The march towards dictatorship continues: Chavez given 'rule by decree' power

[Joe Republic]

Link


Rule by decree passed for Chavez

Friday, 19 January 2007, 10:16 GMT


Venezuela's National Assembly has given initial approval to a bill granting the president the power to bypass congress and rule by decree for 18 months.

President Hugo Chavez says he wants "revolutionary laws" to enact sweeping political, economic and social changes.

He has said he wants to nationalise key sectors of the economy and scrap limits on the terms a president can serve.

Mr Chavez began his third term in office last week after a landslide election victory in December.

The bill allowing him to enact laws by decree is expected to win final approval easily in the assembly on its second reading on Tuesday.

Venezuela's political opposition has no representation in the National Assembly since it boycotted elections in 2005.

Pledge

Mr Chavez approved 49 laws by decree during the first year of his previous term, after the assembly passed a similar "Enabling Law" in November 2000.

Now the president says an Enabling Law is a key step in what he calls an accelerating march toward socialism.

He has said he wants to see major Venezuelan power and telecoms companies come under state control.

Mr Chavez also called for an end to foreign ownership of lucrative crude oil refineries in the Orinoco region.

Critics of the president accuse him of trying to build an authoritarian regime with all institutional powers consolidated into his own hands.

But, National Assembly President Cilia Flores said "there will always be opponents, and especially when they know that these laws will deepen the revolution".

Campaigning for the elections last year, Mr Chavez vowed he would strengthen his "Bolivarian revolution", named after the 19th-Century Latin American independence fighter.

[Gabu]

I've never understood how any political body could ever vote to make itself irrelevant.  And yes, that applies to what the Reichstag did for Hitler, too.

[Joe Republic]

I've never understood how any political body could ever vote to make itself irrelevant.  And yes, that applies to what the Reichstag did for Hitler, too.

Given that 100% of the Venezuelan National Assembly are Chavez-supporters, they'd probably let him rape each of their grandmothers if he asked them first.  Something tells me that boycotting the last elections probably wasn't such a good idea for his opponents.

[Gabu]

I've never understood how any political body could ever vote to make itself irrelevant.  And yes, that applies to what the Reichstag did for Hitler, too.

Given that 100% of the Venezuelan National Assembly are Chavez-supporters, they'd probably let him rape each of their grandmothers if he asked them first.  Something tells me that boycotting the last elections probably wasn't such a good idea for his opponents.

They're Chavez-supporters, but they're also politicians themselves, which is where my lack of understanding comes from.  Why would anyone put himself out of a job?

[MasterJedi]

I'm waiting for the people to come on say "Go Chavez". -_-

[Colin]

I've never understood how any political body could ever vote to make itself irrelevant.  And yes, that applies to what the Reichstag did for Hitler, too.

Given that 100% of the Venezuelan National Assembly are Chavez-supporters, they'd probably let him rape each of their grandmothers if he asked them first.  Something tells me that boycotting the last elections probably wasn't such a good idea for his opponents.

They're Chavez-supporters, but they're also politicians themselves, which is where my lack of understanding comes from.  Why would anyone put himself out of a job?

Because any power, position, money, and station is controled by their loyalty to the state and, more specifically to Chavez. So if they want to keep their position, status, wealth, and good quality of living they will go along with whatever Chavez desires.

If this doesn't tell you that Chavez is a dictator, or at least dictatorial in the way he governs, I don't know what will.

[Gabu]

Because any power, position, money, and station is controled by their loyalty to the state and, more specifically to Chavez. So if they want to keep their position, status, wealth, and good quality of living they will go along with whatever Chavez desires.

If this doesn't tell you that Chavez is a dictator, or at least dictatorial in the way he governs, I don't know what will.

Well, if that's the case, it seems to me that this was simply an affirmation that they're already in a dictatorship, not the first step towards one.

[Joe Republic]

Because any power, position, money, and station is controled by their loyalty to the state and, more specifically to Chavez. So if they want to keep their position, status, wealth, and good quality of living they will go along with whatever Chavez desires.

If this doesn't tell you that Chavez is a dictator, or at least dictatorial in the way he governs, I don't know what will.

Well, if that's the case, it seems to me that this was simply an affirmation that they're already in a dictatorship, not the first step towards one.

This particular act certainly isn't the first step.

[Gabu]

Because any power, position, money, and station is controled by their loyalty to the state and, more specifically to Chavez. So if they want to keep their position, status, wealth, and good quality of living they will go along with whatever Chavez desires.

If this doesn't tell you that Chavez is a dictator, or at least dictatorial in the way he governs, I don't know what will.

Well, if that's the case, it seems to me that this was simply an affirmation that they're already in a dictatorship, not the first step towards one.

This particular act certainly isn't the first step.

Well, you know what I mean.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Some of the ideas that Chavez has are good ideas in my opinion, but he has stepped way over the line now and I see a clear dictatorship forming... If he's such a great leader, he shouldn't have trouble passing his legislation and being re-elected. 

We don't need more dictators in this world.

[minionofmidas]

If he's such a great leader, he shouldn't have trouble passing his legislation and being re-elected. 

And indeed he doesn't.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

I've never understood how any political body could ever vote to make itself irrelevant.

The Vichy Democrats in the Senate who voted to confirm Alito would.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

How is what Chavez is doing dictatorly? It isn't. The legislative branch authorized him to do it, and his powers will expire anyway.

[Joe Republic]

How is what Chavez is doing dictatorly? It isn't. The legislative branch authorized him to do it, and his powers will expire anyway.

The Enabling Act of 1933 in Germany gave Adolf Hitler the power to rule by decree, but only for four years.  Before that time was up he had the puppet Reichstag extend the expiration date further and further back until it became effectively a permanent law by which Hitler could exercise complete dictatorial power.

Putting legislative and executive power in the hands of one person for any length of time at all should always be treated with grave foreboding.

[Gabu]

How is what Chavez is doing dictatorly? It isn't. The legislative branch authorized him to do it, and his powers will expire anyway.

To be a dictator means that you can dictate what happens in a country by yourself.

So... how is being able to rule by decree not being a dictator?

[Frodo]

BRTD -we're still waiting for you to defend Chavez...

[Bandit3 the Worker]

So... how is being able to rule by decree not being a dictator?

So the next time the President of the United States signs an executive order, are you're going to say that's a dictatorship?

[Colin]

So... how is being able to rule by decree not being a dictator?

So the next time the President of the United States signs an executive order, are you're going to say that's a dictatorship?

You seem to be saying that ever since Bush got elected.

[© tweed]

This makes little if any difference.  The legislature was purely a rubber stamp at this point anyway.

Lets see how Chavez uses this newfound power.  If he starts jailing political opponents, then go ahead and call him a dictator.  If he uses it to nationalize coffee in a speedier fashion than before possible, whatever.

[minionofmidas]

How is what Chavez is doing dictatorly? It isn't. The legislative branch authorized him to do it, and his powers will expire anyway.

The Enabling Act of 1933 in Germany gave Adolf Hitler the power to rule by decree, but only for four years.  Before that time was up he had the puppet Reichstag extend the expiration date further and further back until it became effectively a permanent law by which Hitler could exercise complete dictatorial power.

Putting legislative and executive power in the hands of one person for any length of time at all should always be treated with grave foreboding.

Yes... but it doesn't 'prove' anything. Note that (as the article states) Chavez has had similar legislation before, and back then he did let it expire.

Also notice that, in sharp contrast to Hitler who immediately abolished responsible local government, Chavez has introduced local elections to Venezuela where they were basically nonexistent before.

[Joe Republic]

Note that (as the article states) Chavez has had similar legislation before, and back then he did let it expire.

True, although the last time this happened his party didn't have almost total control of the legislature; enough of a majority to change the Constitution, in fact.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Please understand that the comparison to Hitler was merely to demonstrate an example of the danger of "temporary" rule by decree.  I wasn't aware of the information you provided there, and it's certainly a good thing, but my earlier point still stands about putting legislative and executive powers in the hands of one person.

[minionofmidas]

Note that (as the article states) Chavez has had similar legislation before, and back then he did let it expire.

True, although the last time this happened his party didn't have almost total control of the legislature; enough of a majority to change the Constitution, in fact.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Please understand that the comparison to Hitler was merely to demonstrate an example of the danger of "temporary" rule by decree. 

I understand that, since I know you to be reasonably intelligent. Other posters reading this thread might not. -_-

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And I have no intention - none whatsoever - to not let it standing. It's wrong.

[Beet]

The difference between a 'dictator' and a small-d 'democrat' is becoming somewhat blurred these days. Keeping the trappings of democracy while in effect having total control over the country is a good way for strongmen to seem more legitimate and democratic than they really are.

As in past generations, many of these strongmen actually do have the support of majorities of the population, largely because of populist economic successes or nationalist appeals. It wasn't necessary to formalize this support in past generations because the norms of democracy weren't so powerful.

But giving strongmen like Chavez a pass on this only opens the door for more fudging and serves to weaken the norms of democracy in the long run.

[Gabu]

So... how is being able to rule by decree not being a dictator?

So the next time the President of the United States signs an executive order, are you're going to say that's a dictatorship?

Haven't you stated that the United States under Bush is a dictatorship?