


A firmer grip on power

The populist president of Venezuela, Hugo Chávez, wins a referendum on constitutional change

See article

Readers' comments



Poor Venezuela and Venezuelans. This is one more time the proof that unfortunately democracy does not exists.


Neither Great Britain nor Margaret Thatcher were “magnanimous” or “reconciliatory” in 1982, following a great established tradition of kicking their enemies when they are down. Now Comandante Chavez and the Bolivarian revolution have won despite protests, meddling, and published lies from this fine infallible publication and their masters in the USA. The People have spoken and voted their hopes and their ambitions. And as far as “forcing TV and radio stations to carry his victory speech”… pure rubbish! This was a normal election in which “the bad guy” won. When Mr. Brown or the slick Mr. Blair won their elections, there were hardly any TV or radio stations that did not carry their victory speeches and promises of a better Britain. Britain today is broken, no question about it. Perhaps this great fall from their ego should bring this nation back to normality.

igualada dr

People do get the rulers they deserve! Even though its upper classes were always in cloud #9, maybe no country, not even Venezuela, deserves a leader such as Hugo Chavez. Leftish intellectual types through out Latin America and beyond present Chavez's 15 or so elections as proof that he is a true man of the people and a democratic ruler. However, for democracy to thrive, alternability is the key word and this fellow is not inclined to leave power for the time being, whatever the cost to the country.


10 year with absolute power and he has not been able to get rid of the corruption and the burocracy, with total control of the army and he has not been able to strike crime.

Now a cheaper oil price, and a country depending by 90% of this sector would be a miracle (by ignorance or corruption)if he wins again even if he says that the opposition wants to kill him


Chimaoge1, I think we can agree on that. But what is your opinion on the effectiveness of Chavez many (social) programs? Show? Real Impact?


Seluron,I appreciate your comments. I would like to point out that I am not necessarily a supporter of Chavez. Like I said in one of my posts, I do see him as rude, populist and demagogic in nature. However the corrupt opposition elite are far worse than Chavez. I reiterate that what Venezuela needs is a new credible opposition concerned about the people rather than the an opposition elite revving up to take power so that they can propagate corruption and make oil money of the country. In any case, supporting democracy is a matter of principle for me. Hugo Chavez was democratically elected by majority of Venezuelan people and he would be sacked if the same venezuelan majority vote him out. Both opposition and Chavez government use propaganda against each other. Chavez makes use of state television for propaganda while the wealthy opposition elite use their vast control of chains of private print and electronic media organisations within Venezuela to spread their own propaganda and call for the subversion of democracy by insisting for Chavez to be forcefully overthrown . In fact the opposition elite has the upper hand because they have Western media organisations like the Economist, Daily Telegraph, Fox News, ABC,etc, helping them to spread their propaganda internationally. Now many of the Chavez-haters are not angry with Chavez because they are passionate about democratic principles. Their anger is that the MAN THEY LOVE TO HATE is challenging Euro-American interests in Latin America which used to be in the pocket of the US government from the late 1960s to the mid-1990s. This same people screaming that Chavez is "undermining democracy" are the same people that backed the botched 2002 military coup planned and financed by the power hungry corrupt elite. The same Chavez haters probably would not have any truck with Chavez if he was a pro-USA lackey like Alvaro Uribe of Colombia whose human rights records in will make Chavez look like a saint.


"A firmer grip on power" ??? Huuhhh ... get some reality!

The German system for instance allows re-election indefinitely. So why should it be any different in Venezuela then? Why not permit Chavez, what some Western Countries do???

Former chancellor of Germany, Helmut Kohl, was in power for 16 years (he got re-elected three times) and even run for a fifth time, but eventually lost the election.

Matías O.J.

To the previous posters:It lies in the very nature of wealth to make it easy to acquire more wealth. Thus, in a free system, wealthy people will always accumulate wealth and power, and bend political systems to their benefit. This was as true in ancient Mesopotamia as it is today. Currency, free trade and capitalism are all minor compounding factors to this basic problem.Any society over a 100 members or so tends to create specialized positions that enhance individuals possibilities to create wealth, thus creating political classes and economical inequality. Classical Marxism never sought to deny this problem, but instead proposed creating a counter-culture of political awareness across society that would keep people in power positions in check by the virtue of common morality. In theory, it could have worked. In reality, ruling classes across the world instantly perceived the deadly threat this kind of ideological shift, however unlikely, would be to their conception of the world. Not to say that that even left on its own it might have succeeded, but rarely have attempts of paradigm change been met with such ruthless resistance.All in all, I do not believe Karl Marx to be turning in his grave. His utopia might have not have come to pass, but I think today's world of labor legislation and large middle classes are a world away from 18th century England, and at least part of this is his victory.RIP Mr. Marx


@Dantee00right on! we need a mix of both... and like you said to some extent we have a mix of both. i think the "satanisation" (nice word) of capitalism is just a reaction to the "satanisation" of socialism. neither are perfect but they both have it's place in the minds and hearts of people and government. i believe it to be just as detrimental to be 100 percent socialist than as it is to be 100 percent capitalist. maintaining a balance is the key. and it is something that we as a global society need to keep in mind in order to progress positively into the future.


@mannyphesto:"Where as a Socialist society one is doing a service for everyone regarless of reward."That sounds really nice when you think about it. However, in reality, the reason why people work is because they want to be able to cover their living expenses. And, the reason why people does an extra effort, is because (self-realisation aside) they want to be able to afford more.Certainly, as I already said, a society in which people works for others whilst expecting nothing in return sounds really nice, but that's all there is to it. Anyway, despite the satanisation of the word Capitalism (you know, a system in which people acts by personal interests, greed, and the like), people do end up serving their peers. Think about it. The people involved in the creation of your shoes didn't do it so that you could have something to protect your feet with. They did it because they want their payment. Another example, say, the people who developed the OS in your PC. They didn't develop it so you'd have a tool to work with. Just like the shoemakers, they did it because they're seeking profit. However, one way or the other, you're being served.Right now, the system that is being used by the most wealthy nations is a mixed economy. However, you can say it is basically Capitalism with some Socialist measures. On the other hand, Socialism alone is yet to prove its worth. Who knows? Maybe Venezuela one day will prove it worthy, but as of now, it hasn't had a good history. Mind you, I'm not saying Capitalism is perfect. It has many, many flaws, but it has shown decent results. Additionally, there will never be a thing such as a "perfect system;" primarily because we're dealing with people, and people are not perfect. Anyway, even if the world isn't doing well currently, it's doing much better than it did in the past.


I wonder if most Venezuelans even got a chance to learn about the opposition other than through Chavez himself.


I hope that Chavez is not as bad as everyone thinks.I also hope that in time Socialism can be seen as a respectable form of government. Especially in places where there are more poor than wealthy. I think that a Socialist form of government is a good path on getting an oppressed society off it's knees. It gives everyone an equal chance of survival. After time the people should decide whether or not they want to change. I think it is very hard to be a capitalist when you and your peers have lived very ill fated lives side by side. In a way turning to a Capitalist would mean that you would need to exploit those you have once suffered along side with. Where as a Socialist society one is doing a service for everyone regarless of reward.The reason why capitalism took off in the US is that there were many different ethnic groups and they were all pinned off against each other. So they had no qualms with charging for their services for profit. It was a mad rush to be on top. Therefore I believe that it will take time for people to want to exploit their neighbors if their neighbors are just like them. Because let's be honest it does take greed and a desire to separate one's self from the ordinary for a Capitalist society to thrive. However, for that mentality to happen in just one or two generations is not very likely. Does that make any sense?


The term limits for the United States presidency were imposed after Franklin D. Roosevelt because the Government of the time had discovered that the job tended to kill or seriously incapacitate the occupants of the office. Two terms appears to be all that a human being can manage. The citizens of Venezuela may discover this for themselves. The question is, of course, who will be left to pick up the pieces once Mr. Chavez's balancing act comes to an end?


The failings of Chavez are plain to any reasonable mind. The inevitable path to disaster his "policies" will bring are obvious and do not bear debate.

The more interesting debate is why the Venezuelan people choose Chavez. Are they stupid? Unlikely. Are they ignorant? Probably a lot less than you might imagine. Mad? Surely not? Then what? The people of Venezuela are probably just taking the only alternative available to them. Latin America is marked by an invisible coalition between politically connected capital and a repressive military apparatus. Those who find themselves outside this circle of trust, can hope at best to be allowed access into the (relatively poorly rewarded) middle classes where they are used as little more than tax and consumption engines - real wealth accumulation and the accompanying economic mobility is beyond them.

Leave people without hope, and they will make choices that appear drastic and extreme; like voting for lunatic policies of a populist crackpot. And after they have all left Venezuela, and are living off their illicitly exported wealth in Spain, the capital owning classes will watch the country's demise with a sense of vindication, while the poor who rejected slavery suffer further.


Ok, another South American country somewhere on the move between Democracy and Dictatorship, at the moment close to democratic. The noise would only be half as load if it would be a right wing government. Or worse, this one would get massive Us support.


How about this: "...Nevertheless, Ms Graterol defends Mr Chávez’s record. She points out that Chapellín now has three soup kitchens to help the poorest, primary health-care posts and a mercalito (a government shop with subsidised food). Not far away is an Integrated Diagnostics Centre (CDI), one of the free second-tier clinics set up by the government to offer more sophisticated medical treatment.José Silva, a 70-year-old taxi driver, is full of praise for the CDI. He hurt his shoulder not long ago, trying to knock ripe mangoes from a tree. “As a pensioner, I get seen immediately,” he says. “The Cuban doctor soon fixed my shoulder.” Many like Mr Silva are grateful that the president has brought pensions into line with the minimum wage. And although he has to queue for hours at the bank once a month to draw it, he has few complaints."from the same Economist: http://www.economist.com/world/americas/displayStory.cfm?story_id=130618...


thanatos1844 wrote:"Shall anybody recall that, in the splendid American democracy, limits to Presidents' reelection were introduced only after Franklin Roosvelt death (who in fact was in charge for 13 years)?"Before FDR it was the custom of American presidents to follow Washington's precedent and only serve 2 terms. I guess FDR was arrogant enough to think that he should be the man to break this tradition.I'm not sure why some people are saying it is not "democratic". It seems Chavez used the power of incumbency just as any semi-corrupt leader in a young democracy would do. He's not at the level of Egypt or Syria, yet. Democracy has worked pretty well it appears, and the only problem is that the people are making the wrong choices, which is fairly common in all democracies.


This article lacks some facts and analysis
It only lists facts relating to the voting period. It seems to say: Chavez victory is determined by what happened in the compaign.
But what happens prior to this voting period? What has Chavez actually done to the country, on top of what he has done to the media and campaign, might they not have contributed to this outcome? If yes, then what are those facts?


Latest blog posts - All times are GMT
Writing worth reading: Dark matter
Babbage March 15th, 14:43
Bits and mortar: Babbage visits Ada's
Babbage March 15th, 10:22
Deportations: A kinder expulsion
Democracy in America March 14th, 21:38
Blasphemy laws: Wrong on so many levels
Erasmus March 14th, 17:20


Products & events