolished Venezuela’s political power structure, won three elections with wide support and used the wealth from the world’s largest oil reserves to advance, across the Andes and beyond, his home- brewed ideology of “Bolivarian socialism.”
How long that incoherent ideology will survive its creator is an open question. The challenge now facing Venezuela and its neighbors is to ensure a peaceful transition to a new elected government. Under Venezuela’s constitution, an election must be held within 30 days. Given the supercharged atmosphere surrounding Chavez’s death -- just hours earlier, Vice President Nicolas Maduro blamed Chavez’s enemies for his cancer, and claimed that opposition groups were sabotaging the nation’s power grid -- the potential for unrest during the campaign looms large.
In last October’s election, Chavez used the tools of incumbency, including not just government largesse but also dominance of the news media and other soft authoritarian strategies, to disadvantage his challenger Henrique Capriles Radonski. That pattern will repeat itself, with the added uncertainty and tension that may come from rivalries between Maduro, National Assembly President Diosdado Cabelloand others within the post-Chavez camp.
Good Neighbors
It will fall to Venezuela’s democratic neighbors, led by Brazil and Colombia, to exert influence for a clean and lawful campaign. Any public pressure by the U.S. will be as ineffective as it is unwelcome -- in the short run, Chavez’s followers are likely to resort even more readily to anti-American invective to whip up popular support, as Maduro did the day Chavez died by expelling two U.S. diplomats for allegedly seeking to destabilize the country.
The disappearance of the larger-than-life Chavez does create more of an opening for the Organization of American States to call, if needed, for intervention under the Inter- American Democratic Charter. It also provides an opportunity to defeat a cynical “reform” aimed at weakening one of the hemisphere’s human-rights monitors. Chavez, along with his ally President Rafael Correa of Ecuador, had led an attack on the OAS’s Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, which had called attention to Venezuela’s authoritarian drift. In a measure to be taken up this month in Washington, they propose to cut funds to the judicial watchdog and particularly to its special rapporteur for freedom of expression, who defends liberty of the press and journalists. Some deft and forceful diplomacy could blunt that effort, which would weaken protection for opposition groups at a particularly bad time.
Seismic political upheaval in Venezuela, however, is neither imminent nor desirable. Not only are 20 out of 23 governorships in the hands of Chavez supporters (many of them former military officers), but over the course of his dozen years in power he built up a 125,000-strong militia, of whom 30,000 could be considered armed combatants. Having them pour out into the streets is in nobody’s best interests.
Instead, if moderate change is to come, it will be driven largely by economic necessity. Chavez’s policies, especially his most recent pre-election spending splurge, have led to growing debt, among the highest borrowing costs of emerging market countries, one of the world’s highest inflation rates, and widespread shortages of milk, meat, toilet paper and other basic goods. A recent devaluation will help government finances but make imported goods even more expensive and seems like a short- term fix.
’Homegrown Charm’
Such economic tribulations didn’t seem to dim the adulation of Chavez’s supporters, who backed him repeatedly. His likely successors, however, may not have his “immediate friendliness and…homegrown charm” -- qualities that Gabriel Garcia Marquez singled out in calling Chavez “a natural storyteller.” And they probably won’t have as much money to mix with the magical realism. Starved of investment and milked to fund Chavez’s special projects, Venezuela’s state-run oil company produces one-quarter less oil than it did when he first took office.
In the days and months ahead, Chavez’s champions and critics will debate the extent to which his policies reduced poverty and inequality, and how accountable he should be held for the near-quadrupling of murders from 1998 to 2011, when more than 19,000 Venezuelans were killed (about the same as the total for the U.S. and the European Union combined). They may plumb the mysteries of Chavismo, including the wisdom of forging ties with Iran and Syria and giving away billions of dollars in oil each year to Cuba. But the luxury of mulling history’s verdict will be denied to whoever takes Chavez’s place, because the economic mess he left behind will demand all of his successor’s attention.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-06/chavez-the-popular-autocrat-leaves-a-legacy-of-ruin.html
Serpentine
INT'L MOD
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2011
- Messages
- 12,131
- Reaction score
- 30
- Country
- Location
American mainstream media are doing their job fine, even after Chavez's death.
anon45
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2010
- Messages
- 3,212
- Reaction score
- 4
- Country
- Location
Chavez is dead, good riddance to bad rubbish.
RayKalm
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2012
- Messages
- 2,924
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
I'm trying to work out why there is so much hate towards Chávez from Americans. I can't be because he donated cheap fuel to help the poor and elderly in the U.S. from freezing to death. It can't be because he reduced poverty and unemployment in Venezuela. It can't be because he actually cared about his citizens.
Oh wait! It's because he survived your government's coup d'état attempt. It's because he stuck two fingers up at your multinational corporations who wanted to pillage his country for natural resources. It's because he refused to let your government control and destabilise Venezuela. It's because you've been conditioned to hate the White House's so-called "enemies," yet ignore the REAL enemies in your own country. But, most importantly, it's because you are sheep who believe EVERYTHING your government and media want you to believe.
Oh wait! It's because he survived your government's coup d'état attempt. It's because he stuck two fingers up at your multinational corporations who wanted to pillage his country for natural resources. It's because he refused to let your government control and destabilise Venezuela. It's because you've been conditioned to hate the White House's so-called "enemies," yet ignore the REAL enemies in your own country. But, most importantly, it's because you are sheep who believe EVERYTHING your government and media want you to believe.
hunter_hunted
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2010
- Messages
- 4,082
- Reaction score
- -2
- Country
- Location
Ok now doors for setup of shop Democracy are officially open. Please all hail for America
Similar threads
