Could Hugo Chavez be elected in any European country?

[YoMartin]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Let me be clear: I never said the US had anything to do with the coup attempt against Chavez. The organizers were inept, of course, but preparations started before the televized shootings...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I have much more in common with the (North)American culture than with the "Latin American hyper-nationalist anti-Yankee influence", so I guess that can´t be the reason. My siding with Chavez in this issue is just the consequence of my belief that democracy is above bad Presidents, and should be defended as such. At least nobody has mentioned (yet!) "assasination" as a legitimate way to remove him from office, as had happened in earlier threads on this topic...

[WMS]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Let me be clear: I never said the US had anything to do with the coup attempt against Chavez. The organizers were inept, of course, but preparations started before the televized shootings...

OK, just clarifying. And also to remember...a sizable chunk of Chavez's own movement initially supported the coup (the more moderate faction) before switching back when that frigging idiot Carmona tried to become caudillo...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I have much more in common with the (North)American culture than with the "Latin American hyper-nationalist anti-Yankee influence", so I guess that can´t be the reason. My siding with Chavez in this issue is just the consequence of my belief that democracy is above bad Presidents, and should be defended as such. At least nobody has mentioned (yet!) "assasination" as a legitimate way to remove him from office, as had happened in earlier threads on this topic...

[/quote]

It's in your blood! You can't resist it!

And I feel Chavez is busily subverting democracy (see ag for more details ) and added to his hostility, it makes it very easy for me to oppose him.

And that's usually just Jake, who is usually kidding.

[YoMartin]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don´t remember any top chavista siding with the coup.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If anything, my "blood" (or my guts) would lead me to side against Chávez. I have to do a rational effort to back him in this case.

If he´s been subverting democracy for the last 8 years, he´s certainly doing it at very slow speed...

[WMS]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don´t remember any top chavista siding with the coup.

I know I've posted about this before {remember this fun thread? ] but I'll go dig it up from Stratfor...let's see...

From an April 19, 2002 Stratfor Analysis: [much edited for that damn 10000 character limit ]

"About three hours before gunfire erupted in downtown Caracas, the FAN's high command knew from intelligence personnel that infiltrated pro-Chavez Bolivarian Circles that a plan existed to disrupt an anti-Chavez protest march of at least 350,000 Venezuelans, the daily El Universal reported April 18. FAN intelligence indicated that extremist anti-Chavez groups were also seeking a confrontation that day. However, efforts to coordinate an effective security response and pre-empt the violence were hindered by disagreements between Chavez and senior military officers over how to proceed.

[snip]

A phalanx of Caracas Metropolitan Police reinforced by a water cannon protected the front of the advancing anti-Chavez march on Baralt Avenue. As the marchers reached the corners of Llaguno and La Pedrera, still several blocks from Miraflores, snipers began firing simultaneously at both anti- and pro-Chavez protesters from at least three buildings, including the Eden Hotel, La Nacional office building -- in which are housed municipal government offices -- and the rooftop of the Foreign Ministry's parking garage, according to the daily TalCual, which confirmed the presence of six snipers atop two of the buildings.

Two of the alleged snipers subsequently were detained and identified by name as Environment Ministry security department employees. Television video footage of the violence also showed dozens of alleged Bolivarian Circle members firing handguns in the direction of the anti-Chavez protesters. Although Chavez government officials claim that no MVR or Bolivarian Circles fired weapons at anyone, one of the videotaped shooters was identified by name as an elected MVR municipal official, while three or four others were also identified as having links to the MVR.

In all, 15 persons were killed and over 157 wounded by gunfire April 11 in downtown Caracas. STRATFOR sources in the Caracas medical examiner's office report that nearly all of the fatalities resulted from head or neck shots fired from higher elevations. The violence -- especially videotaped footage of pro-Chavez supporters firing into the anti-Chavez protesters and eyewitness accounts of senior National Guard officers on the scene -- appears to have triggered a spontaneous military revolt against the Chavez regime from a moderate center-right faction led by Army Commander Gen. Efrain Vasquez Velasco.

However, this moderate "middle-road" center-right faction was only one of at least four groups struggling to topple or defend Chavez that day within the FAN. The other three groups included:

*A center-left or "soft" faction that identified with moderate pro-Chavez civilians whose ranks include people like former Interior and Justice Minister Luis Miquilena, who publicly broke with Chavez last December after the president decided to radicalize his confrontation with the political opposition.

*An ultra-conservative or "hardcore" group of military officers, businessmen, and some members of the extremely conservative Catholic Opus Dei organization. Additionally, this ultra-conservative group was bankrolled by Isaac Perez Recao, a wealthy Venezuelan whose late uncle Juan Pablo Perez Alfonzo founded OPEC. This group planned to launch a coup against Chavez last February 27 but reportedly aborted the scheme after the U.S. government warned very strongly that it would never recognize a coup.

* The fourth group was pro-Chavez and numerically smaller than the anti-Chavez factions, although this group controlled key infantry and armored units, which evened the battlefield in any potential confrontation with anti-Chavez military factions. The leader of this group was General Raul Baduell, who commands the 42nd Parachutist Brigade in Maracay less than 100 miles from Caracas, and who is considered politically more leftist than Chavez.

In the early hours of the military rebellion against Chavez April 11, the moderate center-right group commanded by Vasquez Velasco appeared to have control of the situation. Although Vasquez Velasco did not have a large following in the army, center-right business, labor and civic leaders were supporting him. More importantly, a majority of the FAN's officer corps that favors removing the armed forces from politics and reinforcing its institutional national security role also were backing Vasquez Velasco at this point.

There was considerable overlap between the "soft" and "middle-road" factions. In fact, STRATFOR sources report that Miquilena had constituted a block of 23 National Assembly members from the pro-Chavez Fifth Republic Movement's moderate wing who were prepared to join the political opposition in ending the Chavez regime constitutionally.

Outside the FAN, the "middle-road" and "soft" anti-Chavez groups had started to negotiate a transition agreement April 10 when a group called the National Democracy and Freedom Coordinator was created to provide a venue in which opposing groups could negotiate a compromise transition deal to get rid of Chavez constitutionally. Despite State Department denials of involvement in the attempted Chavez ouster, several sources tell STRATFOR that U.S. embassy "observers" were present at meetings of this group.

STRATFOR sources say the "soft" and "middle-road" centrist groups did not realize until too late that the hardcore faction -- which had thoroughly infiltrated the other two factions -- was hijacking the transition government.

[snip]

Carmona's presidency ended the instant it began, when he announced the National Assembly's dissolution and fired the Supreme Court, attorney general, comptroller of the republic and public defender. At that point, the moderate center-right military faction headed by Vasquez Velasco withdrew its support from Carmona, as did the powerful Venezuelan Workers Confederation (CTV), and the entire anti-Chavez political opposition, which was banking on the assembly to preserve the constitutionality and legitimacy of the process of replacing Chavez.

When Vasquez Velasco withdrew his support from the interim Carmona government, he also reached out to General Baduell and other nominally pro-Chavez officers who had refused to join in the rebellion against the president. In fact, Vasquez Velasco, Baduell and others quickly joined ranks, collapsing the short-lived ultra-conservative regime that tried to replace Chavez.

Although the identities of the coup leaders quickly became obvious, sources say another plan was at work behind the scenes: that of Chavez himself. In the face of a growing business and labor strike, the Chavez regime could see that trouble was coming but wasn't sure from which direction. Therefore, in the chaos that followed the April 11 shootings of unarmed anti-Chavez protesters, some STRATFOR sources feel that Gen. Lucas Rincon Romero set the contingency plan in motion by announcing publicly that Chavez had resigned. This essentially served to flush out the president's hidden opponents. However, other sources believe Lucas Rincon had joined the movement to oust Chavez, but later reversed his alliance when the ultra-conservative faction hijacked the transition regime.

Although opposition groups within the military were much larger than their pro-Chavez counterparts - sources give a 75 percent to 25 percent ratio - they quickly became crippled by internal power struggles and personal ambitions. Meanwhile, their ultra-conservative junta partners brought the interim regime crashing down almost before it had launched by dissolving the National Assembly. In effect, it was the "hard coup" faction -- the one most ready to end Chavez's regime by any means necessary and to quickly erase all vestiges of his rule -- that was mainly responsible for returning Chavez to Miraflores presidential palace by collapsing the political center inside the FAN and destroying Carmona's civilian support base."

I bolded some notable parts for you and italicized the point in question.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If anything, my "blood" (or my guts) would lead me to side against Chávez. I have to do a rational effort to back him in this case.

If he´s been subverting democracy for the last 8 years, he´s certainly doing it at very slow speed...
[/quote]

Now why would you side against Chavez? Given the anti-American tendencies of Latin America, I would expect you to have to fight hard not to support him.

In addition to what ag has posted, there is this as well.

[2952-0-0]

I don´t remember any top chavista siding with the coup.

I know I've posted about this before {remember this fun thread? ] but I'll go dig it up from Stratfor...let's see...

*snip*[/quote]

The third post of the thread (lol, I love reading blue opebo's posts):

The CIA should've assassinated Chavez years ago.  When oh when will we have a proper CIA again?

[WMS]

I don´t remember any top chavista siding with the coup.

I know I've posted about this before {remember this fun thread? ] but I'll go dig it up from Stratfor...let's see...

*snip*

The third post of the thread (lol, I love reading blue opebo's posts):

The CIA should've assassinated Chavez years ago.  When oh when will we have a proper CIA again?

[/quote]

Yes, it's quite an entertaining thread in many ways

[YoMartin]

Yes, it's quite an entertaining thread in many ways

Indeed. It was exactly 2 years ago and no one seems to have changed his position on Chavez (that poses the question of whether this discussions are really worth something). I fully agree with what I wrote back then:

"Chavez is not like Pinochet. He was democratically elected, and Pinochet wasn´t. Yes, there are certain authoritarian tendencies in his government (which, by the way, I would definitely oppose if I was Venezuelan), but nothing compared to the brutal dictatorship (3000 missing people, tortured and killed) that was Pinochet´s regime. There is freedom of speech (in fact, most TV channels oppose Chavez very strongly) and of association, which, of course, didn´t exist at all during Pinochet´s rule.

Of course, Chavez´ economic ideas are absurd, and his style ressembles old populist semi-authoritarian governments of the region. But that´s no reason for a coup. You can´t just follow the rules when the government does what you want it to do. Someone said the CIA should have killed him... With the same logic, any secret service in the world would be authorised to kill any presidente, whether his name is Chavez, Bush or Blair...

The democratic origins of his government are unquestionable. If I´m not mistaken he won the presidency not once but twice, before and after a constitutional reform. His party won the election to send delegates to this constitutional convention, and the new constitution was passed overwhelmingly in a referendum. What could be criticised is whether he governs in accordance to rule of law and separation of powers. In my opinion, his government has somewhat deviated from an ideal of democracy and rule of law, but not remotely enough to consider him a dictator. Especially if you consider what Venezuelan democracy was before Chavez  (traditional Venezuelan bipartisan socialdemocrat-christian democrat arrangements were awfully corrupt and, in a way, less democratic than Chavez, since rotation in power had been arranged decades ago by political elites to avoid instability), this isn´t so different -the only difference being that for the first time economic establishment is in the oppostion.

I´d like to see Chavez out, his economic plan was a complete disaster (helped, this should be said, by a bussiness lockout that lasted for several months) and he polarises the country that anything could happen (well, not a "Haiti" solution, but...). But the way to get him out is through free and fair elections. The recall is still a posibility [he then won the recall by a 20 point margin], even if Chavez (à la Gray Davis) is trying to buy some time, but it will be inevitable sooner or later".

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That piece of information you quote, WMS, was written in 2002. As I said, I also thought back then that many of those claims were true, but now I´m more sckeptical. It´s very hard to find anything remotely impartial on Venezuela. The press in incredibly pro or anti Chavez there. So just one quote is not enough to change my mind...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I´m usually on the minority, so that´s not a problem...

Besides, anti-US (actually, anti-Bush) tendencies do not imply a pro-Chavez consensus. Peruvian candidate Ollanta Humala dropped in the polls after Chavez endorsed his presidential bid. Maybe with the exception of Evo Morales, no Latin American president wants Chavez nearby when elections are coming. And, due to my general worldview, I actually need to do some efforts to back Chávez...

[WMS]

Indeed. It was exactly 2 years ago and no one seems to have changed his position on Chavez (that poses the question of whether this discussions are really worth something).

I'd say not. I will note that I haven't been the one bringing Chavez up in topics these days.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But it had the best analysis, so that's why I included it. Yes, the press is polarized as hell, here as well as there, over Chavez (the number of lefties I hear praising Chavez make me ). But Stratfor relies on their own sources a lot for this, not just media reports...including sources within the Venezuelan Military (who have all probably been purged for being insufficiently loyal and replaced by Cubans ). People like to talk. And the chaotic mess described in the article feels closer to reality that the simplistic "IT WAS ALL THE CIA AND BUSH!!!1!!one!!!" crap that I continually hear from the American and International Left.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not a bad place to be, some of the time.

Perhaps because some members of the Latin American Left have figured out what many members of the American and European Left have not: Chavez is not exactly the path to the future.

And the sentence I bolded intrigues me...what do you mean by that?

[YoMartin]

And the sentence I bolded intrigues me...what do you mean by that?

It means that my ideology is far apart from Chavez´s. So defending his legitimacy as president is not that simple: it´s always easier to defend someone you actually like.

[WMS]

And the sentence I bolded intrigues me...what do you mean by that?

It means that my ideology is far apart from Chavez´s. So defending his legitimacy as president is not that simple: it´s always easier to defend someone you actually like.

Ah, got it. And quite true!