My democratic dilemma after the death of a despot

Quick Comment says:

07:46am | 14/03/13

Sure… just like the people in North Korea love their leader.

Sloan says:

07:48am | 14/03/13

The point is that the people on the right in Venezuela want an end to democracy and they want the good old days back when they did not have to share the wealth of the nation with all its citizens.

Seize back all the “stolen” lands, shut the schools and close the hospitals and then institute a real democracy eh Gabriel, where people will do what they are told, vote for whom they are told or face the consequences.

Can you in all honesty, and look into your soul for the truth please, say that the poor of Venezuela were treated well before Chavez took power.

Democracy in Venezuela before Chavez was the real sham and the whole world knew it too. If Chavez had not managed to obtain power after his second attempt, do you really believe that the people of Venezuela would have been allowed a free election. Of course they would not have. All elections before Chavez made a mockery of “Venezuelan democracy”.

Peter Ede says:

06:11pm | 14/03/13

TChong. have you ever been to Venezuela?
Have you seen what Chavez has done to what should be a thriving economy?
If not for Chavez I may have moved there. If the US were behind his ousting back in 2007? for the few days they made a massive mistake in allowing him to regain control.
The country was kept poor by Chavez because poor people are easier to fool and control. The people of Venezuela should be the richest in the continent. Chavez made certain they were not.
I hope people like Gabriel can one day return home without fear of being murdered by pro government thugs.
Peace and best wishes for a better future to those I knew in Lecheria, Venezuela.

Stan says:

02:24pm | 14/03/13

Casting your vote doesn’t legitimize a fraudulent government

“There is will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.”

Did we vote it?

Please explain.

Any better solution than a direct democracy?

Mark says:

08:34am | 14/03/13

So your answer, such as it is, is this

A. Let someone that is not you by positive force coerce the population and control the country and economy without recourse

or

B. Do A. yourself as long as someone else took all the risk and hard steps up front.

I see. Good for you.

morrgo says:

08:44am | 14/03/13

Poor Venezuelans would be best served by emigrating to Brazil or Chile. 

Those countries managed to reduce poverty not by distributing oil wealth through ephemeral handouts, but by creating emplyment in a balancced, growing economy.

Sloan says:

09:51am | 14/03/13

Poor Venezuelans would not be welcome in either nation and even if they were they would not be employed or find housing.

AdamC says:

10:47am | 14/03/13

Morrgo says:

“Poor Venezuelans would be best served by emigrating to Brazil or Chile.” 

What I cannot help but note is that Brazil currently has a left wing government, and Chile had one up to a few years ago. However, these governments did not do a Chavez, but instead focussed on growth, development and poverty reduction. And their nations have left Venezuela for dead, despite the latter’s oil wealth.

Sloan, haha, spoken like a true useful idiot. Are your comments deadpan satire?

Gordon says:

12:18pm | 14/03/13

Setting the bar high for Prime Minister Christine Milne hey?

Sloan says:

09:49am | 14/03/13

Having traveled to Venezuela on 2 occasions since 2001 I can not speak with as much knowledge as you Roberto, but I will make the following points if I may.

Your country was divided long before Chavez came to power. Divided quite dramatically into the rich (very rich in some cases) and the poor.

On both my visits to your country one of the overwhelming impressions you are left with is how similiar in some respects it is to South Africa post apartheid. The divisions are indeed deep as you say and the anger against the previous ruling class is palpable.

I agree with you that many companies were forcibly closed and many shareholders and owners considered this illegal, but I would ask you, was what those companies doing moral.

The activities of many of those companies continued unabated as you well know. The wages for many of the labourers and workers that were employed rose significantly as profits were redirected. That is a known fact.

Yes, it sucked if your family alone or with other families lost ownership over assets that were worth many hundreds of millions US but when seen through the lens of poverty it could easily look like the top few percent of Venezuela were becoming even wealthier at the expense of 80% of the nation who remained in many cases little more than indentured slaves.

I will not reply to your remark about poverty being more extreme than before other than to say if you were one of those in a company job or government job in Caracas before Chavez or you assisted the previous regime before being dismissed from your position and having your pension rights removed that would indeed cast you and your family into poverty.

I am quite sure that right now a frustrated and angry diaspora of Venezuelans are plotting how to seize back power and get their hands on all that lovely cash again.

Gordon says:

11:14am | 14/03/13

sounds good. unfortunately for the theory resources, including “black gold” do not find, develop and produce themselves. That takes investment - and re-investment to maintain capacity. Venezuala’s industry has been run as a one-way ATM. You can argue the morals nationalising the industry if you want, but running it into the ground is ego-driven vandalism

Peter says:

06:18pm | 14/03/13

Venezuelas oil production halved when Chavez nationalised the oil. Kicked out all the workers/engineers who knew how to run a plant. Big oil built the refineries and left with nothing.
Venezuelans should be some of the richest people but chavez made certain the poor were kept poor and uneducated while his loyal followers grew richer and richer.

Cellist says:

12:49pm | 14/03/13

muddled thoughts ooze from the primordial slime
come back with a translation if you can.

murray says:

02:19pm | 14/03/13

We are a bit pathetic in this country - we say we support democracy but when people in other countries do not vote the way we want them to vote we claim they are not democratic.
Much better for us to be truthful and say:
* Venezuela - we want our oil which happens to be in your country and we don’t really care if 10% of your population is filthy rich while the other 90% are just plain filthy.
* Saudi Arabia - ditto
* Bahrain - ditto
* West Bank/Gaza - stop your complaining, we fully support Israel’s right to annexe whatever land they want and to deal with your population in any manner they wish.
*  Egypt - how dare you people oust your beloved leader Mubarak (democratically elected by us not you) -we will now withdraw our funding that kept Mubarak in power.

Spell checks on the Punch says:

03:16pm | 14/03/13

@Tell it like it is, can you provide one example to back up your unsubstantiated and flippant comment?

How in any sane mind can you draw parallels between Venezuela and the current Labor government? We do not have a National Assembly, we have a Parliament and I hardly say a hung Parliament with a Liberal Senate provides a rubber stamp for Labor.

Also, all Australians are economically dependent on the state in some manner regardless if it is welfare, tax breaks, tariffs, or employment. Do you really think that Labor is “sick with power and control”? Your type normally rant about how out of control and lacking in power Labor is, so why the 180 degree turn in rhetoric?

And how did Labor publically mobilise voters using public funds and infrastructure to influence the election? Seriously, get some facts into your writing instead of posting obvious nonsense that adds nothing to the debate.

Spell check on the Punch says:

03:22pm | 14/03/13

Actually Maria the Swiss do not govern exactly as you write. Instead any Swiss citizen may challenge a law that has been passed by parliament. If that person is able to gather 50,000 signatures against the law within 100 days, a national vote has to be scheduled where voters decide by a simple majority of the voters whether to accept or reject the law. In 96 out of 100 cases, no such referendum is triggered, because the parliamentary process enjoys a very high level of legitimacy. That is because the elected lawmakers know that their work will be seriously checked by the public, so do a very good job indeed.

That all said, I agree the Swiss have an excellent and functioning democracy.

R White says:

04:51pm | 14/03/13

Quite.  The thing is, Maria has never yet bothered to get her facts straight, against the clearest published evidence. Never.

I can’t agree that a system in which consistently less than half the voters can be bothered to cast a vote is “excellent”.

I’ll never agree that such votes, so often carried by less than a third of the total electorate,  is the mark of an “excellent democracy”.

Whatever frills Maria dresses it up in on this day or any other,  her repeated claim that the Australian people are “irrelevant” is nothing but a falsehood.

She well knows her claim is a falsehood. The many, many public, published, avenues, from bye-election through to debate, comment, enqury, petition, public address and redress to and through elected members, through and to Ministers, and on to the High Court, have all been covered for her here, many, many times.

By all means, let’s make the system we already have, that already works, work better. Let’s make a simple start,  by showing up this sort of sloppy propaganda for what it is, whoever tries it on, however often they repeat it, be they poltician, reporter, or amateur astroturfer like Maria.