Venezuela just went full dictatorship

[Jayjay]

That's right, why bother with elections and democratic institutions when you can just fill a court with your henchmen and do whatever you like anyway?

Do you have anything, like evidence, to support this claim?

Which part of the claim are you doubting? It's well known that the Venezuelan supreme court is filled with Maduro loyalists, and the way all the soon-outgoing members resigned and were replaced last year shows that he intends it to stay that way despite having lost the majority in the National Assembly. This particular decree for "emergency" powers was first submitted to the National Assembly but rejected, and now court says that he has those powers anyway. So, an appointed body of Maduro's yes-men overruled a democratically elected body.

If you take issue with "whatever you like", it is true that this grants only temporary powers for 60 days. But it also sets a precedent that Maduro doesn't have to seek parliamentary approval for decrees he wants to push through. Is there any doubt, that after 60 days there is going to be another decree to extend it?

 

[untermensche]

Do you have anything, like evidence, to support this claim?

Which part of the claim are you doubting? It's well known that the Venezuelan supreme court is filled with Maduro loyalists, and the way all the soon-outgoing members resigned and were replaced last year shows that he intends it to stay that way despite having lost the majority in the National Assembly. This particular decree for "emergency" powers was first submitted to the National Assembly but rejected, and now court says that he has those powers anyway. So, an appointed body of Maduro's yes-men overruled a democratically elected body.

If you take issue with "whatever you like", it is true that this grants only temporary powers for 60 days. But it also sets a precedent that Maduro doesn't have to seek parliamentary approval for decrees he wants to push through. Is there any doubt, that after 60 days there is going to be another decree to extend it?

I'm all for democracy in Venezuela.

And I agree this is not a good democracy.

But again, it is not the end of the world as we know it, or dictatorship.

And it is not corruption in the service to wealth, which is the real problem on this planet.

 

[maxparrish]

Which part of the claim are you doubting? It's well known that the Venezuelan supreme court is filled with Maduro loyalists, and the way all the soon-outgoing members resigned and were replaced last year shows that he intends it to stay that way despite having lost the majority in the National Assembly. This particular decree for "emergency" powers was first submitted to the National Assembly but rejected, and now court says that he has those powers anyway. So, an appointed body of Maduro's yes-men overruled a democratically elected body.

If you take issue with "whatever you like", it is true that this grants only temporary powers for 60 days. But it also sets a precedent that Maduro doesn't have to seek parliamentary approval for decrees he wants to push through. Is there any doubt, that after 60 days there is going to be another decree to extend it?

I'm all for democracy in Venezuela.

And I agree this is not a good democracy.

But again, it is not the end of the world as we know it, or dictatorship.

And it is not corruption in the service to wealth, which is the real problem on this planet.

"...this is not a good democracy" is more than an understatement, because its not a democracy. Exactly what it is yet to be defined but you might consider descriptors such as: a democratic ritualist state, a one-party oligarchy, an ideological plutocracy, a degenerate non-workers state, or a bad imitation of a Soviet styled 'socialist democratic republic'.

Like it's Soviet predecessors it has the empty 'forms' of democracy; party-ideological apparatchiks controlling the government institutions and offices, meaningless elections, courts with a 100 percent conviction rate, etc. However, Venezuela's version is one that includes contested meaningless elections, private ownership of some business, and some remaining free speech on the internet.

Heck, even Myanmar is far closer to a democracy than Venezuela, at least their elected legislature has some power as long at they don't screw with the corrupt and wealthy military.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You mean like here?

Venezuela's judicial system has been deemed the most corrupt in the world by Transparency International in 2014.[2] Human Rights Watch claimed that in 2004, Hugo Chávez and his allies took over of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice, filling it with supporters of Chávez and made new measures so the government could dismiss justices from the court. In 2010, legislators from Chávez’s political party appointed 9 permanent judges and 32 stand-ins, which included several allies. They claim that some judges may face reprisals if they rule against government interests.[3]

It has also been alleged that the Supreme Tribunal of Justice with the majority supporting Chávez elected officials to the supposedly non-partisan National Electoral Council of Venezuela (CNE) despite the 1999 Constitution stating that the National Assembly of Venezuela were to perform the action.[4] This resulted with the CNE board having a majority consisting of Chavistas.[4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Tribunal_of_Justice_(Venezuela)

Transparency International has it's own problems. I don't take their word on anything.

Chavez won the presidency over and over.

Of course the Court had people that supported him.

And of course it is only in Venezuela where corrupt Justices beholden to Parties exist.

A court that's 100% on one side is a rubber stamp. Reality is never that perfect.

 

[maxparrish]

Transparency International has it's own problems. I don't take their word on anything.

Chavez won the presidency over and over.
Of course the Court had people that supported him.
And of course it is only in Venezuela where corrupt Justices beholden to Parties exist.

A court that's 100% on one side is a rubber stamp. Reality is never that perfect.

What do ya mean? In the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany the courts were 100 percent on the side of government...is that perfect or what?

The absurdity of the Venezuelan judicial system is explored in this article: http://elpais.com/elpais/2014/12/12/inenglish/1418411741_236380.html

Friends of the Venezuelan attorney Antonio Canova usually say he has a strong stomach. He has to, they think. Canova and his friends Luis Alfonso Herrera, Rosa Rodríguez Ortega and Giuseppe Graterol reviewed 45,474 sentences (rulings) issued between 2004 and 2014 by the political, electoral and constitutional chambers at Venezuela’s Supreme Courts - in charge of government oversight. The group published the results in a new book, El TSJ al servicio de la revolución (Editorial Galipan), which it is distributing in the country in an almost clandestine manner. Analysts and journalists see this thick book as a gem. The main conclusion of this long essay is that the Supreme Court has never delivered a sentence (ruling) against the government.

This certainty is like the bark of a leafy tree, heavy with fruits like these: the book’s authors say, as time goes by, Supreme Court justices need to show that they are more revolutionary in order to escape the periodic purges launched by the ruling troika, which the government intervenes and controls politically the judiciary in order for judges to legitimize “their decisions and actions judicially,” which after the passing of President Hugo Chávez on March 5, 2013 the politicization of the judicial branch became obvious and judicial criteria in the courts sidestep and run contrary to international law, to human rights “and to most accepted jurisprudence and universal doctrine in democracy and rule of law.”

There is a consistent pattern, Canova says. The government announces a measure that meets its strategic needs. The opposition and experts criticize the decision, saying it is unconstitutional, but a few days later the Supreme Court issues a ruling that ratifies the regime’s position. “This is not a court, it’s a farce,” Canova says. “With a justice system like this, it will be impossible for anyone to invest in Venezuela. There is no guarantee of protection for business owners,” he adds....

The book, written in 2014, is still an excellent guide - whatever the legislature does or does not do, if Maduro does not like it he will tell the court to strip the elected body of its authority.

 

[J842P]

I'm all for democracy in Venezuela.

And I agree this is not a good democracy.

But again, it is not the end of the world as we know it, or dictatorship.

And it is not corruption in the service to wealth, which is the real problem on this planet.

"...this is not a good democracy" is more than an understatement, because its not a democracy. Exactly what it is yet to be defined but you might consider descriptors such as: a democratic ritualist state, a one-party oligarchy, an ideological plutocracy, a degenerate non-workers state, or a bad imitation of a Soviet styled 'socialist democratic republic'.

Like it's Soviet predecessors it has the empty 'forms' of democracy; party-ideological apparatchiks controlling the government institutions and offices, meaningless elections, courts with a 100 percent conviction rate, etc. However, Venezuela's version is one that includes contested meaningless elections, private ownership of some business, and some remaining free speech on the internet.

Heck, even Myanmar is far closer to a democracy than Venezuela, at least their elected legislature has some power as long at they don't screw with the corrupt and wealthy military.

Eh. Calling it a dictatorship is hyperbole. I'll admit that if it weren't for the threat of massive unrest Maduro would like to play the caudillo. Of course, he doesn't posses the requisite charisma. For now he'll use any semi-legal way to achieve his goals. Anyway, the youth in Latin America are extremely cynical, and I doubt you'll see the personality cults that are required to emulate the dictators of the past century. Especially not with the internet and a globalized world. Although Chavez came close. At the very least it will be much harder to achieve in the 21st century than it was to achieve in the 20th.

I will say that I think Chavez actually fancied himself a man of the people who was working for the people. Perhaps Maduro does too. I doubt that is the case for the party as a whole. Regardless, Chavez mismanaged the hell out of the Venezuelan economy by using the countries resources for social spending and failing to properly reinvest in the core industries. Too bad that the true cost of this will be born by the future Venezuelans who will inherit a broken system. So, despite being incompetent, he was actually trying to help and did actually provide for many necessary things. Which is more than one can say for your typical member of the Latin American leadership class. Hell, in Guatemala, the leaders are incompetent crooks.

 

[4321lynx]

Venezuela??? Venezuela??? Amateurs, bungling learners, backsliding Trotskyite-Maoists,with their Supreme Courts...

North Korea shows the way to go, with god Kim Something d'Un'g showing the path to communist paradise........

 

[dismal]

In Venezuela the Court is corrupted in service to the people.

Did you miss the part where the people held an election and a huge majority voted to toss the Maduro style of government-by-ignoring-basic-economics-in-favor-of-cronyism out?

Because, given that, invoking the will of the people here makes you sound like a barking mad lunatic.

 

[maxparrish]

"...this is not a good democracy" is more than an understatement, because its not a democracy. Exactly what it is yet to be defined but you might consider descriptors such as: a democratic ritualist state, a one-party oligarchy, an ideological plutocracy, a degenerate non-workers state, or a bad imitation of a Soviet styled 'socialist democratic republic'.

Like it's Soviet predecessors it has the empty 'forms' of democracy; party-ideological apparatchiks controlling the government institutions and offices, meaningless elections, courts with a 100 percent conviction rate, etc. However, Venezuela's version is one that includes contested meaningless elections, private ownership of some business, and some remaining free speech on the internet.

Heck, even Myanmar is far closer to a democracy than Venezuela, at least their elected legislature has some power as long at they don't screw with the corrupt and wealthy military.

Eh. Calling it a dictatorship is hyperbole. I'll admit that if it weren't for the threat of massive unrest Maduro would like to play the caudillo. Of course, he doesn't posses the requisite charisma. For now he'll use any semi-legal way to achieve his goals. Anyway, the youth in Latin America are extremely cynical, and I doubt you'll see the personality cults that are required to emulate the dictators of the past century. Especially not with the internet and a globalized world. Although Chavez came close. At the very least it will be much harder to achieve in the 21st century than it was to achieve in the 20th.

At this point, it is difficult to see the government as anything other than a dictatorship. Dictatorships are not defined by personality cults or Charisma, nor is it defined by how totalitarian it is. Franco and his minions ran a non-totalitarian dictatorship in Spain through the fascist party for decades, long after there was any pretense of popularity.

Rather a dictatorship is a government under the absolute control of a single person or clique and is synonymous with authoritarianism and despotism. With the courts, it is now clear it has absolute authority (as needed) in any sphere it chooses. The fact that it allows irrelevant elections, a little free speech, local elections in towns, and some protest does not make it any less dictatorial.

Finally, Guatemala's leaders might be incompetent crooks BUT they are not as anti-democratic and totalitarian as in Venezuela...meaning, party's routinely change control, elections are fair, and the court's more independent. The sphere of their government does not presume to ideologically run every economic, social, and cultural institution...hence, their sphere of incompetency is less harmful than that of Venezuela.

PS - And you do know that Maduro and his party cronies are also deep pocketed crooks?

 

[Axulus]

And it is not corruption in the service to wealth, which is the real problem on this planet.

LOL, good one. The Chavistas working for the government sure are the deserving poor. A lot of corruption to enrich them is just money going to "the people". If you really believe that you are far more naive than I realized.

 

[untermensche]

And it is not corruption in the service to wealth, which is the real problem on this planet.

LOL, good one. The Chavistas working for the government sure are the deserving poor. A lot of corruption to enrich them is just money going to "the people". If you really believe that you are far more naive than I realized.

This love of democracy is touching.

But the only reason anybody in the US cares about Venezuela is the same reason people in the US care about Iraq.

Why was there no love of democracy in Venezuela until Chavez was in power? Why did nobody in the US care about the corrupt apartheid state conditions in Venezuela? Why did they not care that it was a corrupt oligarchy with an indigenous population living in incredible poverty without education or healthcare?

Why do these lovers of democracy not care that the US is a thoroughly corrupted oligarchy?

Excuse me for taking this new found and highly selective love of democracy with a grain of salt.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Yes, it really is the Americans who are the problem here.

 

[untermensche]

Yes, it really is the Americans who are the problem here.

Not the problem or the solution.

But this new found and highly selective love of democracy and some of the people of Venezuela is what you'd expect from dogs trained to fetch on command.

 

[4321lynx]

Yes, it really is the Americans who are the problem here.

Not the problem or the solution.

But this new found and highly selective love of democracy and some of the people of Venezuela is what you'd expect from dogs trained to fetch on command.

Or doctrinaire socialists trained to bark on sight, no command needed.

 

[untermensche]

Not the problem or the solution.

But this new found and highly selective love of democracy and some of the people of Venezuela is what you'd expect from dogs trained to fetch on command.

Or doctrinaire socialists trained to bark on sight, no command needed.

Sight of what?

Venezuela has been corrupt a long time. A long time.

Why is it only now some have eyes to see it?

 

[4321lynx]

Or doctrinaire socialists trained to bark on sight, no command needed.

Sight of what?

Venezuela has been corrupt a long time. A long time.

Why is it only now some have eyes to see it?

Sight of any difference of opinion from the leftist party line.

I cannot speak for "some", only for myself, and you don't know when I first got eyes to see various things.

 

[untermensche]

Sight of what?

Venezuela has been corrupt a long time. A long time.

Why is it only now some have eyes to see it?

Sight of any difference of opinion from the leftist party line.

I cannot speak for "some", only for myself, and you don't know when I first got eyes to see various things.

Where does one find the "leftist party line"?

And what is the "leftist party line" on Venezuela?

The left is first and foremost a supporter of democracy.

But not selectively and hypocritically.

It would be better if Venezuela had a better democracy.

And better if the US had one too.

 

[maxparrish]

Sight of any difference of opinion from the leftist party line.

I cannot speak for "some", only for myself, and you don't know when I first got eyes to see various things.

Where does one find the "leftist party line"?

And what is the "leftist party line" on Venezuela?

The left is first and foremost a supporter of democracy.

But not selectively and hypocritically.

It would be better if Venezuela had a better democracy.

And better if the US had one too.

A few years ago you didn't you mention being a communist? Or some such relation?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Or doctrinaire socialists trained to bark on sight, no command needed.

Sight of what?

Venezuela has been corrupt a long time. A long time.

Why is it only now some have eyes to see it?

Nobody here is denying that.

You're the one that pretended that their turn towards socialism helped the people. We are seeing what has really happened--they're being hurt as the socialist government eats the economy like they always do.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Sight of any difference of opinion from the leftist party line.

I cannot speak for "some", only for myself, and you don't know when I first got eyes to see various things.

Where does one find the "leftist party line"?

http://talkfreethought.org/member.php?484-untermensche

The left is first and foremost a supporter of democracy.

Except it doesn't actually do so very well.