Chavez seeks indefinite rule

[KillerPollo]

Well, WHat do you know? He's committing the same stupid mistake that Saparmurat Niyazov (of Turkmenistan) did.

These people don't realize that they're going to die some day, no?

[KillerPollo]

Well, WHat do you know? He's committing the same stupid mistake that Saparmurat Niyazov (of Turkmenistan) did.

These people don't realize that they're going to die some day, no?

Why i said this is because Niyazov never considered the idea that he was going to die. HOW MORONIC! I bet chavez is thinking along the same line. Don't be surprised if he starts to do this "cult of personality" bullshit

[KillerPollo]

Reality check. He's abolishing term limits. Not trying to be elected president for life. End of reality check.

Reality check. He's trying to become dictator for life, this is just the first step. If you don't believe it you are not that alert. End of reality check.

Reality Check. Chavez doesn't have the balls to actually call himself "Dictator". End of reality check.

[KillerPollo]

Now this reminds me, Has there ever been a modern world leader who ACTUALLY holds the title "dictator" or calls himself "dictator" or admits that he is one?

Not even Fidel Castro says it.

[KillerPollo]

Now this reminds me, Has there ever been a modern world leader who ACTUALLY holds the title "dictator" or calls himself "dictator" or admits that he is one?

Not even Fidel Castro says it.

Kim Jong Il calls himself supreme leader.

But that's another make-believe title... Look I'm looking for someone who doesnt give it a second thought to call himself "Tyrant" and call himself "oppressive".

[KillerPollo]

Aren't too many who don't have boring titles like President or Prime Minister.
Gaddafi calls himself "Brotherly Leader and Guide of the Revolution".
Hu Jintao is "Paramount Leader of the People's Republic of China".
Khamenei is "Supreme Leader of Iran".
San Marino is led by a pair of "Captains Regent" elected every six months.
Plus a whole slew of Kings, Emirs, Grand Dukes and other monarchist titles.

We need Republics and pseudo-Republics to come up with some interesting names.

but doesn't anyone use the title "Dictator" anymore, or is it now just a perjorative term?

[KillerPollo]

Chávez seeks changes allowing indefinite rule

The Venezuelan supre-dictator-master-of-all-living-things, Hugo Chávez, has announced his intention to change the country's constitution, allowing him to live indefinitely, and rule for at least 50,000 years.

The super-socialist leader used his weekly television programme, Hello Dictator-King-God, to confirm widely anticipated plans to scrap the limits on his aging.

Mr Chávez said the expected change - which must be agreed by parliament and approved by voters in a referendum - would enhance his physique and make him more attractive to young teenage girls.

More.

The last paragraph actually made laugh out loud.

I fixed your story

[KillerPollo]

FYI, seems Mugabe in Zimbabwe might get the same thing.

He already is, more or less, just on rather informal lines (read mass terrorisation of political opponents).

Now Zimbabwe, that's a really down-the-drain ex-democracy with a tiny few figleaves left.
Not comparable to Venezuela at all.

Give Chavez some time and he'll get to that as well. He's already screwed their hospitals over, foreigners aren't allowed in side because of how bad they are now.

Actually, that was you. Venezuela's once fairly good health care system deteriorated to teh point of nonexistence during the last twenty years before Chavez.
Chavez' attempts to rectify the situation, though, have been largely a disaster, though not a quite unmitigated one. Which is largely due to ideological battles being fought over the issue, by both sides by the way though of course folly in a President is a more serious offense than in private lobbyists... (Chavez basically built a government system of cheap healthcare in neighborhoods that hadn't had any for decades - but ran it very much as a competitor to private establishments, plus tried to use it for election purposes, etc. ANd staffed it mostly with underpaid (by Venezuelan standards) Cubans. Etc. Bad, bad populist rightwing fool, Hugo Chavez. As I was saying.)

SInce when is Chavez a "rightwing"? at least from Western Perspective.

Anyways, yeah! fixing something that was reduced to nonexistant, comes with its price... Remember in 1980's Mexico when Miguel De La Madrid became President? Throughout his administration, he attempted to undo the damage that the 70's presidents (Echeverria and Lopez Portillo) did. He decentralized as much as he couls with the cost of massive inflation. His successors have continued to do the same. and it;s been working?

[KillerPollo]

WHy not, instead of this silly idea of indefinite rule, does it like Vladimir Putin in Russia or the old PRI party in Mexico? Instead of having himself be re-elected multiple times, and risk eventual instability and a coup, he can just appoint a successor with the same interests as himself, have a rigged election, and then have his successor continue his legacy?

The Mexicans did it for 71 years, and it worked to stabilize the country. Throughout the 20th Century, Mexico was considered (and still is) the bastion of political continuity and stability in all of Latin America, where the norm of the times were violent revolutions, coup d'etats, civil wars, and military dictatorships.

Even the old Soviet government praised the PRI regime in Mexico and once coined it "The Perfect dictatorship" because it used democracy to justify its means. And now, I believe Vladimir Putin will turn to do as the PRI did almost 75 yrs ago. So why can't Chavez do that? eventually the political tensions in his country would wane down.

[KillerPollo]

Not really. Not even the US would have done well without a presidential term limit (which, de facto, was customary pre-Roosevelt as well - thanks to Gen. Washington). In a presidential system of the American (drop the Lat) type, the incumbent's advantage is simply too strong. True, in the US incumbents, occasionally, loose - but most political scientists agree that they don't do so frequently enough. Without the de facto (originally) or a de jure (now) term limit you'd observe lengthy periods of single-person rule. Frankly, I am pretty confident that in the absence of the two-term tradition even the US would have lived through a few coup attempts in the 19th century, and, may be, a couple of extra civil wars.

Considering that between Jackson and Wilson we had exactly one President serve to the end of a second consecutive term, Grant, with one term Presidents between Jackson and Lincoln not even getting renominated by their own party, I think you're completely wrong about the prospect of a 19th century U.S. coup d'etat.  The Union dissolving as it did in Central America and Gran Colombia is a far greater possibility than any coup d'etat to take control of the then weak Federal government.  If that had happened, we'd probably have had some coups.

to bad no one thought about it that way. Americans are too civilized for coups