|
mezzo -> RE: RIP Hugo (Mar. 6 2013 19:11:42)
|
quote:
It's hardly a healthy democracy as we would understand it.
Venezuela' society's highly polarized and divided. That's certainly one of the Chavez's legacy.
But I would not say that its not a healthy democracy.
If Chavez managed to get reelected is not coz of the so-called "buying votes with oil".
From what I understand, the opposition is very WEAK. They have problems to unify themself. Eventually, building a political project based principally on hatred arguments against Chavez or chavismo might be not enough to convice a majority of people.
quote:
Chavez wanted a coup but was talked out of it and encouraged to run for votes.
1992
quote:
He subsequently bought votes with oil revenues. The history is documented well enough for an intelligent person to draw their own conclusions.
Well, I not agree with that.
Of course I understand that the REDISTRIBUTION of oil's wealth (ala chavez) could be view as a non-sense to many.
We are accustomed to the Corporate shareholders redistribution model, and apprehend it as the norm of a healthy economical society.
Clearly, that's not the spirit of what happened in Venezuela during the last decade.
What you stated as a "buying vote" behavior is a way of financing social programs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolivarian_Missions
Indeed, this is possible coz of oil's wealth. So what?
$$ isn't going to land into some fewer Corporate pockets guy, so he could buy another yacht with it, but directly toward citizens.
Call it how you like. I would certainly not call it corruption!
But maybe you have information that I'm unaware of about particular corruption cases.
As for brandoscostumes quote "taking billions from the state treasury". I'm unaware of that too.
Regarding the HRW doc (interesting stuff thks), I'm lacking of informations. I'm not living there so it's hard for me to judge.
Of course, Venezuela still have to deal with big issues. There're failures in Chavez' politics...
But for the Media side (reducing freedom of speech, closing broadcast channel...), what I could say is that you need to focus on the peculiar context.
Private medias behaved really badly against Chavez. Journalists often insulted him (coz he's not from the white elite, they mocked his indigenous origin).
Personnal attacks, call to the uprising....
If they would have behaved the 1/4 like this in your country, I suppose they would have to face some serious deontological issues!
In 2002, they (Corporations that own private medias) clearly supported the golpe. They clearly and conscially misinform the citizenry on what was really going on.
Idem in the 2003 strike.
So at one point Chavez said enough is enough.
We may not agree with him, but I think (from what I understand from my outsider POV), that's it's not fair to point out his behaviour against the private medias and not explaining / occulting why!
Also, there's this diatribe against him that he made a tv show (alo presidente!) and monopolized the broacast for hours and hours.
But the commentators never mention that the amount of viewers is very small. It's broadcast on 1 channel, and watching the show was not mandatory.
They prefer to focus it toward the dictatorship aspect.
|
|
|
|
