[KLhdfskja]

A few articles on the news from Venezuela, which has just granted Hugo Chavez the right to basically make his word law (at least in certain sectors). He may now simply "degree" that certain laws are in effect in the fields of "national security", "public safty", "energy policy" and so forth.

This seems like a disturbing step toward authoritarianism. Admittedly, there are times when an executive needs to be able to immediately enact policy, but I think they should be few and far between and watched cautiously by a legislature ready to pounce.
This sort of wide ranging freedom to "rule by degree", combined with the fact that the legislature was just estatic about giving it to Chavez, seems to bode ill.

I pulled the thread title from the Aljazeera article (because they had the catchiest title) but there's a clip from the New York Times that i found disturbing as well.

Chavez granted rule by decree
The vote was taken in public in a square in Caracas [Reuters]
Venezuela's congress has granted Hugo Chavez, the president, powers to rule by decree - enabling him to push through plans to nationalise key industries as part of his "socialist revolution".

The special powers, which last for 18 months, will enable him to transform 11 broadly-defined areas, including the economy, energy and defence.

Roberto Hernandez, the congressional vice-president, said: "We in the national assembly will not waver in granting president Chavez an enabling law so he can quickly and urgently set up the framework for resolving the grave problems we have."
....
Chavez's supporters deny the law constitutes an abuse of power and say radical steps are necessary to accelerate the creation of a more egalitarian society.

The opposition accuses Chavez of being a tyrant in the making, taking a slow approach in following Fidel Castro, the Cuban leader.

Al Jazeera English - Americas From the New York Times:
...
But even some supporters of Mr. Chávez have questioned why he feels the need to bypass debate over measures that could have far-reaching impact. Legislators specified 11 areas in his enhanced power, including public safety, territorial arrangement, energy and national security.

Since winning re-election in December with more than 60 percent of the vote, Mr. Chávez has moved to strengthen his grip on power. He has said his government will not renew the broadcast license of RCTV, a television station critical of his policies, with plans to turn over the license to a state broadcasting entity.

And Mr. Chávez has moved to nationalize companies in the telecommunications and electricity industries, as well as asserting greater control over oil-producing ventures with foreign energy companies. Mr. Chávez has also signaled deeper changes to governing structures by putting a Communist Party legislator in charge of strengthening “communal councils,” local governing entities loyal to Mr. Chávez.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/01/wo...venezuela.html

[bestonlinepharmasy2]

It might be a drift towards authoritarianism but then again it might not be:


Chavez gains free rein in Venezuela - Yahoo! News

But the top U.S. diplomat for Latin America, Thomas Shannon, said the enabling law isn't anything new in Venezuela.

"It's something valid under the constitution," said Shannon, the assistant secretary of state for Western Hemisphere affairs, told reporters in Colombia. "As with any tool of democracy, it depends how it is used," he added. "At the end of the day, it's not a question for the United States or for other countries, but for Venezuela." In other words, it might be democracy at work. I'm quite sure the multi-national oil companies aren't going to like it though!

Gem

[Gerribase]

Democracy? Ending debate on the issues and ruling by decree is "democracy at work?"

Remember, under the new laws Hugo got passed, criticizing the Dear Leader can carry prison time.

This is "democracy at work"?

Perhaps not.

Matt

[bestonlinepharmasy2]

Democracy? Ending debate on the issues and ruling by decree is "democracy at work?"

Remember, under the new laws Hugo got passed, criticizing the Dear Leader can carry prison time.

This is "democracy at work"?

Perhaps not.

Matt

Time will tell. Remember, Chavez has been granted the right to rule by decree twice before, and this time his right to rule by decree is limited in both scope and time. And, as the top diplomat to South America has stated it is allowed by the Venezuelan Constitution, it was approved by the Venezuelan Congress and whether or not it represents a threat to democracy in Venezuela will depend upon how Chavez will use the right to rule by decree.

Gem

[Jeffery]

It might be a drift towards authoritarianism but then again it might not be:

It is authoritarianism.

In ancient Rome during the days of the Senate, there were provisions which allowed the senate to turn over absolute power to one man so that they could direct Rome in defense against a major threat. The person would be given free reign for 6 months to deal with a specifically enumerated threat, and then resign. Guess what they were called? Dictators.

Now we have Chavez who had not 6 but 18 months, an ambiguous threat (ooo capitalism, quick hide before it gets you), and a region which has no precedent of people bound to exceptional virtues of public service. And you expect him to peacefully turn this power over in 18 months? I doubt it.

[beethyday]

If I knew I'd be around here July 2008, I would serenely bet a C-note that Chavez's dictat extends beyond 18 months.

[kranfid]

What Chavez is doing is constitutional. He was given this power by the elected representatives of the people of Venezuela, under the provisions of their constitution.

If he nationalizes whatever parts of the oil business aren't already owned by the state, that will be perfectly legal, too.

Chavez is a Bolivarian, his long term goal is to unite all South America into a United States of South America, which would be a democracy modeled after the USA, and a world super power, by virtue of it's wealth, population and technology.

Is that something we should fear?

[Lydiaswingert]

If I knew I'd be around here July 2008, I would serenely bet a C-note that Chavez's dictat extends beyond 18 months.

Bush's defacto dictat certainly has.

[dittygari]

Goober, that has nothing to do with the topic. The fact is, that Hugo is now a dictator.

You know who else had an 'enabling law'? Adolph Hitler.

Nationalizing his industry is his right, although I think it's an irresponsible decision.

[AdvertisingPo]

Well I don't like it. But he's certainly not the only one in the world with such power...

Let's see what he does with it.

[Peterli]

Historically, most totalitarian states that have emerged from democratic/republican rule do so by enumerating some sort of threat, and giving "emergency power" to stop it. Whether or not a timeline is placed on neutralizing such a threat is basically irrelevant. Once a person has that sort of power, it is not a difficult matter to cite examples of the continuing threat as a motive for continuing power.

Adolph Hitler is, perhaps, the most famous example of a practitioner of this strategy.

[Peterli]

Also, I'm interested to hear Hugo's ardent supporters explain why what he's doing is not simply a more efficient version of that of which they accuse Bush. Specifically, I believe that Bush has attempted to consolidate power in the executive to an alarming degree. Those who support Chavez have taken this even further, comparing him to Hitler and referring to the US under his administration as a fascist state.

So, how is this any different? How is this not even worse?

[AdvertisingPo]

Goober, that has nothing to do with the topic. The fact is, that Hugo is now a dictator.

You know who else had an 'enabling law'? Adolph Hitler.

Nationalizing his industry is his right, although I think it's an irresponsible decision.

You lose!

Historically, most totalitarian states that have emerged from democratic/republican rule do so by enumerating some sort of threat, and giving "emergency power" to stop it. Whether or not a timeline is placed on neutralizing such a threat is basically irrelevant. Once a person has that sort of power, it is not a difficult matter to cite examples of the continuing threat as a motive for continuing power.

Adolph Hitler is, perhaps, the most famous example of a practitioner of this strategy.

You lose!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

[BoattyGonm]

damn donkey you beat me too it

[krasniyluch]

What bugs me is that nobody here would give a shit whatsoever if it wasn't for Chavez's anti-american rhetoric.

Putin, in Russia, for instance, has had this power for a long time.

[MegaJIT]

I am always astounded by the mental gymnastics I see here. I could not possibly tie myself into such knots. Either you support democratic institutions or you do not. I can't criticize an authoritarian behavior or a cult of personality when exercised by someone from the other "side" of the political or economic spectrum while simultaneously condoning idendtical behavior by people who are closer to my views.
The willingness to sacrifice democratic institutions for conveniance or expedience or security is a constant in all societies and must be resisted wherever it is found.

[KLhdfskja]

What bugs me is that nobody here would give a shit whatsoever if it wasn't for Chavez's anti-american rhetoric.

Putin, in Russia, for instance, has had this power for a long time.

I expect the countries oil resources are also a major cause for concern.

Another little country with a dictatorial style regime isn't news.

An anti-US leader shifting toward authoritarianism is small news.

An anti-US leader in charge of massive oil reserves shifting toward authoritarianism is BIG news!


On a side note, learning about "Godwin's Law" made this entire thread worth while.

[dittygari]

You lose!


You lose!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

Actually, I do not lose, Hitler enacted a law called the 'Enabling Act', which in this specific case is quite related to the Op's citing article

"We in the national assembly will not waver in granting president Chavez an enabling law so he can quickly and urgently set up the framework for resolving the grave problems we have."

Obviously my emphasis.

Here is a link citing information concerning Hitler's enabling law....

On March 23, 1933, the newly elected members of the German Parliament (the Reichstag) met in the Kroll Opera House in Berlin to consider passing Hitler's Enabling Act. It was officially called the 'Law for Removing the Distress of the People and the Reich.' If passed, it would effectively mean the end of democracy in Germany and establish the legal dictatorship of Adolf Hitler

This comparison in this context is completely valid.

[dittygari]

What bugs me is that nobody here would give a shit whatsoever if it wasn't for Chavez's anti-american rhetoric.

Putin, in Russia, for instance, has had this power for a long time.

You're probably right about that.

[pushokalex1]

Historically, most totalitarian states that have emerged from democratic/republican rule do so by enumerating some sort of threat, and giving "emergency power" to stop it. Whether or not a timeline is placed on neutralizing such a threat is basically irrelevant. Once a person has that sort of power, it is not a difficult matter to cite examples of the continuing threat as a motive for continuing power.

Adolph Hitler is, perhaps, the most famous example of a practitioner of this strategy.

Sounds alot like a Star Wars movie