Back in 2007, the voters of Venezuela said “thanks, but no thanks” to a ballot proposition that would have removed term limits for Hugo Chavez, thus effectively allowing him at least a decent shot at becoming President-for life.
Now, Chavez has invited the people he ostensibly loves so dearly to see the error of their ways and reconsider:
Venezuelans are due to vote on a proposal that would allow President Hugo Chavez and other elected officials to seek as many terms as they wish.
A “yes” vote in Sunday’s referendum would allow Mr Chavez to stay in office after his current term ends in 2012.
Mr Chavez has said the constitutional amendment is needed for the future of Venezuela’s socialist revolution.
But critics say it is designed to concentrate power in the president’s hands for decades to come.
A proposal to end presidential term limits was one of a package of 69 constitutional changes narrowly rejected in a 2007 referendum.
[. . .]
Mr Chavez celebrated 10 years in power earlier this month. His current term is due to end in 2012.
“Ten years is nothing,” Mr Chavez said at a news conference on Saturday. “I don’t know what they’re complaining about.”
“On Monday I’ll wake up looking beyond 2013, and that will give me more confidence in what we’re doing.”
Confidence in . . . what precisely?
. . . The price of Venezuela’s heavy oil has dropped below $35 per barrel, which is 40 percent below what the government says it planned for in next year’s budget and less than half of what independent analysts say Mr. Chávez needs to sustain his heavy spending on projects such as the nationalization of domestic industries, purchases of Russian weapons and subsidies to clients including Fidel Castro and Daniel Ortega. Already, Venezuelans are experiencing inflation of more than 30 percent, shortages of basic goods and the world’s second-highest murder rate.
Just imagine how bleak prospects could be for Venezuela if Chavez gets unlimited term limits. I am normally in favor of allowing voters the ability to re-elect public officials as often as they want but in this case, we are dealing with a dictatorial, authoritarian government with no appreciation whatsoever for the will of its people or the fact that it is leading them to ruin.
Here is hoping for a free and fair election in Venezuela, one that will allow the voters there to–again–reject the Chavez regime’s naked grab for absolute power of an indeterminate length. And here is hoping that the international will watch the elections closely and carefully–and will call the Chavez regime on any electoral shenanigans it seeks to pull.
Because his beliefs notwithstanding, ten years is quite long enough for Hugo Chavez to have been allowed to wreak havoc on Venezuela.
Aaron Gardner
Steve Maley
KnightsofMalta
Term limits and near-dictatorial government
Jeff Walden (Diary) Sunday, February 15th at 7:42AM EST (link)“I am normally in favor of allowing voters the ability to re-elect public officials as often as they want but in this case, we are dealing with a dictatorial, authoritarian government with no appreciation whatsoever for the will of its people or the fact that it is leading them to ruin.”
I tend to think the main problem here is that there isn’t sufficient separation of powers (nor limitations on those powers) to make term limits more a hindrance than an anti-corruption advantage. He controls much of all three traditional branches of government, and furthermore has enacted limitations (various forms of censorship, arrests and trumped-up or false charges) on dissenters’ ability to make their case. In such a situation the danger of unlimited rule by a single person is substantially greater than it would be in a system with proper limitations on power.
At the most fundamental level, as time passes it should become progressively harder and harder to get reelected. When you can stifle dissent and exploit the police power (sometimes in conjunction with judicial power, sometimes not), that goes away, and term limits become desirable again.
Say a few prayers for Venezuela today, people…
After the first three weeks of this new theocrocy we have,
gekster (Diary) Sunday, February 15th at 9:21PM EST (link)you could also say that of the US Government we now have;
“we are dealing with a dictatorial, authoritarian government with no appreciation whatsoever for the will of its people or the fact that it is leading them to ruin.”
You hit the nail on the head.
but alas, it applies to us also.
They say Republicans are for the rich, Democrats are for the poor.
If they need more voters,
then they have to make more of who they are for.
We are there in the various Tea Party groups, leaderless, but not rudderless.
We steer always toward the Constitutional principles this nation was founded upon.
Erick Brockway
Ok folks, 2012 is here. Get involved
In the end, a vote won't matter...
fmaidment (Diary) Sunday, February 15th at 8:35AM EST (link)…Chavez will simply seize power and become a dictator in name, as well as fact.
He’ll do it in the name of the “Socialist Revolution” and the “Common Man.” The reality is that he’ll be doing it for his own Machismo and enhancing his personal power.
Follow Me on Twitter
“I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.”
– - Thomas Jefferson, to Archibald Stuart, 1791
Elections matter. Even dictators know this
Neil Stevens (Diary) Sunday, February 15th at 8:22PM EST (link)So I wouldn’t be so negative, trying to dismiss the efforts of Chavez’s opposition here.
RS contributing editor, technical administrator, and “a hardy variety of crabgrass.”
Read the RedState Posting Rules
Unlikely Voter: Poll Analysis, Election Projection.
“I rejoice that America has resisted.” – William Pitt, the Elder
Chavez will simply seize power and become a dictator in name, as well as fact
izoneguy (Diary) Sunday, February 15th at 9:32PM EST (link)That is when you get a target painted on your head. I hope he has loyal people (or maybe not).
The point cannot be made often enough: Modern liberalism, as embodied in the Obama presidency, is the defender of the status quo. And the status quo is a road to economic ruin. Political forces cannot redistribute the wealth that the economic system does not produce.