This essay is part of a (more or less) weekly feature on this blog that presents interesting stories from elsewhere in the world, particularly Africa, that are little reported in the American media. It's part of my campaign to get people to realize there is a lot going on in the world outside the US, Israel, Iraq, North Korea and Iran.
I've written before how many on the left are ready to canonize Venezuela's strongman Hugo Chavez for the primary reason of his contempt for US president George W. Bush. Anyone who truly supports human rights should condemn the excesses of his regime. Attacks on the free press. Assaults on judicial independence. Extrajudicial killings. Police abuse and torture. A Gulag-like prison system. Some believe these things are fine and dandy so long as it's someone on the ideological left doing them. I do not.
Chavez has taken things a step further and decided to formalize his dictatorship. He already has a National Assembly that rubber stamps all his decisions. Opposition parties boycotted the most recent legislative elections so the parliament is completely dominated by his supporters. But even a legislature of sycophants was too cumbersome for the one-time paratrooper. He rammed through legislation that would grant him the power to rule by decree for the next 18 months.
His proposals to nationalize much of Venezuela's economy could easily have been done without the legislature giving him dictatorial powers. But it's yet another step in Chavez's attempts to dismantle the country's institutions and forge an autocratic state based entirely on his cult of personality.
6 comments:
Don't you think it a little over generalizing to say that the left "canonizes" Chavez for "his contempt for US president George W. Bush" - I mean really, that's pretty much the right wing BS line. The reason people on the left appreciate Chavez is because he's a leftist. If you wouldn't mind, could you treat the left as more than ignorant knee-jerk liberals?
Also, your title - “Chavez granted dictatorial powers." Then you cite "Attacks on the free press. Assaults on judicial independence. Extrajudicial killings. Police abuse and torture. A Gulag-like prison system."
Brian - your own president has engaged in all of those, and for all we know - and probably should expect - he's done it in Venezuela as well! Definitely he (and his predecessors) have been engaged in it around the world, one of the reason Chavez, like Castro, exists at all. Why can't you bring yourself to call George Bush a dictator and accept you and your government's role exporting dictators around the world?
I know you like to think you have the more intelligent middle-ground, but the facts are that people are suffering in south and Central America not because of Chavez, but because of America's historic record of exploitation. Your middle of the road pandering isn't going to change that, it's only going to make it worse.
Almanack,
For one thing, I don't take political orders from anyone, yourself included. I write what I believe. I call things as I see them. My opinions are based on my principles, not ideological instructions. My blog's tone and style have remained more or less unchanged since I started this blog. I've never told you what tone your blog should take even though it's different from mine. My blog going to reflect my style and that's simply the way it is.
While my political orientation is generally left of center, respect for human rights is one of my non-negotiable principles. I will criticize any violator of human rights as I see fit, regardless of their ideology. I appreciate certain things Chavez has done for parts of his population and I've stated that in the past. However, I don't believe anyone who calls themselves progressive should defend human rights abuses or ignore them. Period. If you view opposition to human rights abuses as "middle of the road pandering," then it's your problem, not mine.
I did not state that everyone on the left canonizes Chavez. I specifically wrote "many on the left." And that statement is self-evident.
And yes, I do believe that Chavez's Bush-bashing is related to that. Why? Brazil's President Lula has also done a lot for the poor of his country. He's a democratic socialist, not an authoritarian one, so his administration generally respects the human rights of his people. Lula does so because he doesn't adopt the Bush mentality that a 51 percent win gives him the mandate to totally screw the other 49 percent. But Lula doesn't make Bush-bashing a centerpiece of his rhetoric. Lula doesn't hold up Noam Chomsky and say Bush is the devil and the room stinks. The American and European left virtually ignore him and what he's done in Brazil. Why is that?
I am aware of the abuses of my president. And yours too. As a regular reader, surely you know that I've attacked Bush's excesses exponentially more often since this blog started four years ago than Chavez's, which I've mentioned maybe two or three times. I've called Bush authoritarian. If that not harsh enough for your tastes, then write a blog entry of your own. I speak for me, not you.
I never called Chavez a dictator either until he officialized it by ramming formal dictatorial powers through the country's legislature. I was skeptical of him (as I am of all leaders based on the cult of personality) but I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. He will now rule by decree for a year and a half. When Bush gets Congress to give him that power, I'll call him a dictator too. At least we know we'll be rid of Bush in two years. Chavez is trying to make himself president for life.
"Why can't you bring yourself to call George Bush a dictator and accept you and your government's role exporting dictators around the world?"
Surely your reading comprehension skills are better than that. Surely you've noticed that I not only accept but regularly condemn my "government's role exporting dictators around the world." Barely a foreign policy essay goes by where I don't mention this reality.
And I never claimed that Chavez was responsible for suffering anywhere other than Venezuela. I only write about him because I'm tired of hearing many people holding him up as some sort of paragon of virtue that the American left should emulate. He's the last model we should follow.
By the way, you're not the first person to imply that I'm an accomplice to Bush because I dislike Chavez.
Though I think it's a breathtaking leap to suggest that my criticizing of Chavez's human rights abuses is going to increase the suffering of people in Latin America. Such an outrageous accusation should be backed up with actual substance.
Chavez is a "dictator," Bush is "authoritarian."
You decide.
Where exactly did I give you "political orders"? I'm simply saying that hearing "I'm being put upon by ideologues, woe is me" all the time is tiring and off the mark regarding the enormity of abuses in this world and who is responsible for them.
When there is a struggle being waged between the exploiters and the exploited, standing in the middle and throwing stones in both directions is nothing more than trying to be fashionably apathetic - if you had a real stake in that struggle, you would know that.
I think any fair-minded person who reads my blog can judge where I stand on the key issues of the day that you mention.
I have made it clear that I will criticize ALL human rights abuses no matter who does them. I throw stones in one direction.
The difference between you and me is that you do not wish to see Chavez for the exploiter than he is. I do not obsess about Chavez. I've mentioned him maybe two or three times yet you see this as "all the time."
I criticize Bush constantly, more than any other topic, yet you view this as ignoring his abuses.
There is not a struggle. There are multiple struggles. One of them is whether the left will revert to the authoritarianism that failed so miserably in the Soviet Union and many parts of Africa, which had such disastrous results for its peoples. Or whether it will remain as democratic socialism as has been successful in places like Sweden and post-fascist Brazil. People can't eat or house themselves with fiery speeches. I bet if YOU had a stake in the struggle, you'd know that.
I'm sorry if I oppose the chic demagoguery you want me to engage in. It's been the policy of this blog since day one to speak of global issues from not solely an American perspective, to attack outrages wherever they occur, regardless of who does them. It's mystifying why you suddenly find this "tiring" after nearly four years.
By the way, I'm flattered (and amused) you think I have this gigantic audience that I supposedly feel the pressure to pander to. But I can assure you it's not the case.
Post a Comment