VENEZUELA: TO VOTE OR NOT TO VOTE? THAT IS THE QUESTION!

In the comment thread of the popular Venezuela News & Views blog I engaged in a discussion with a fellow blogger (Citizen Feathers) about the current political situation in Venezuela. After posting comments back and forth we were able to iron out our discrepancies and agree on everything except for one issue. I promised Feathers that I would address this issue in a separate comment but due to unforeseen circumstances I was not able to keep my word.

Even though late, I am herewith posting my comments on that issue not only because I gave Feathers my word but because I believe the issue is today more relevant than ever.

I believe that to answer the vote/not vote question we need to take into account two different considerations. One is the constitutional and legal implications of the decision and the other is the personal implications of that decision.

VENEZUELA: VOTES WILL NOT MAKE THE CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM LEGAL

Democracy is not a one size fits all kind of concept. There are many kinds of democracy. There are Monarchical Democracies, Parliamentary Democracies and even Imperial Democracies such as the Japanese. Since 1999 we also have a Bolivarian Democracy. All of these democracies though share one same characteristic; they are all Republican Constitutional Democracies.

In a lighter note you could say that they are different kinds of “Arepas” (Reina Pepiada, Carne Mechada, Queso de Mano, etc.) but they are all “Arepas”.

There are also Popular Democracies (Cuba) and I would even venture and say that we now have what could be considered Religious Democracies such as Iran. They also hold elections but they are completely different systems of government.

These democracies are not “Arepas”; they are “Tortillas”; and, while both are made of corn flour, millions of Mexicans and Venezuelans can attest to the fact that they are absolutely different.

VENEZUELA: COUP D' ÉTAT TO THE FEDERAL SYSTEM

In the last couple months I have been collaborating with the blog "Venezuela News & Views". The editor of this blog, Daniel Duquenal, had the idea to invite his readers to write comments on the modifications to each and every article of the ill conceived constitutional reform being proposed by the government.

Venezuela is at the brink of becoming a totalitarian country under the Presidency of a tyrant who wants to stay in power for life. I can not think of any other issue in Latin America that is more important than this one and therefore I offered Daniel to write comments to the modifications being proposed to Articles 11, 16 and 18.

The following are the comments I wrote and the dramatic conclusions I have reached.

Article 18

Preamble: While reading the text of the proposed amendment to article 18 I remembered a conversation once held with the elected President of a Latin American country who is now deceased. We talked about the sad role of some armed forces in Latin America and how they have become the nemesis of democracy and individual freedoms and in many cases the “jail keepers” of their people. He said that while the armed forces have a congenital tendency to misread the social and political expectations of the people and therefore, most of the time, end up in the wrong side of history, the good thing is that they are slow.

He liked to say that most people believe that bullets kill people when in fact they don’t. If I put a bunch of bullets in your hand they will not kill you. It is the combination of factors and “speed” what makes a bullet lethal.

VENEZUELA: A POLITICAL "CHIMERA" TO KILL DEMOCRACY

In the last couple months I have been collaborating with the blog "Venezuela News & Views". The editor of this blog, Daniel Duquenal, had the idea to invite his readers to write comments on the modifications to each and every article of the ill conceived constitutional reform being proposed by the government.

Venezuela is at the brink of becoming a totalitarian country under the Presidency of a tyrant who wants to stay in power for life. I can not think of any other issue in Latin America that is more important than this one and therefore I offered Daniel to write comments to the modifications being proposed to Articles 11, 16 and 18.

The following are the comments I wrote and the dramatic conclusions I have reached.

Article 16

Preamble: When I first asked the editor of "Venezuela News & Views" to allow me to comment on the constitutional modifications of articles 11, 16 and 18, I was totally aware, from the first reading, of the dangers that the modifications to article 11 posed to the Venezuelan democracy.

At that time, I also thought that commenting article 16 was a waste of time because the text of this modification is the closest I have ever seen a constitutional text come to the legendary dyslectic speech of that beloved character called “Cantinflas” brilliantly portrayed by the Mexican actor Mario Moreno throughout his life.

I decided to write comments on all three articles though because they are part of Title II of the Bolivarian Constitution of 1999 that deals with the territory and the political division of that territory.

Far was I then from realizing that, as much as the implications of the modified text to article 11 where frightening, the implications of the modifications to the text of article 16 are by far, and I mean far, worse than those of article 11. Further, I was wrong and presumptuous by dismissing and labeling the text of the modifications to article 16 as “Cantinflesco”.

VENEZUELA: ABSOLUTE POWER FOR AN ABSOLUTE TYRANT

In the last couple months I have been collaborating with the blog "Venezuela News & Views". The editor of this blog, Daniel Duquenal, had the idea to invite his readers to write comments on the modifications to each and every article of the ill conceived constitutional reform being proposed by the government.

Venezuela is at the brink of becoming a totalitarian country under the Presidency of a tyrant who wants to stay in power for life. I can not think of any other issue in Latin America that is more important than this one and therefore I offered Daniel to write comments to the modifications being proposed to Articles 11, 16 and 18.

The following are the comments I wrote and the dramatic conclusions I have reached.

THE POWER AND LEGACY OF OUR CULTURE IS OUR CONCEPT OF INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM

The following is my answer to a comment posted by "Bauta" in the blog of Andres Oppenheimer from The Miami Herald. It touches some of the points of my previous two postings but here again, it does provide further insights as to my thoughts on the immigration issue. Enjoy!

Bauta said...

When you have millions of people coming from the same region, the result is that they don't feel the need to assimilate to the new society and they don't learn the language. Hispanics in America and Muslims in Europe don't want to assimilate, they want to impose their culture. Now the US is going to bring 7,000 more Muslims from Irak. Wonderful ah? Bauta

Mousqueton said....

Dear Bauta:

That is not quite true. Let me explain.

1) At a certain point in our history over 74% of the New York population was foreign and they eventually assimilated. Further, in the 1900’s the foreign born population of the United States was higher than in the year 2000 and they have assimilated as well.

In the process we also assimilated some of their customs and traditions. A token of that is the Saint Patrick's Ball held in the White House and certainly the bagpipes that are today an American tradition at the funeral of any policeman and/or firefighter who dies in the line of duty.

2) While numbers do have an impact on the assimilation process, it is the endurance and fortitude of the principles that eventually determine which culture prevails.

If you make a list of everything you believe to be American and do some research you will find that none of it, except as I mentioned before arguably Baseball and certainly Rock and Roll, is indeed American.

The logical question then is; how can there be an American culture if everything we regard as American is indeed foreign?

IT IS HARD TO BE AN AMERICAN

The following is a comment posted in the blog of Andres Oppenheimer from The Miami Herald. It is in a way a little redundant with my last posting but it does add some additional concepts to the immigration debate. Enjoy!
Mousqueton said ...

It is pretty clear, from the reading of some comments in this blog, that many of you do not understand what America is all about.

IMMIGRATION OR ETHNIC CLEANSING DEBATE? THAT IS THE QUESTION

The immigration debate in the US is so biased that there is little chance that any intelligent discussion can take place.

To some neo-conservatives immigration is the mother of all evils and blamed for everything that is wrong except, at least for the time being, the war in Iraq. On the other side of the spectrum we have those who believe that immigration is good for the US and that since we are a nation of immigrants everyone should be welcomed.

Behind the slogans, self serving names, the posturing and of course the profiteering by some dubious and certainly biased media personalities, the truth is that everyone in both sides of the argument are simply human beings; human beings that react as such when confronted with real and/or perceived threats.

In the end, everyone in this epic confrontation shares the same primal calling and motivation; survival!

In the US, the anti-immigration zealots are not really concerned with jobs, welfare and the economy. Why should they? If there is something that the US has proven through out its history is that we are the best there is when it comes to assimilating and adapting. We are extremely good at thriving in adverse conditions and certainly a couple million immigrants are not going to change that.

Further, immigrants are both producers and consumers and that is what our economic system is based on. We might need to tweak a little thing here and there to help immigrants adapt and produce more than they consume, but that is not a problem for a strong and creative economy such as the US economy.

The real concern that conservative zealots and other xenophobic fanatics have is that they perceive Hispanic immigration as a threat to the survival of their particular brand of American culture. Further, most of them are really advocates of a policy of ethnic cleansing disguised as an immigration policy.

SHAME ON YOU!! MR ANDRES OPPEMHEIMER - Part 3

The following is my last comment to the concepts and proposals expressed by Mr. Oppenheimer in his “Memo to Bush” published by the Miami Herald on March 04.
Gentleman:

Following on my second comment to your imaginary memo addressed to Mr. Bush let me further expand my thoughts about the proposals you include in that document.

Proposal # 1: …”The ''Hemispheric Bio-fuels Initiative'' that you are scheduled to announce in Brazil, under which the United States and Brazil will jointly develop ethanol production in Central America and the Caribbean, is a good start. It should help Caribbean Basin countries reduce their oil import bills and start exporting ethanol to the United States”….
The following questions are the first thing that came to my mind when I first read this proposal in your “Memo to Bush”.

Can you seriously believe that a person with long and ever increasing family ties to the oil industry would honestly advocate a policy to substitute oil for bio-fuels?

Do you really expect that the President’s close collaborators, all of whom come from high positions in the oil industry and most likely will return to work for the oil industry at the end of their tenure (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, etc.) would support such a policy?

You really have to be naïve or an accomplice in a well thought scheme to undermine bio-fuels to believe that the above is even possible and, having said this, I can not help but to wonder which of the two better describes your position Mr. Oppenheimer.

While I will concede that the above mentioned questions raise doubts about Mr. Bush’s bio-fuels initiative based on a biased pre-judgment of his real intentions, the answer to the following question provides an un-avoidable and most objective conclusion.

SHAME ON YOU! MR ANDRES OPPENHEIMER - Part 2

For quite some time I have been following the articles of Mr. Andres Oppenheimer who writes about Latin American politics at the Miami Herald.

While I disagree with many of his concepts and certainly never expected him to be absolutely objective it was a surprise for me to see him come out of the closet in his last article, Memo to Bush, and align himself with the feverish and most conservative forces of our political establishment; The same forces that represent and promote everything that has been wrong with our foreign policy in the region.

I feel compelled therefore to comment and expose the manipulative concepts and proposals expressed in this ill conceived imaginary letter.

The following is my second, out of three, comment to the concepts and proposals expressed in that letter.

Gentleman:

Following on my first comment to your imaginary memo addressed to Mr. Bush and published in the Miami Herald on March 04 let me further expand my thoughts on the proposals you include in that document.

The main problem with all your proposals, over and above the fact that they are not well thought, is the underlying implicit policy in which they are based on.

From the reading of your letter it is clear that you advocate for the continuation of a foreign policy in Latin America based on slogans, false speeches and welfare but no realistic long term solutions to the problems of the region. This, even though it is clear that those problems have already started to affect us and have the potential, God forbid, of causing very real national emergencies in the US.

This, without even considering the Geo-economic challenges in the uncertain years to come that most likely will force us to raise Latin America to the category of vital ally.

You seem to believe that the old speech, “People of this country; I bring a message for you” is good enough for a foreign policy as long as you give away some cash to back it up.

SHAME ON YOU! MR ANDRES OPPEMHEIMER - Part 1

For quite some time I have been following the articles of Mr. Andres Oppenheimer who writes about Latin American politics in the Miami Herald.

While I disagree with many of his concepts and certainly never expected him to be absolutely objective it was a surprise for me to see him come out of the closet in his last article, Memo to Bush, and align himself with the feverish and most conservative forces of our political establishment; The same forces that represent and promote everything that has been wrong with our foreign policy in the region.

I feel compelled therefore to comment and expose the manipulative concepts and proposals expressed in this ill conceived imaginary letter.

The following is my first comment to the concepts and proposals expressed in that letter.
Gentleman:

I am glad that you are not an advisor or even someone who Bush listens to; if he indeed listens to anyone.

I am sad though to find out the limited scope of your strategic vision towards Latin America and certainly in awe at the stereotypes you portray and the ridiculous, to say the least, concepts expressed in your letter.

HATE TO SAY IT! - HILLARY CLINTON IS RIGHT!

In the following article " The Explanation Hillary Clinton Owes ", published by Richard Cohen in the Washington Post the author uses a very clever rationale to question Mrs. Clinton position on the Iraq war.

I am not a supporter of Mrs. Clinton and I do not know who I will vote for in 2008. I do know though, that I will definitely not vote for her if she makes the claim that her vote on the Iraq war was a mistake.

With his question Mr. Cohen is playing a game of catch 22 because a senator that acknowledges that his/her vote was a mistake and ends up being President will have to live up to his /her words in the likely eventuality that compensation and/or human rights lawsuits are brought up against the US in international courts.

Acknowledging that you were wrong when you voted for the war amounts to saying you did something you were not supposed to do and therefore you agree that the US should be liable for that mistake.

That would be absolutely irresponsible (shame on you John Edwards) and, in my book, it automatically disqualifies you for the position of President of the United States.