Hugo Chavez Dies

The leader of Venezuela has died.

What does this mean for his country?

Real elections?

Hopefully.

I'm concerned about an eruption of violence in Venezuela. There is a high chance of that.

I also wouldn't put my chips down on real elections, systemic change is slow coming, and dictators don't stay dictators by installing people into power who are likely to run for democratic reforms the instant their back is turned.

Right. Expelling US diplomats seems portentous.

Most of the poor people there will miss him. He pumped a lot of money into the education and healthcare system for the poorest people in Venezuela. Too bad the economy suffered so much.

^

the rich estates will be able to evict the poor settlers.

Later!

Well it usually gets interesting when the 'personality' in a cult of personality expires. I don't know that the Chavistas can hold power without the charisma of Hugo.

On one hand, some of the stated goals of Chavismo are compelling. It would be nice to have a South American country without the immense gulf between the miniscule number of rich and the overwhelming number of poor. It was also somewhat compelling to see a nation that was willing to take on US regional hegemony and try to form it's own path.
On the other hand, the mechanisms used to carry out reforms and to stifle dissent among the opposition are questionable at best and tyrannical at worst. Some of the alliances formed by Chavez in his quest for friends included some pretty awful regimes.

Let the machinations begin.... I mean continue!

so, he did work to empower the poor citizens to stand up to the wealthy powers of his country. ok

but he used Tyranny to Stifle Dissent amongst the 'opposition' of the previously mentioned group in your post.

so, he's being a dictator that oppresses the 1%?

FML

You imply that you know the exact composition of his opposition, which is a bit more nuanced than just big purple crayon sloganeering.

Lula in Brazil managed to accomplish quite a few similar goals without so big a boot heel.

"FML" - go for it, not anyone else's job but yours.

I don't think it's that cut and dry. His enemies were the richest and most powerful people in the country who wanted him out of power at any cost. Not to mention the fact that Bush tacitly supported a coup to depose him in 2004, according to the NY Times.

exactly, his televised discussions are coined "the Hugo Chavez Show" not as a public discourse by the leader of a nation.

Agreed. Hugo Chavez was hardly a role model for constitutional rule given his attacks on the opposition. Still, I think it's inaccurate to label him a dictator or depict Venezuelan elections as not "real" elections. The government was not dictatorial because it retained very real checks on the power of the president. The opposition could block legislature, appointments, and so on. He simply lacked the power to rule in an absolute manner, a crucial component to our definition of a dictator.

Chavez was a mixed bag as a leader but the elections were legitimate. International monitors observed Venezuelan elections and generally rated them highly, citing only occasional problems such as inability to confirm all voters in the major registration drive - which is to be expected. The biggest problem with Venezuelan elections under Chavez was the president's ability to use state resources and machinery for his campaign. In specific, he got free air time and was able to air his campaign ads or speeches in a way that rivals couldn't replicate without turning to privately run media (which still remains the majority of media in Venezuela). Of course, Chavez's advantage wasn't desirable from a fairness standpoint, but the elections were legitimate: the opposition was able to operate freely, little to no voter suppression took place, cases of voter intimidation were generally investigated and punished, and the votes did get counted. Honestly, Venezuela under Chavez enjoyed more legitimate elections than most of Latin America or the developing world as a whole.

Freedom House, a journalist watchdog organization which was extremely critical of Chavez for his battles with private media, evaluated Venezuelan elections as follows: "While the act of voting is relatively free and the count is fair, the political playing field favors government-backed candidates, and the separation of powers is nearly nonexistent." Elsewhere, they accused him of "election rigging" by virtue of controlling or manipulating the media, not by any direct tampering with the election process or results.

I'm not an uncritical supporter of Chavez by any means. His administration shouldn't have punished petitioners (by withholding government jobs and so on), he could have done more to stop crime and corruption, he was wrong in politicizing the judiciary and media, and so on. Even with some wealthy opponents attempting to turn private media into an anti-Chavez mouthpiece, I think that Chavez should have respected media independence to a greater degree. At the same time, I can't ignore that he did a great deal to democratize the nation through the political and economic empowerment of the common man. Chavez takes blame for high inflation rates, but the inflation rate was 50% before he assumed power (i.e. it dropped under Chavez). Meanwhile, the poverty rate dropped almost 30%. In the political sphere, a staggering 96-76% of eligible voters are registered and around 75-80% vote - without mandatory voting. The Chavez 'revolution" did produce greater citizen participation in elections, greater social mobility, and diminished the power of political elites relative to the general public. Like Bush, I think that Chavez's personal charisma allowed him to exert authority over government and the populace in a way that just won't transfer over to whomever takes office next, whether that person comes from the PSUV or the opposition. The real test will come during the next presidency or two but overall, I think that the balance sheet of his legacy will fall more toward the democratic than the dictatorial.

Yes, this is getting back to the original question. I think Maduro will be elected by a strong majority in the next poll, but whether or not he and the PSUV can hold power after that will depend more on performance against the extant problems in Venezuela, assuming the current process remains in place. He and the PSUV will not be able to do it on charm.

Everything is peaceful right here, 7 days of mourning .... but I guess that's the calm before the storm....

And this is why, in High School, you are taught how to write essays. Bravo and thank you Rebstrd. I hope some other members are taking notes on how to actually be understood when presenting an argument.

I hesitate to call Hugo Chavez a dictator, but one thing is certain: Venezuela is currently a socialist state. That means that a good deal of necessities are taken care of by the government, and the government also has control over the oil. This is very bad because whomever takes over can exploit this. The trap of a socialist country is that it is only as good as its leader(s). In this case, Hugo Chavez was, at best, a great leader and, at worst, a benevolent dictator. Either way, he's dead and now there's a power vacuum. I fear that there will be a military coup d'etat that will result in downright hostile relations for Venezuela. I don't know what that means for the U.S. or for the people of Venezuela, but I don't like it. Chavez may have been harsh, but he kept corruption down. He was the foundation of everything Venezuela had become, and without him I fear it will all come tumbling down.

Are you trying to prove a point, or are you just copy/pasting things?

Wow, i admire your ability to express yourself and to present arguments. It is remarkable specially when it comes to this sort of discussion.

I agree on what you said. Chavez may have used the media on his favour and some other things that may be used as arguments to label him a dictator, but his efforts in remaining in the power were not for his own privilege or vanity, i see them more as an effort to keep his government goals and achievments running. When all the wealthy and priviledged part of the people who've ruled the country and all latin america eversince the europeans put their feet in here is fighting against your way of government in order to recover these same priviledges you took away from them, then trying to stay on command does not sound dictatorial. It sonds as resistance.

Independent of likes and dislikes, the one thing Chavez did was to give voice to the population. The priviledged part of the population - and i mean not only financially, but, and specially, culturally - who's never had any interest other than benefiting from the native - thus unpriviledged and poor - people logically didn't care about their needs or interests. Chavez gave them voice, space and rights as the citizens they are by law, but were not by tradition. As i've read an old woman stating, "before, i was invisible".
Call that populism. I'll ask you: and what is wrong in governing after people's needs and wishes, after all? That gives you votes - so, isn't that what happens in a democracy when people feel happy about their leaders?

I dunno lots about the economy and all the rest, but anyway, whoever comes after, i hope he'll keep ruling by this democratic acception of the word 'democracy'.

na, I'm just pissed that one word was cherry picked out of the context and I am no longer allowed to be a contributor in this thread. and the rest of my initial statements were dismissed.

I mean, I like this subject, but I've got this batshit crazy high on dipshit reputation.

also, why haven't you, as a highly educated person with knowledge of 'observational research' sent me a PM? I am not trying to be an asshole, but I get lots of asshole shit here.

also: related to the topic! "the Hugo Chavez Show". is that the actual translation from what his citizens know it as?

Ok, i'm not the 1% most richest girl of my land -just putting that out there-

It was a mock-up of a socialism
The failed coup was in 2002
The guy ended up leaving 2000 millions dollars to his family (way to go for equality)
His followers did love him, yet it was blindly
The coin got devaluated 5 times, which kept our inflation rising as crazy.
The free healthcare have always been in my country, the same as free public schools and subsidize semi-private ones, he just happened to open a bit more of smaller schools in other places, the free healthcare got so bad nowadays, that it doesn't include medication and might not even have spots in the hospital for you due the massive rise of crime, so if you don't show up with medication then is not like they might save you anyway.

There are many other things about the 12 years, i went through 10 before coming here for school, i voted twice in elections and once for a reform which never happened, because when things were voted for change, he always made his way to re-change the constitution and make his way around.

Bottom-line from a middle-class person who went to public school, he was another corrupt that got obsessed with power, made everybody romanticize about the concept of socialism but instead formed a mock-up of it, stole and destroyed Venezuela

my 0.2c

Thank you.

Thank you!