China to Pass Landmark Property Law
[Interview] Zhang Weiying,
Dean of Peking University's Management School
Sunny Lee (sunnylee)
Published 2007-01-27 07:21 (KST)
China's parliament is set to discuss a landmark property law when it meets in March. Beijing is thus one step closer to approving the newest draft version of the legislation, which has been reworked seven times because of its apparent capitalistic penchant which conflicts with China's socialist orientation.
The law to protect private property has been a political hot potato in China where state ownership still dominates key parts of the economy.
Zhang Weiying, dean of Guanghua School of Management at Peking University, said he believes the bill would pass the parliament.
"The parliament will pass the law. That will be a very important signal," he said in a recent interview.
Zhang said passing the bill will "give more confidence" to China's rising entrepreneurs, who are "crucial" for China's economic development.
"When people have security, they will know what they will get. They will be more motivated to work, make more money and invest," he said.
Zhang said a well-adopted property law can be a tool for a value creation and wealth redistribution.
"But the danger is some people are very anti-business," and there is ideological resistance, Zhang said, adding there may be "some important changes" likely to be made in the 17th Communist Party Congress in September.
"The leadership...can do something, which they couldn't do before... The top leaders may become braver in implementing reform policies," Zhang said without elaborating.
Zhang said recently Chinese economy has become easier to predict, with the economy has been less dominated by the government.
"That is a much nicer system. Unlike the government, when the private sector makes an investment, they look at it with a relatively long-term perspective...That was the reason the economy has become more stable. So, it is easy to predict this year's economy," he said.
Zhang said he is "confident" the economy this year will grow similar to last year's level, citing stable labor supply and improved productivity that he expects to last for a few years to come.
Zhang said he disagrees with some China watchers who think China's economy will start sliding after the 2008 Olympic Games as the high-expectation bubble up to the world event will go burst once it ends.
Instead, Zhang said China's economy will still be able to grow between 8 and 10 percent after the 2008 Olympic Games, buoyed by strong demands in both domestic and global markets.
"We do not expect any big change even after the Olympic games. (There will be) still a strong demand and supply," Zhang said.
China Has A Long Way To Go
Meanwhile, Zhang said China has "a lot of things to do" before to be really a market economy. "I don't think it's a market economy yet in a strict sense." He said, for example, the capital market and land market are still highly controlled by the government.
When asked when he expects China to get a market economy status from the U.S., he said, "China doesn't need to worry about that. America will eventually recognize China as a market economy. Now it is too much political."
Zhang said there is no good solution for the trade dispute between China and America because essentially "this is a political game. Each government thinks and raises voices strategically. Politics needs confrontation."
"I think the confrontation will continue," Zhang said.
In 2006, China's trade surplus jumped 74 percent from 2005 to hit a record US$177.47 billion, which will likely encourage further American pressures on Beijing to let the yuan appreciate at a faster pace.
China's Commerce Minister Bo Xilai said reducing China's trade surplus will be a key task for 2007.
China is making its own effort to gradually move toward a more open economy, Zhang said. "The government now cannot fully control the (economy's) brake any more," which he said reflects a "fundamental" change.
"We're becoming better students of Adam Smith," Zhang said.
©2007 OhmyNew
martes, febrero 06, 2007
lunes, febrero 05, 2007
Cambio climático: lo que ya sabíamos
Cambio climático: lo que ya sabíamos
ESTEBAN ARLUCEA
PROFESOR DE DERECHO CONSTITUCIONAL DE LA UPV
El Informe del cambio climático
Un día después del anecdótico apagón eléctrico de cinco minutos se ha presentado en la sede de la Unesco en París un avance del último informe (el cuarto) del llamado Panel Intergubernamental sobre el Cambio Climático de la ONU (IPCC en su acrónimo inglés).
En honor a la verdad, he de reconocer que todos los medios de comunicación se hicieron eco de la noticia que colmó los arranques de todos los noticiarios de ayer. De suyo, un buen acontecimiento si no fuera por lo que el contenido del
avance de este estudio -realizado, entre redacción y revisiones, por más de 1.200 científicos- pone de relieve: que aun siendo una parte insignificante de este planeta redondo, cerrado y finito, como muy literariamente nos ha recordado Muñoz Molina en su reciente 'El viento de la Luna', somos los responsables cuasi en exclusiva (90%) de lo que acaece en él.
Retroceso de la civilización
Claro que esto para un racionalista antropocentrismo no es un dato que deba llevarnos a reflexión alguna, pero para quienes
sostenemos el valor éticamente intrínseco de todo cuanto nos rodea, no es sino la confirmación de sospechas y sensaciones que nos hablan del paulatino retroceso de nuestra moderna civilización. Término que, derivado del latino 'civis' (ciudadano, persona en definitiva), mal habla de que continuemos conduciéndonos en el único espacio físico que conocemos y podemos (la Tierra) de una manera que nos lleva a nuestra propia destrucción o, en el mejor de los escenarios, a un notabilísimo
incremento de perjuicios.
Y llegados a este punto de denunciada difícil vuelta atrás, cuando menos por los efectos a largo plazo sobre la naturaleza, las declaraciones de nuestros responsables políticos se tiñen de una insolente inocencia:
Todavía tenemos pesimismo
Necesitábamos la confirmación global y objetiva de la ciencia para, ahora sí, actuar plenamente en consecuencia, aunque ya hayamos ido dando pasos en tales sentidos', es lo que, en resumidas cuentas, vienen a decir. Sin embargo, albergo la sospecha de que en modo alguno ello va a suceder así, principalmente porque pensar hoy en día en el poder político como uno autónomo es una mezcolanza de desconocimiento e ingenuidad a partes iguales.
El poder político (donde lo hay) está sumisamente supeditado al económico. Los dictados del G-8, OMC, Banco Mundial y otras organizaciones menos nombradas penetran más, y más rápidamente, en nuestras vidas que la ley para el fomento de la cultura de la paz, por poner un ejemplo. Es cierto que para quien ha querido ver los datos, ahí estaban. Este panel de expertos simplemente se ha limitado a ordenarlos y presentarlos (como otros muchos antes) en sociedad. Y el cuadro que esbozan es desolador: cambio climático, incremento de desastres naturales, deshielo, aumento de temperaturas, y todo ello y más, relacionado con la especie humana. Esto es lo que el 2 de febrero ha saltado a la palestra, que no es poco.
Desde el año 1972 y no ha pasado nada
Nada nuevo, como digo, al menos desde 1972, fecha de la celebración de la Cumbre de Estocolmo precedida por cierta carta que dirigió Mansholt al presidente de la Comisión de la CEE (Malfatti), advirtiéndole de la incompatibilidad de nuestro modo de producir y la supervivencia del ser humano en el planeta. Evento que inaugura una forma internacional de intentar afrontar ciertos problemas, asimismo, internacionales. Sin embargo, para esa fecha la estructuralidad de la forma de producción y consumo occidental, origen fundamental de estas consecuencias, no admitía más rivales que el decadente socialismo soviético, y el planteamiento originario de esta cumbre parecía suponerlo, de modo que no se le negó el tutelar auxilio de la Secretaría del Acuerdo General sobre Aranceles Aduaneros y Comercio (GATT) en su preparación. No es
casualidad, pues, que su declaración final no cuestionara para nada los modelos industrial y económico imperantes. Sus repeticiones en 1992 y 2002 no han concluido sino con meros eufemismos sobre la salud del planeta, perdiéndose lo que ya el organizador de la Cumbre de Río hace quince años llamó la última oportunidad para salvarlo.
Se ignoran los impactos
Contrariamente, desde otros sectores alternativos se han ido emitiendo propuestas, pero, desgraciadamente, han resultado ignoradas o reconvertidas a la lógica del sistema, perdiéndose con ello toda su fuerza transformadora. Es lo que ha sucedido con el Protocolo de Kioto de 1997 sobre limitación de emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero, que tanta responsabilidad ostentan en el denominado cambio climático: la bondad de la idea ha sido pervertida al traducirse a un sistema exclusivamente economicista de compraventa de derechos de contaminación, cuyo resultado -no podría ser otro- es un incremento de las emisiones y de los beneficios económicos globales asociados (sin ir más lejos, es el caso de España, que ha visto incrementado su porcentaje de emisiones de CO2 en un 15% respecto a los valores de 1990, aunque, de seguir su
política como hasta el momento, podrían ser superiores en un 60% a finales de 2012).
Un desarrollo erróneo
El avance de este cuarto informe pone de manifiesto, pues, lo erróneo del camino recorrido a base de una interesada transformación del concepto de desarrollo sostenible en sólo desarrollo limitado cuantitativamente. La socialización del uso de los combustibles fósiles y su asunción como algo imprescindible para nuestro modus vivendi acarrean un precio impagable como planeta -vienen a decir sus conclusiones- y toda apuesta por los mismos desprecia la realidad en la
que desde hace unas décadas nos hallamos inmersos, que la modificación de sus efectos ya sólo se encuentra en parte en nuestras manos.
Así que hoy más que nunca cobra especial sentido la constatación de Desmond Morris cuando atribuía a nuestro proceso descivilizatorio el que continuáramos siendo ese sencillo animal tribal de hace varios miles de años, recriado al calor de su feroz industrialismo esquilmador, que se considera aparte, por encima y propietario del planeta.
ESTEBAN ARLUCEA
PROFESOR DE DERECHO CONSTITUCIONAL DE LA UPV
El Informe del cambio climático
Un día después del anecdótico apagón eléctrico de cinco minutos se ha presentado en la sede de la Unesco en París un avance del último informe (el cuarto) del llamado Panel Intergubernamental sobre el Cambio Climático de la ONU (IPCC en su acrónimo inglés).
En honor a la verdad, he de reconocer que todos los medios de comunicación se hicieron eco de la noticia que colmó los arranques de todos los noticiarios de ayer. De suyo, un buen acontecimiento si no fuera por lo que el contenido del
avance de este estudio -realizado, entre redacción y revisiones, por más de 1.200 científicos- pone de relieve: que aun siendo una parte insignificante de este planeta redondo, cerrado y finito, como muy literariamente nos ha recordado Muñoz Molina en su reciente 'El viento de la Luna', somos los responsables cuasi en exclusiva (90%) de lo que acaece en él.
Retroceso de la civilización
Claro que esto para un racionalista antropocentrismo no es un dato que deba llevarnos a reflexión alguna, pero para quienes
sostenemos el valor éticamente intrínseco de todo cuanto nos rodea, no es sino la confirmación de sospechas y sensaciones que nos hablan del paulatino retroceso de nuestra moderna civilización. Término que, derivado del latino 'civis' (ciudadano, persona en definitiva), mal habla de que continuemos conduciéndonos en el único espacio físico que conocemos y podemos (la Tierra) de una manera que nos lleva a nuestra propia destrucción o, en el mejor de los escenarios, a un notabilísimo
incremento de perjuicios.
Y llegados a este punto de denunciada difícil vuelta atrás, cuando menos por los efectos a largo plazo sobre la naturaleza, las declaraciones de nuestros responsables políticos se tiñen de una insolente inocencia:
Todavía tenemos pesimismo
Necesitábamos la confirmación global y objetiva de la ciencia para, ahora sí, actuar plenamente en consecuencia, aunque ya hayamos ido dando pasos en tales sentidos', es lo que, en resumidas cuentas, vienen a decir. Sin embargo, albergo la sospecha de que en modo alguno ello va a suceder así, principalmente porque pensar hoy en día en el poder político como uno autónomo es una mezcolanza de desconocimiento e ingenuidad a partes iguales.
El poder político (donde lo hay) está sumisamente supeditado al económico. Los dictados del G-8, OMC, Banco Mundial y otras organizaciones menos nombradas penetran más, y más rápidamente, en nuestras vidas que la ley para el fomento de la cultura de la paz, por poner un ejemplo. Es cierto que para quien ha querido ver los datos, ahí estaban. Este panel de expertos simplemente se ha limitado a ordenarlos y presentarlos (como otros muchos antes) en sociedad. Y el cuadro que esbozan es desolador: cambio climático, incremento de desastres naturales, deshielo, aumento de temperaturas, y todo ello y más, relacionado con la especie humana. Esto es lo que el 2 de febrero ha saltado a la palestra, que no es poco.
Desde el año 1972 y no ha pasado nada
Nada nuevo, como digo, al menos desde 1972, fecha de la celebración de la Cumbre de Estocolmo precedida por cierta carta que dirigió Mansholt al presidente de la Comisión de la CEE (Malfatti), advirtiéndole de la incompatibilidad de nuestro modo de producir y la supervivencia del ser humano en el planeta. Evento que inaugura una forma internacional de intentar afrontar ciertos problemas, asimismo, internacionales. Sin embargo, para esa fecha la estructuralidad de la forma de producción y consumo occidental, origen fundamental de estas consecuencias, no admitía más rivales que el decadente socialismo soviético, y el planteamiento originario de esta cumbre parecía suponerlo, de modo que no se le negó el tutelar auxilio de la Secretaría del Acuerdo General sobre Aranceles Aduaneros y Comercio (GATT) en su preparación. No es
casualidad, pues, que su declaración final no cuestionara para nada los modelos industrial y económico imperantes. Sus repeticiones en 1992 y 2002 no han concluido sino con meros eufemismos sobre la salud del planeta, perdiéndose lo que ya el organizador de la Cumbre de Río hace quince años llamó la última oportunidad para salvarlo.
Se ignoran los impactos
Contrariamente, desde otros sectores alternativos se han ido emitiendo propuestas, pero, desgraciadamente, han resultado ignoradas o reconvertidas a la lógica del sistema, perdiéndose con ello toda su fuerza transformadora. Es lo que ha sucedido con el Protocolo de Kioto de 1997 sobre limitación de emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero, que tanta responsabilidad ostentan en el denominado cambio climático: la bondad de la idea ha sido pervertida al traducirse a un sistema exclusivamente economicista de compraventa de derechos de contaminación, cuyo resultado -no podría ser otro- es un incremento de las emisiones y de los beneficios económicos globales asociados (sin ir más lejos, es el caso de España, que ha visto incrementado su porcentaje de emisiones de CO2 en un 15% respecto a los valores de 1990, aunque, de seguir su
política como hasta el momento, podrían ser superiores en un 60% a finales de 2012).
Un desarrollo erróneo
El avance de este cuarto informe pone de manifiesto, pues, lo erróneo del camino recorrido a base de una interesada transformación del concepto de desarrollo sostenible en sólo desarrollo limitado cuantitativamente. La socialización del uso de los combustibles fósiles y su asunción como algo imprescindible para nuestro modus vivendi acarrean un precio impagable como planeta -vienen a decir sus conclusiones- y toda apuesta por los mismos desprecia la realidad en la
que desde hace unas décadas nos hallamos inmersos, que la modificación de sus efectos ya sólo se encuentra en parte en nuestras manos.
Así que hoy más que nunca cobra especial sentido la constatación de Desmond Morris cuando atribuía a nuestro proceso descivilizatorio el que continuáramos siendo ese sencillo animal tribal de hace varios miles de años, recriado al calor de su feroz industrialismo esquilmador, que se considera aparte, por encima y propietario del planeta.
China y los cambios climaticos
Los medios chinos silencian los efectos del cambio climático
PABLO M. DÍEZ.
CORRESPONSAL
PEKÍN.
En medio de humeantes chimeneas y bajo un cielo gris y cubierto por una neblina que oculta permanentemente el sol, los chinos continuaban trabajando ayer completamente ajenos a las serias advertencias lanzadas durante los últimos días por el Panel Intergubernamental del Cambio Climático (IPCC), que han relacionado de manera directa e inequívoca el calentamiento global con la mano del hombre.
Silencio en los medios de comunicación
A pesar de que el gigante asiático es uno de los países que más nota debería tomar del aviso efectuado por los expertos internacionales reunidos en París, los principales medios de comunicación chinos han silenciado sus conclusiones, que no han sido difundidas por la televisión estatal ni por los grandes rotativos y sólo han sido
recogidas brevemente por un par de periódicos.
Se trata de un ejemplo más del control que ejerce el régimen comunista de Pekín sobre los medios de comunicación, en los que sólo aparecen las noticias que el gobierno quiere airear. Y, evidentemente, la responsabilidad del ser humano en la alteración del clima no es una de ellas.
Primer contaminante
No en vano, China se convirtió durante el año 2005 en el primer país emisor de sustancias contaminantes al liberar a la atmósfera 25,49 millones de toneladas de dióxido de azufre, motivo por lo que es uno de los países que más contribuye a generar gases de efecto invernadero junto a Estados Unidos, Japón, la India, Australia y Corea del Sur, todos ellos críticos con el informe del IPCC y sus principales conclusiones.
Se ignora el Protocolo de Kioto
Pero, aunque China ha firmado y ratificado el Protocolo de Kioto para reducir dichos gases, sus fábricas y centrales térmicas -que queman carbón para suministrar el 80 por ciento de la electricidad que requiere su desenfrenado crecimiento económico- seguirán contaminando como hasta ahora. El motivo es que, al ser todavía un país en vías de desarrollo,
el coloso oriental se ve eximido de recortar sus emisiones porque esta tarea compete sólo a las naciones plenamente industrializadas.
Una peligrosa excepción que, establecida para facilitar el progreso de potencias emergentes como China, la India o Brasil, puede acabar pasándole factura al planeta Tierra porque Pekín ya ha reconocido su fracaso en la protección del medioambiente. Y es que, tras un cuarto de siglo de «milagro» económico, la "fábrica global» se encuentra tan contaminada que la lluvia ácida ya riega un tercio de su superficie y el 27% de sus 341 mayores urbes padecen unos niveles de polución en el aire :«muy peligrosos», al tiempo que el 70% de sus ríos y lagos están seriamente degradados y 300 millones de habitantes no tienen agua potable.
Los Impactos
Además de causar la muerte de 400.000 personas al año por enfermedades pulmonares y cardiovasculares, la contaminación amenaza con hipotecar los gastos sanitarios en el futuro y colapsar el altísimo crecimiento económico de China, puesto que los costes medioambientales ya suponen el 10 por ciento de su Producto Interior Bruto (PIB).
domingo, febrero 04, 2007
Hugo Chavez: The Electoral Phenomenon
Hugo Chavez: The Electoral Phenomenon
By Alek Boyd
Introduction
No book about contemporary politics of Venezuela can negate the fact that Hugo Chavez is an electoral phenomenon. Having won every electoral process in which he, his parties or candidates have participated since his first victory in 1998, Chavez embodies the exception to the rule that has that incumbents tend to suffer a decline in support as time elapses. In his case the contrary has actually happened, which may suggest that either Chavez is the most successful politico the modern world has seen or that his electoral victories are direct consequence of a power-hoarding model of governance similar to those encountered in dictatorships. It is my intention to unravel which of the two premises is closer to Venezuela ’s current political reality.
The Political Landscape
The 1998 presidential race: Hugo Chavez first democratic victory came about in December 1998; however his career in politics started well before that in the army. After more than 10 years of conspiration Lieutenant Colonel Hugo Chavez launched with a number of military companions a coup d’etat against a democratically elected administration on 4 February 1992 . Rampant corruption and purported neoliberal policies implemented by then president Carlos Andres Perez have been cited by Hugo Chavez as the reasons for his attempt. One policy had caused slum dwellers to react violently; an increase in gasoline prices, which caused transport fares to surge overnight. The many deaths –exact figure unknown until this day- caused by the implementation of a military contingency plan (Plan Avila) to placate the rioting mobs in Caracas on 27 February 1989 was the trigger for the putschists to accelerate the bid to gain power by unlawful means.
A poorly designed plan coupled with utterly inefficient leaders in charge of perpetrating it resulted in a fiasco. But despite his failure Chavez’s political persona was catapulted to stardom thanks to the media; his brief televised address to the nation, negotiated upon betrayal of his companions while hiding in Caracas ’ Museo Militar from where he was conducting the coup, turned him instantly into an icon. At the time there was consensus on the need to change the establishment, and Venezuelans for the most part, being only too prone for quick fixes, thought that the military adventure spearheaded by Chavez was not only commendable but a realistic solution to the country’s many social and political problems.
Jailed and pardoned at a latter date without having gone through trial by Carlos Andres Perez’s successor Rafael Caldera, upon regaining freedom Chavez made his first trip to Cuba in December 1994. Dictator Fidel Castro saw in him a window of opportunity. After the fall of his communist patrons in the Soviet Union an impoverished and abated Castro found himself resource less, the umbilical cord that maintained his communist revolution financially and militarily had been cut. However there he was, a young, charismatic, gullible soldier from the province, eager to implement in Venezuela a replica of Castro’s Animal Farm, something that the Cuban had not been able to achieve in its heyday. The dictator received his would-be apprentice like a hero and carefully laid the foundations of what would become a paternal sort of relationship. The prospect of controlling Venezuela ’s vast resources via a proxy was just what the dictator needed to oxygenate his failed revolution.
Chavez’s active involvement in politics started in earnest in 1995. Convinced of the dysfunctional status of the Venezuelan State he advocated for abstention, for a conscious effort of withdrawing support and citizen participation in electoral processes whose victors did not have the interests and needs of the population at heart. In many quarters of society his was a respected position. Politicians that had never been in positions of power in Venezuela jumped in the popular bandwagon, the goal being to tame Chavez and turn him into an obedient colleague, part of the crooked crew as it were.
Similarly powerful businessmen and media tycoons could not help themselves and boarded the train, supporting the coupster. It is a known fact for instance that Chavez lived in Miguel Henrique Otero’s house [owner of daily El Nacional] and traveled around the country in a plane lent by Henry Boulton [owner of extinct Avensa & Servivensa], which exemplifies the sort of appeal that Chavez had once upon a time, even among individuals whose democratic credentials were beyond question. The ménage a trois between Chavez, the powers that were and a large chunk of society came to its climax in 1998, when he was elected to the presidency. It is to be noted that in spite of being at what some considered his highest ever peak of popularity Chavez did not manage to get in 1998 as many votes as Carlos Andres Perez got a decade earlier. On a similar note, his then political mentor Luis Miquilena negotiated with Spanish bank BBVA a $1.5 million donation – $525.586 received December 1998 and $1 million July 1999 - the second disbursement of which Chavez readily accepted after having been sworn in legislation forbidding such acts notwithstanding.
But Chavez had great plans in mind. His winning ticket was generally speaking one of anti-corruption/crime/unemployment/poverty, although he also promised to eradicate the pest –represented by political parties’ (sic), to fry the heads of corrupt politicians (sic), to change his name had he fail to rescue streets children, to do away with all elected powers and dismantle institutions, to rewrite the constitution, to convene a National Constituent Assembly, etc. At the time Venezuelans heard only the bits they wanted to hear, the sheer disgust and discontentment towards the status quo was so generalized that the common stance could be defined as “anything but traditional politicos.” Venezuelans wanted desperately to get over the worse decade of its incipient democratic history.
In the late 80ies and early 90ies the country was rocked by unprecedented events. Starting with the infamous Caracazo in 89, coups d’etat (4 Feb and 27 Nov) in 92, impeachment and destitution of Carlos Andres Perez in 93 due to misuse of funds, an economy in tatters after the banking crisis in 1994, during Caldera’s second term (93-98) detrimental bond tender offers justified by an irresponsible director of Banco Central de Venezuela who candidly admitted “in 10 years time none of us will be around here” (sic), an utterly corrupt and inefficient administration from 93 onwards, in sum the majority thought that nothing could be worse and so they thrust support on Chavez who was seen as the great white hope.
Referenda processes and the National Constituent Assembly: With a fresh mandate and riding the popularity wave Chavez proposed a novel concept; that of referenda. At the time the body of laws was built upon the constitution of 1961, which, needs be stressed, did not contain any provision, article or mandate allowing the use of such supraconstitutional mechanism nor did it exist any legislation to that effect. But that did not stop Chavez. Ever the gifted communicator he convinced the people that under the circumstances he could not rule: his line of reasoning could be summarized as “the State and its institutions must be refound. Originary power resides in the people, as such I propose a referendum so that the people can vote on whether or not to convene a National Constituent Assembly that will rewrite the constitution and lay the foundations of a new State.” The actual question presented on referendum to voters on 25 April 1999 was “¿Convoca usted una Asamblea Nacional Constituyente con el propósito de transformar el Estado y crear un nuevo ordenamiento jurídico que permita el funcionamiento efectivo de una Democracia Social y Participativa?”
Neither him, nor the people, were bothered by the fact that convening a National Constituent Assembly was unconstitutional; with polls indicating 80% support he did not give a second thought about alienated parties. 3,630,666 votes, or 33% of registered voters, signed the blank check and approved the experiment of transforming the State, creating a new judicial order that would allow an effective functioning of a participative and social democracy. Selection of members of the Constituent Assembly followed and cronies of Chavez managed to get 124 out of the 131 seats. But an impatient Chavez rushed them to finish and requested for the new constitution to be written in 3 months instead of 6 as initially planned. His request was fulfilled with diligence and then came the approval of the new constitution, which was basically dictated by Chavez. In the new document of 350 articles rights to recall elected officials via referenda and to rebellion were enshrined. The State was to have five branches instead of the traditional three; Citizen and Moral powers were added to Judiciary, Legislative and Executive and the selection and appointment of officials to these posts were to follow strict rules to ensure independence.
On 15 December 1999 3,301,475 Venezuelans voted in favour of adopting the new constitution (30% of roll). Worth mentioning that there existed a discrepancy between total number of registered voters between the convening of the National Constituent Assembly on 25 April and the approval of the new constitution on 15 December; the roll decreased by 127,457 voters. So Chavez got his bespoke constitution and on 22 December 1999 the Constituent Assembly, a week before the new constitution was enacted, decreed a ‘transition regime,’ which ceased the functioning of Congress -permanently dissolving the Senate- legislative assemblies and all other public powers. Then, arguing that the new constitution had yet to take effect (it had been approved already a week earlier) it created a National Legislative Committee, appointed the new members of the Supreme Court, the people's Defender, the Attorney General, the National Electoral Commission and the Comptroller. In none of these cases were the procedures established by the new constitution followed.
For the second instance Chavez showed his true colors for none of these acts were improvised, but were implementation via ‘democratic means’ of measures devised and prepared well before 1992; in fact the first democratic coup in Venezuela’s history. In order to minimize criticism another stroke of genius; early into his presidency he invited Jose Vicente Rangel and Alfredo Peña to join the government, arguably two of the most dreaded journalists/critics in the country.
Enabling bill, street protests, strikes and the coup: In November 2000 Congress approved an Enabling bill to confer extraordinary powers to Chavez, who was to decree legislation in predetermined areas. Nearly a year to the day the Enabling bill was passed Chavez launched 49 laws. Ranging from land management passing through maritime rights to more mundane administrative issues the new bills prompted intense criticism in opposition quarters. To his credit most of them had to do with aspects related to his ‘socialist’ revolution, such as regulation of grants and credits to Small and Medium Enterprises. A Macro Stabilization Fund (FIEM in Spanish) was also created with the purpose of balancing budgets with extraordinary income deposited during windfall. Predictably most of the +$7 billion deposited with FIEM went missing, as Chavez irresponsibly disposed of the monies as he saw fit. But the strongest bone of contention was the Land bill, which introduced the concept of “idle land.” The idleness of the land was to be determined in subjective fashion by civil servants who, often, would use their discretionary powers as a mechanism to blackmail land owners, to settle political problems or simply to get parcels of land in sought after places.
All the while the opposition was sort of gathering momentum. Throughout 2001 and 2002 Venezuela ’s cities saw the biggest demonstrations ever recorded. The head of the country’s largest union –Carlos Ortega- joined forces with the chair of the business chamber –Carlos Fernandez- something unheard of previously, and ganged up against the regime. Together they organized massive protests, the goal being to halt the country’s economy. During this period Chavez fired Petroleos de Venezuela’s CEO and appointed in its stead an ignorant crony, which added more to the fire. Oil workers protested the decision for it did away with the meritocratic concept whereby promotions to higher positions in the company always came from the pool of talent within.
The situation was deteriorating rapidly to which Chavez reacted with even more dismissals; one good day in the middle of one of his televised Sunday talkathons (known as “Alo Presidente”) he started naming PDVSA board members and after blowing a whistle he would say “you’re fired!” It was considered to be the ultimate insult, up until that point PDVSA directors were the untouchables, no government official or public servant had dared dismiss a company director in such gross and disrespectful manner. However it was just another example that Chavez was not cut from the same cloth. The reaction was swift; a string of harsh statements leveling criticism ensued. The house of one PDVSA director was raided; that prompted a protest in a PDVSA building that was dispersed brutally by the military. Things heated up, by now Juan Fernandez, whose house was raided, joined forces with the pair of irreverent bosses.
The opposition had built enough momentum, or so its leadership thought, but little did it know what the future held. Disgruntled high ranking members of the army took their grief to the cameras, stating that the president had become authoritarian and that his behavior violated constitutional and democratic tenets. An ill prepared, loose coalition of natural born enemies decided that time was ripe to meet forces with Chavez’s monolithic regime. On 11 April 2002 some of the leaders of the opposition, intoxicated with the spectacle of the sight, decided to deviate hundreds of thousands of protesters that had gathered in front of Cubo Negro (adjacent to a PDVSA building) to Miraflores, Venezuela’s presidential palace. The human tide obeyed and marched towards the palace, but Chavistas (as Chavez’s supporters are known) were prep and ready –meaning armed and located in strategic positions- for the agitation and chaos that was to ensue. At that point the forces that had been irresponsibly unleashed were, quite naturally, out of control.
A rain of bullets met the protesters and, to this day, no one can claim knowledge as to which side started the shooting. Sharp shooters were seen in roof tops that were meant to be under Chavez’s personal security apparatus control (Casa Militar). Additionally members of Congress supportive of Chavez were bearing arms in Puente Llaguno, a sort of overpass above the avenue where the protesters were, and were filmed shooting against the advancing crowd that was shielded by officers from the Metropolitan Police. Confrontation did not last long, nonetheless 19 people were killed and about a hundred were wounded. The chain of events that followed are shrouded in mystery, current versions ranging from the whole thing being a US led coup to other versions that maintain that it was Chavez’s own machinations, seeking to purge the army of disloyal officers, that led to it. What is certain about it is that depending on the political tendency of he/she who recounts the episode any version pretty much goes for Chavez and his lackeys simply were not interested in determining who did what, torpedoing any meaningful investigations aimed at identifying those responsible. To the contrary, at a latter stage Chavez would bestow honors upon those congressmen seen shooting from Puente Llaguno, celebrating their zeal and defining them as “revolutionary heroes.”
What is known is that a group of high ranking officers, politicians and businessmen were plotting to oust Chavez. Just before the shooting began something that resembled an address from the Joint Chiefs of Staff appeared on TV withdrawing allegiance to the president. Chavez was addressing the nation while less than a mile from where he was mayhem was taking place. As mandatory the speeches of the president have to be broadcast jointly by all media, however some TV networks decided to split the screen; on one side Chavez was giving his usual dose of humbug on the other people were being killed on live television. The country was taken aback by the scenes in downtown Caracas . Fearing that the situation had gotten out of hand Chavez ordered the implementation of a military contingency plan known as Plan Avila.
The plan had been designed to counter militarily massive riots, lootings or any other event that would overwhelm Caracas ’ police forces. Tellingly the implementation by Carlos Andres Perez of this very same plan caused many deaths in Caracas in 1989 and was still fresh in many people’s minds. It could have been precisely because of that that the general in charge of implementing it (General Manuel Rosendo) disobeyed Chavez’s orders, expressing that he was not going to order tanks and troops out to counter a demonstration. So Rosendo’s subaltern General Luis Garcia Carneiro decided to act upon the president’s orders and sent some tanks to Miraflores, which, needs be said, never engaged in action. By this time the anger towards the president was generalized within the higher echelons of the army. Gathered in Fuerte Tiuna, Caracas’ military base, they found themselves debating what would the next step be, what would they do with Chavez, perceived as responsible for the bloodbath. Consensus was difficult to achieve as some insisted in imprisoning Chavez while others wanted to send him packing chez his Cuban mentor, as already requested by Chavez. But somewhere else in the city one Pedro Carmona, new leader of the business chamber (Fedecamaras) was having thoughts of his own. [To be continued...]
The Electoral Conditions
2006 Presidential Elections: whereas lack of transparency and fairness characterized electoral processes in the run up to the presidential race, this one was, despite some participating actors attesting to the contrary, more of the same. Chavez had by then completed his castling, appointing another staunch ally –Tibisay Lucena- to chair the electoral board. This move somewhat tranquilized opposition forces that felt that another election with Jorge Rodriguez at the helm would amount to no more than a sham. However the partisan structure of the CNE remained intact with a balance of power of 4 out of 5 board directors clearly identified with officialdom. The gamesmanship became evident early when leading academics of the three most important universities in the country (Universidad Central de Venezuela or UCV, Universidad Catolica Andres Bello or UCAB and Universidad Simon Bolivar or USB) proposed to audit the roll thoroughly for it was the bone of strongest contention between government and opposition. It was a known fact that the electoral roll had been artificially inflated in the millions through irresponsible registry mechanisms, unchecked identification processes, flawed methodology, lax ID-documents requirements were all part of the massive increase in the number of voters.
Notorious examples abound: the Gonzalez family with more than 2.000 members all born the same date and registered in the same house; or the +39.000 voters over 100 hundred years of age -a statistical impossibility given the country's population; or the entries of unidentified voters called XX; in sum these corollary of fabricated voters -created to re-elect Chavez- cast many doubts on the overall transparency of the process. According to current legislation (art. 93 of the Organic Law of Suffrage and Political Participation) the CNE is obliged to release to political parties and interested groups that so require copies of each list of voters published by the Office of Electoral Register.
Furthermore the director of said office shall certify a) that such lists are exact copies of the roll and b) whether the released copies represent partial or total content of the electoral roll. But the CNE had of course different mandates to fulfill. Never stating clearly that auditing under strict academic standards was not to be permitted another proposal was put forward: the audit was to be conducted by a joint panel formed by experts of UCV, UCAB, USB and unknown academics lacking credentials from six other universities and one scientific research institute (IVIC). The added institutions were either created by Chavez or controlled by supporters: incredibly out of the seven additions only one institution (IVIC) had reputable statisticians actively engaged in research but they were explicitly forbidden by CNE from taking part in the audit in any way. Furthermore the CNE saw fit to negotiate and impose the most appropriate method to conduct the audit in clear violation to the law.
The impression that Venezuela had a thriving democracy needed to be maintained at all costs. Ergo the next step to be taken was to file a considerable number of candidates, though everyone sort of knew that it was going to be a two horse race. Once these hurdles were overcome came the revelation for this was far from being a typical presidential campaign as understood and known in Western countries. For Manuel Rosales did not just confront Hugo Chavez but the Venezuelan State. Chavez did not relinquish his powers and ominous control over all institutions, nor did he show any restraints in using public funds for campaigning purposes. The ratio of TV-time of the two candidates was 22 to 1 in favor of Chavez; the budget of his campaign unknown, aggravated by the fact that no institution would dare take any members of cabinet –many of whom were assigned responsibilities within the official campaign team- or the president into account.
Airports were closed to prevent Rosales’s plane from landing; access roads to Caracas were shut to block access to Rosales’s rallies; governors and mayors supportive of Chavez in the hinterlands would use public resources to organize violent anti-Rosales protests that coincided with his rallies; electricity was cut in many rallies around the country to impede Rosales’s message to be heard in popular gatherings; intelligence police kept filming and photographing Rosales’s campaign team members as they got off planes and cars in order to intimidate them; TV crews from official media were dispatched to cover Rosales’s events while journalist from privately owned media were forbidden to attend Chavez’s meetings; public funds were used to hire thousands of buses to transport chavistas to meetings; millions were spent on paying chavistas to get them to attend rallies of the official candidate; official vehicles and buildings were covered with propaganda; in sum this was anything but a normal race. International observers present in the country expressed utter dismay at the abuse of public resources by the Chavez camp; the CNE board however did not find any of it out of the ordinary or illegal. Under such conditions a favorable result for the opposition was impossible to achieve. [To be continued...]
By Alek Boyd
Introduction
No book about contemporary politics of Venezuela can negate the fact that Hugo Chavez is an electoral phenomenon. Having won every electoral process in which he, his parties or candidates have participated since his first victory in 1998, Chavez embodies the exception to the rule that has that incumbents tend to suffer a decline in support as time elapses. In his case the contrary has actually happened, which may suggest that either Chavez is the most successful politico the modern world has seen or that his electoral victories are direct consequence of a power-hoarding model of governance similar to those encountered in dictatorships. It is my intention to unravel which of the two premises is closer to Venezuela ’s current political reality.
The Political Landscape
The 1998 presidential race: Hugo Chavez first democratic victory came about in December 1998; however his career in politics started well before that in the army. After more than 10 years of conspiration Lieutenant Colonel Hugo Chavez launched with a number of military companions a coup d’etat against a democratically elected administration on 4 February 1992 . Rampant corruption and purported neoliberal policies implemented by then president Carlos Andres Perez have been cited by Hugo Chavez as the reasons for his attempt. One policy had caused slum dwellers to react violently; an increase in gasoline prices, which caused transport fares to surge overnight. The many deaths –exact figure unknown until this day- caused by the implementation of a military contingency plan (Plan Avila) to placate the rioting mobs in Caracas on 27 February 1989 was the trigger for the putschists to accelerate the bid to gain power by unlawful means.
A poorly designed plan coupled with utterly inefficient leaders in charge of perpetrating it resulted in a fiasco. But despite his failure Chavez’s political persona was catapulted to stardom thanks to the media; his brief televised address to the nation, negotiated upon betrayal of his companions while hiding in Caracas ’ Museo Militar from where he was conducting the coup, turned him instantly into an icon. At the time there was consensus on the need to change the establishment, and Venezuelans for the most part, being only too prone for quick fixes, thought that the military adventure spearheaded by Chavez was not only commendable but a realistic solution to the country’s many social and political problems.
Jailed and pardoned at a latter date without having gone through trial by Carlos Andres Perez’s successor Rafael Caldera, upon regaining freedom Chavez made his first trip to Cuba in December 1994. Dictator Fidel Castro saw in him a window of opportunity. After the fall of his communist patrons in the Soviet Union an impoverished and abated Castro found himself resource less, the umbilical cord that maintained his communist revolution financially and militarily had been cut. However there he was, a young, charismatic, gullible soldier from the province, eager to implement in Venezuela a replica of Castro’s Animal Farm, something that the Cuban had not been able to achieve in its heyday. The dictator received his would-be apprentice like a hero and carefully laid the foundations of what would become a paternal sort of relationship. The prospect of controlling Venezuela ’s vast resources via a proxy was just what the dictator needed to oxygenate his failed revolution.
Chavez’s active involvement in politics started in earnest in 1995. Convinced of the dysfunctional status of the Venezuelan State he advocated for abstention, for a conscious effort of withdrawing support and citizen participation in electoral processes whose victors did not have the interests and needs of the population at heart. In many quarters of society his was a respected position. Politicians that had never been in positions of power in Venezuela jumped in the popular bandwagon, the goal being to tame Chavez and turn him into an obedient colleague, part of the crooked crew as it were.
Similarly powerful businessmen and media tycoons could not help themselves and boarded the train, supporting the coupster. It is a known fact for instance that Chavez lived in Miguel Henrique Otero’s house [owner of daily El Nacional] and traveled around the country in a plane lent by Henry Boulton [owner of extinct Avensa & Servivensa], which exemplifies the sort of appeal that Chavez had once upon a time, even among individuals whose democratic credentials were beyond question. The ménage a trois between Chavez, the powers that were and a large chunk of society came to its climax in 1998, when he was elected to the presidency. It is to be noted that in spite of being at what some considered his highest ever peak of popularity Chavez did not manage to get in 1998 as many votes as Carlos Andres Perez got a decade earlier. On a similar note, his then political mentor Luis Miquilena negotiated with Spanish bank BBVA a $1.5 million donation – $525.586 received December 1998 and $1 million July 1999 - the second disbursement of which Chavez readily accepted after having been sworn in legislation forbidding such acts notwithstanding.
But Chavez had great plans in mind. His winning ticket was generally speaking one of anti-corruption/crime/unemployment/poverty, although he also promised to eradicate the pest –represented by political parties’ (sic), to fry the heads of corrupt politicians (sic), to change his name had he fail to rescue streets children, to do away with all elected powers and dismantle institutions, to rewrite the constitution, to convene a National Constituent Assembly, etc. At the time Venezuelans heard only the bits they wanted to hear, the sheer disgust and discontentment towards the status quo was so generalized that the common stance could be defined as “anything but traditional politicos.” Venezuelans wanted desperately to get over the worse decade of its incipient democratic history.
In the late 80ies and early 90ies the country was rocked by unprecedented events. Starting with the infamous Caracazo in 89, coups d’etat (4 Feb and 27 Nov) in 92, impeachment and destitution of Carlos Andres Perez in 93 due to misuse of funds, an economy in tatters after the banking crisis in 1994, during Caldera’s second term (93-98) detrimental bond tender offers justified by an irresponsible director of Banco Central de Venezuela who candidly admitted “in 10 years time none of us will be around here” (sic), an utterly corrupt and inefficient administration from 93 onwards, in sum the majority thought that nothing could be worse and so they thrust support on Chavez who was seen as the great white hope.
Referenda processes and the National Constituent Assembly: With a fresh mandate and riding the popularity wave Chavez proposed a novel concept; that of referenda. At the time the body of laws was built upon the constitution of 1961, which, needs be stressed, did not contain any provision, article or mandate allowing the use of such supraconstitutional mechanism nor did it exist any legislation to that effect. But that did not stop Chavez. Ever the gifted communicator he convinced the people that under the circumstances he could not rule: his line of reasoning could be summarized as “the State and its institutions must be refound. Originary power resides in the people, as such I propose a referendum so that the people can vote on whether or not to convene a National Constituent Assembly that will rewrite the constitution and lay the foundations of a new State.” The actual question presented on referendum to voters on 25 April 1999 was “¿Convoca usted una Asamblea Nacional Constituyente con el propósito de transformar el Estado y crear un nuevo ordenamiento jurídico que permita el funcionamiento efectivo de una Democracia Social y Participativa?”
Neither him, nor the people, were bothered by the fact that convening a National Constituent Assembly was unconstitutional; with polls indicating 80% support he did not give a second thought about alienated parties. 3,630,666 votes, or 33% of registered voters, signed the blank check and approved the experiment of transforming the State, creating a new judicial order that would allow an effective functioning of a participative and social democracy. Selection of members of the Constituent Assembly followed and cronies of Chavez managed to get 124 out of the 131 seats. But an impatient Chavez rushed them to finish and requested for the new constitution to be written in 3 months instead of 6 as initially planned. His request was fulfilled with diligence and then came the approval of the new constitution, which was basically dictated by Chavez. In the new document of 350 articles rights to recall elected officials via referenda and to rebellion were enshrined. The State was to have five branches instead of the traditional three; Citizen and Moral powers were added to Judiciary, Legislative and Executive and the selection and appointment of officials to these posts were to follow strict rules to ensure independence.
On 15 December 1999 3,301,475 Venezuelans voted in favour of adopting the new constitution (30% of roll). Worth mentioning that there existed a discrepancy between total number of registered voters between the convening of the National Constituent Assembly on 25 April and the approval of the new constitution on 15 December; the roll decreased by 127,457 voters. So Chavez got his bespoke constitution and on 22 December 1999 the Constituent Assembly, a week before the new constitution was enacted, decreed a ‘transition regime,’ which ceased the functioning of Congress -permanently dissolving the Senate- legislative assemblies and all other public powers. Then, arguing that the new constitution had yet to take effect (it had been approved already a week earlier) it created a National Legislative Committee, appointed the new members of the Supreme Court, the people's Defender, the Attorney General, the National Electoral Commission and the Comptroller. In none of these cases were the procedures established by the new constitution followed.
For the second instance Chavez showed his true colors for none of these acts were improvised, but were implementation via ‘democratic means’ of measures devised and prepared well before 1992; in fact the first democratic coup in Venezuela’s history. In order to minimize criticism another stroke of genius; early into his presidency he invited Jose Vicente Rangel and Alfredo Peña to join the government, arguably two of the most dreaded journalists/critics in the country.
Enabling bill, street protests, strikes and the coup: In November 2000 Congress approved an Enabling bill to confer extraordinary powers to Chavez, who was to decree legislation in predetermined areas. Nearly a year to the day the Enabling bill was passed Chavez launched 49 laws. Ranging from land management passing through maritime rights to more mundane administrative issues the new bills prompted intense criticism in opposition quarters. To his credit most of them had to do with aspects related to his ‘socialist’ revolution, such as regulation of grants and credits to Small and Medium Enterprises. A Macro Stabilization Fund (FIEM in Spanish) was also created with the purpose of balancing budgets with extraordinary income deposited during windfall. Predictably most of the +$7 billion deposited with FIEM went missing, as Chavez irresponsibly disposed of the monies as he saw fit. But the strongest bone of contention was the Land bill, which introduced the concept of “idle land.” The idleness of the land was to be determined in subjective fashion by civil servants who, often, would use their discretionary powers as a mechanism to blackmail land owners, to settle political problems or simply to get parcels of land in sought after places.
All the while the opposition was sort of gathering momentum. Throughout 2001 and 2002 Venezuela ’s cities saw the biggest demonstrations ever recorded. The head of the country’s largest union –Carlos Ortega- joined forces with the chair of the business chamber –Carlos Fernandez- something unheard of previously, and ganged up against the regime. Together they organized massive protests, the goal being to halt the country’s economy. During this period Chavez fired Petroleos de Venezuela’s CEO and appointed in its stead an ignorant crony, which added more to the fire. Oil workers protested the decision for it did away with the meritocratic concept whereby promotions to higher positions in the company always came from the pool of talent within.
The situation was deteriorating rapidly to which Chavez reacted with even more dismissals; one good day in the middle of one of his televised Sunday talkathons (known as “Alo Presidente”) he started naming PDVSA board members and after blowing a whistle he would say “you’re fired!” It was considered to be the ultimate insult, up until that point PDVSA directors were the untouchables, no government official or public servant had dared dismiss a company director in such gross and disrespectful manner. However it was just another example that Chavez was not cut from the same cloth. The reaction was swift; a string of harsh statements leveling criticism ensued. The house of one PDVSA director was raided; that prompted a protest in a PDVSA building that was dispersed brutally by the military. Things heated up, by now Juan Fernandez, whose house was raided, joined forces with the pair of irreverent bosses.
The opposition had built enough momentum, or so its leadership thought, but little did it know what the future held. Disgruntled high ranking members of the army took their grief to the cameras, stating that the president had become authoritarian and that his behavior violated constitutional and democratic tenets. An ill prepared, loose coalition of natural born enemies decided that time was ripe to meet forces with Chavez’s monolithic regime. On 11 April 2002 some of the leaders of the opposition, intoxicated with the spectacle of the sight, decided to deviate hundreds of thousands of protesters that had gathered in front of Cubo Negro (adjacent to a PDVSA building) to Miraflores, Venezuela’s presidential palace. The human tide obeyed and marched towards the palace, but Chavistas (as Chavez’s supporters are known) were prep and ready –meaning armed and located in strategic positions- for the agitation and chaos that was to ensue. At that point the forces that had been irresponsibly unleashed were, quite naturally, out of control.
A rain of bullets met the protesters and, to this day, no one can claim knowledge as to which side started the shooting. Sharp shooters were seen in roof tops that were meant to be under Chavez’s personal security apparatus control (Casa Militar). Additionally members of Congress supportive of Chavez were bearing arms in Puente Llaguno, a sort of overpass above the avenue where the protesters were, and were filmed shooting against the advancing crowd that was shielded by officers from the Metropolitan Police. Confrontation did not last long, nonetheless 19 people were killed and about a hundred were wounded. The chain of events that followed are shrouded in mystery, current versions ranging from the whole thing being a US led coup to other versions that maintain that it was Chavez’s own machinations, seeking to purge the army of disloyal officers, that led to it. What is certain about it is that depending on the political tendency of he/she who recounts the episode any version pretty much goes for Chavez and his lackeys simply were not interested in determining who did what, torpedoing any meaningful investigations aimed at identifying those responsible. To the contrary, at a latter stage Chavez would bestow honors upon those congressmen seen shooting from Puente Llaguno, celebrating their zeal and defining them as “revolutionary heroes.”
What is known is that a group of high ranking officers, politicians and businessmen were plotting to oust Chavez. Just before the shooting began something that resembled an address from the Joint Chiefs of Staff appeared on TV withdrawing allegiance to the president. Chavez was addressing the nation while less than a mile from where he was mayhem was taking place. As mandatory the speeches of the president have to be broadcast jointly by all media, however some TV networks decided to split the screen; on one side Chavez was giving his usual dose of humbug on the other people were being killed on live television. The country was taken aback by the scenes in downtown Caracas . Fearing that the situation had gotten out of hand Chavez ordered the implementation of a military contingency plan known as Plan Avila.
The plan had been designed to counter militarily massive riots, lootings or any other event that would overwhelm Caracas ’ police forces. Tellingly the implementation by Carlos Andres Perez of this very same plan caused many deaths in Caracas in 1989 and was still fresh in many people’s minds. It could have been precisely because of that that the general in charge of implementing it (General Manuel Rosendo) disobeyed Chavez’s orders, expressing that he was not going to order tanks and troops out to counter a demonstration. So Rosendo’s subaltern General Luis Garcia Carneiro decided to act upon the president’s orders and sent some tanks to Miraflores, which, needs be said, never engaged in action. By this time the anger towards the president was generalized within the higher echelons of the army. Gathered in Fuerte Tiuna, Caracas’ military base, they found themselves debating what would the next step be, what would they do with Chavez, perceived as responsible for the bloodbath. Consensus was difficult to achieve as some insisted in imprisoning Chavez while others wanted to send him packing chez his Cuban mentor, as already requested by Chavez. But somewhere else in the city one Pedro Carmona, new leader of the business chamber (Fedecamaras) was having thoughts of his own. [To be continued...]
The Electoral Conditions
2006 Presidential Elections: whereas lack of transparency and fairness characterized electoral processes in the run up to the presidential race, this one was, despite some participating actors attesting to the contrary, more of the same. Chavez had by then completed his castling, appointing another staunch ally –Tibisay Lucena- to chair the electoral board. This move somewhat tranquilized opposition forces that felt that another election with Jorge Rodriguez at the helm would amount to no more than a sham. However the partisan structure of the CNE remained intact with a balance of power of 4 out of 5 board directors clearly identified with officialdom. The gamesmanship became evident early when leading academics of the three most important universities in the country (Universidad Central de Venezuela or UCV, Universidad Catolica Andres Bello or UCAB and Universidad Simon Bolivar or USB) proposed to audit the roll thoroughly for it was the bone of strongest contention between government and opposition. It was a known fact that the electoral roll had been artificially inflated in the millions through irresponsible registry mechanisms, unchecked identification processes, flawed methodology, lax ID-documents requirements were all part of the massive increase in the number of voters.
Notorious examples abound: the Gonzalez family with more than 2.000 members all born the same date and registered in the same house; or the +39.000 voters over 100 hundred years of age -a statistical impossibility given the country's population; or the entries of unidentified voters called XX; in sum these corollary of fabricated voters -created to re-elect Chavez- cast many doubts on the overall transparency of the process. According to current legislation (art. 93 of the Organic Law of Suffrage and Political Participation) the CNE is obliged to release to political parties and interested groups that so require copies of each list of voters published by the Office of Electoral Register.
Furthermore the director of said office shall certify a) that such lists are exact copies of the roll and b) whether the released copies represent partial or total content of the electoral roll. But the CNE had of course different mandates to fulfill. Never stating clearly that auditing under strict academic standards was not to be permitted another proposal was put forward: the audit was to be conducted by a joint panel formed by experts of UCV, UCAB, USB and unknown academics lacking credentials from six other universities and one scientific research institute (IVIC). The added institutions were either created by Chavez or controlled by supporters: incredibly out of the seven additions only one institution (IVIC) had reputable statisticians actively engaged in research but they were explicitly forbidden by CNE from taking part in the audit in any way. Furthermore the CNE saw fit to negotiate and impose the most appropriate method to conduct the audit in clear violation to the law.
The impression that Venezuela had a thriving democracy needed to be maintained at all costs. Ergo the next step to be taken was to file a considerable number of candidates, though everyone sort of knew that it was going to be a two horse race. Once these hurdles were overcome came the revelation for this was far from being a typical presidential campaign as understood and known in Western countries. For Manuel Rosales did not just confront Hugo Chavez but the Venezuelan State. Chavez did not relinquish his powers and ominous control over all institutions, nor did he show any restraints in using public funds for campaigning purposes. The ratio of TV-time of the two candidates was 22 to 1 in favor of Chavez; the budget of his campaign unknown, aggravated by the fact that no institution would dare take any members of cabinet –many of whom were assigned responsibilities within the official campaign team- or the president into account.
Airports were closed to prevent Rosales’s plane from landing; access roads to Caracas were shut to block access to Rosales’s rallies; governors and mayors supportive of Chavez in the hinterlands would use public resources to organize violent anti-Rosales protests that coincided with his rallies; electricity was cut in many rallies around the country to impede Rosales’s message to be heard in popular gatherings; intelligence police kept filming and photographing Rosales’s campaign team members as they got off planes and cars in order to intimidate them; TV crews from official media were dispatched to cover Rosales’s events while journalist from privately owned media were forbidden to attend Chavez’s meetings; public funds were used to hire thousands of buses to transport chavistas to meetings; millions were spent on paying chavistas to get them to attend rallies of the official candidate; official vehicles and buildings were covered with propaganda; in sum this was anything but a normal race. International observers present in the country expressed utter dismay at the abuse of public resources by the Chavez camp; the CNE board however did not find any of it out of the ordinary or illegal. Under such conditions a favorable result for the opposition was impossible to achieve. [To be continued...]
sábado, febrero 03, 2007
Poderes y Dictadura
JUAN FRANCISCO ALONSO
EL UNIVERSAL
El otorgamiento de poderes especiales al presidente Hugo Chávez, por parte de la Asamblea Nacional, fue criticado por la gran prensa europea, la cual advirtió que éstos podrían abrir las puertas a la instauración de un régimen dictatorial "con base en decretos".
En su editorial de ayer, títulado "Chávez, sin dique", El País de Madrid, el principal diario de la centroizquierda española, afirmó: "Con la Ley Habilitante, el Parlamento venezolano ha otorgado al Presidente poderes casi dictatoriales, contrarios a todo concepto de división de
poderes".
Acto seguido acusó al jefe del Estado de no atender los postulados del Libertador Simón Bolívar, pues hizo caso omiso del pensamiento que dice: "Huid del país donde uno solo ejerce todos los poderes: Es un país de esclavos".
El rotativo, el de mayor lectoría en España, calificó de injustificable la decisión del Legislativo, donde no hay un solo diputado opositor, de facultar al Ejecutivo para legislar "a su antojo" en materias que van desde la economía, pasando por la transformación del Estado hasta llegar a la ciencia y tecnología.
"Estamos asistiendo a un proceso revolucionario y a una concentración de poder que empezaron hace tiempo. No por casualidad el líder venezolano se muestra junto a Fidel Castro con tanta frecuencia: quiere erigirse en su heredero político en América Latina, a la vez que ha ido fraguando unas redes de apoyo internacional a su servicio", puntualizó.
Por su parte, el Monárquico ABC de Madrid, en su editorial "Rumbo a la dictadura bolivariana", aseveró que la solicitud presidencial de poderes extraordinarios "no es más que el reflejo de su obsesión patológica por el ejercicio del poder directo, además de una expresión del fracaso de los mecanismos ordinarios de su administración: El régimen venezolano es Chávez y nada funciona por debajo del Presidente, porque todos sus subordinados están chapoteando en la corrupción y nadie es capaz de seguir las ensoñaciones revolucionarias del ex militar golpista".
El Diario, el tercero más vendido en España, aseguró que el Gobierno venezolano dejó de ser democrático, aun cuando fue electo en las urnas, pues "ha destruido el Poder Judicial, ha viciado las salvaguardas del proceso electoral, ha empezado a cerrar medios de comunicación porque le molestan las críticas y ahora ha anulado al Parlamento para legislar por decreto (...) No queda más remedio que advertir que Hugo Chávez está llevando a los venezolanos de cabeza a una dictadura".
Los cuestionamientos también llegaron desde Alemania, donde el diario Suddeutsche Zeitung expresó su preocupación porque el "todopoderoso" mandatario recibiera facultades adicionales de parte de la Asamblea Nacional.
"El presidente venezolano rigió desde un principio mediante plebiscitos, gracias a su gran sentido del poder. El problema radica en el sistema y Hugo Chávez se aprovecha de eso", recalcó el matutino germano en su edición de ayer, en la cual también advirtió que la única manera de consolidar la democracia en Venezuela y en el resto de América Latina es
"modificando las condiciones sociales en esos países".
EL UNIVERSAL
El otorgamiento de poderes especiales al presidente Hugo Chávez, por parte de la Asamblea Nacional, fue criticado por la gran prensa europea, la cual advirtió que éstos podrían abrir las puertas a la instauración de un régimen dictatorial "con base en decretos".
En su editorial de ayer, títulado "Chávez, sin dique", El País de Madrid, el principal diario de la centroizquierda española, afirmó: "Con la Ley Habilitante, el Parlamento venezolano ha otorgado al Presidente poderes casi dictatoriales, contrarios a todo concepto de división de
poderes".
Acto seguido acusó al jefe del Estado de no atender los postulados del Libertador Simón Bolívar, pues hizo caso omiso del pensamiento que dice: "Huid del país donde uno solo ejerce todos los poderes: Es un país de esclavos".
El rotativo, el de mayor lectoría en España, calificó de injustificable la decisión del Legislativo, donde no hay un solo diputado opositor, de facultar al Ejecutivo para legislar "a su antojo" en materias que van desde la economía, pasando por la transformación del Estado hasta llegar a la ciencia y tecnología.
"Estamos asistiendo a un proceso revolucionario y a una concentración de poder que empezaron hace tiempo. No por casualidad el líder venezolano se muestra junto a Fidel Castro con tanta frecuencia: quiere erigirse en su heredero político en América Latina, a la vez que ha ido fraguando unas redes de apoyo internacional a su servicio", puntualizó.
Por su parte, el Monárquico ABC de Madrid, en su editorial "Rumbo a la dictadura bolivariana", aseveró que la solicitud presidencial de poderes extraordinarios "no es más que el reflejo de su obsesión patológica por el ejercicio del poder directo, además de una expresión del fracaso de los mecanismos ordinarios de su administración: El régimen venezolano es Chávez y nada funciona por debajo del Presidente, porque todos sus subordinados están chapoteando en la corrupción y nadie es capaz de seguir las ensoñaciones revolucionarias del ex militar golpista".
El Diario, el tercero más vendido en España, aseguró que el Gobierno venezolano dejó de ser democrático, aun cuando fue electo en las urnas, pues "ha destruido el Poder Judicial, ha viciado las salvaguardas del proceso electoral, ha empezado a cerrar medios de comunicación porque le molestan las críticas y ahora ha anulado al Parlamento para legislar por decreto (...) No queda más remedio que advertir que Hugo Chávez está llevando a los venezolanos de cabeza a una dictadura".
Los cuestionamientos también llegaron desde Alemania, donde el diario Suddeutsche Zeitung expresó su preocupación porque el "todopoderoso" mandatario recibiera facultades adicionales de parte de la Asamblea Nacional.
"El presidente venezolano rigió desde un principio mediante plebiscitos, gracias a su gran sentido del poder. El problema radica en el sistema y Hugo Chávez se aprovecha de eso", recalcó el matutino germano en su edición de ayer, en la cual también advirtió que la única manera de consolidar la democracia en Venezuela y en el resto de América Latina es
"modificando las condiciones sociales en esos países".
Los principios claves de Goebbels
Los principios claves de Goebbels
Dr. Paul Joseph Goebbels (29 de octubre de 1897 - 1 de mayo de 1945) fue el ministro de propaganda del gobierno de Adolf Hitler (en alemán Propagandaministerium) en la Alemania Nazi. Fue una figura clave del régimen, conocido por sus dotes retóricas y su capacidad persuasiva.
Promovió la depuración de los ambientes culturales y la más extensa difusión de los mitos nazis. Se suicidó después de hacer envenenar a su esposa y a sus seis hijos. Una famosa cita de Goebbels, repetida hoy en día con
profusión: "Una mentira repetida mil veces se convierte en una verdad".
Los principios de Goebbels
Principio de simplificación y del enemigo único: Adoptar una única idea, un único símbolo, e individualizar al adversario en un único enemigo.
Principio del método de contagio: Reunir diversos adversarios en una sola categoría o individuo; los adversarios han de constituirse en suma individualizada.
Principio de la transposición: Cargar sobre el adversario los propios errores o defectos, respondiendo al ataque con el ataque. "Si no puedes negar las malas noticias, inventa otras que las distraigan".
Principio de la exageración y desfiguración: Convertir cualquier anécdota, por pequeña que sea, en amenaza grave.
Principio de la vulgarización: "Toda propaganda debe ser popular, adaptando su nivel al menos inteligente de los individuos a los que va dirigida. Cuanto más grande sea la masa a convencer, más pequeño ha de ser el esfuerzo mental a realizar. La capacidad receptiva de las masas es limitada y su comprensión escasa; además, tienen gran facilidad para
olvidar."
Principio de orquestación: "La propaganda debe limitarse a un número pequeño de ideas y repetirlas incansablemente, presentadas una y otra vez desde diferentes perspectivas pero siempre convergiendo sobre el mismo
concepto. Sin fisuras ni dudas. Si una mentira se repite suficientemente, acaba por convertirse en verdad."
Principio de renovación: Hay que emitir constantemente informaciones y argumentos nuevos a un ritmo tal que, cuando el adversario responda, el público esté ya interesado en otra cosa. Las respuestas del adversario nunca han de poder contrarrestar el nivel creciente de acusaciones.
Principio de la verosimilitud: Construir argumentos a partir de fuentes diversas, a través de los llamados globos sondas o de informaciones fragmentarias.
Principio de la silenciación: Acallar las cuestiones sobre las que no se tienen argumentos y disimular las noticias que favorecen el adversario, también contraprogramando con la ayuda de medios de comunicación afines.
Principio de la transfusión: Por regla general, la propaganda opera siempre a partir de un sustrato preexistente, ya sea una mitología nacional o un complejo de odios y prejuicios tradicionales; se trata de difundir argumentos que puedan arraigar en actitudes primitivas.
Principio de la unanimidad: Llegar a convencer a mucha gente que se piensa "como todo el mundo", creando una falsa impresión de unanimidad.
¿Te suena, te suena, verdad que te suena ..?
"A nadie le faltan fuerzas, lo que le falta a muchos es voluntad"
Víctor Hugo
viernes, febrero 02, 2007
Caracas tambien tiene su mesquita...
En una misma cuadra se encuentran varias iglesias de otros cultos diferentes a las iglesias católicas. Existe una mesquita y en frente una iglesia protestante y más adelante una sinagoga. Los griegos también tiene en la ciudad de Caracas una bella iglesia dedicada a su culto y en la Urbanización La Lagunita una iglesia polaca con unos murales espectaculares.
Un periodico venezolano en Miami
En este periódico pueden leer: actualidad, ciencia y tecnología, comunidad, deportes, economía, farándula, internacional, opiniones,política. turísmo y salud.
Talking about a revolution
Talking about a revolution
Molly Watson
The Spectator
Part of the fun of visiting Venezuela is witnessing, at close quarters, the rapid descent into egomaniacal madness of its President, Hugo Chávez. Venezuelans, as Chávez never tires of reminding them, are in the grip of an anti-American socialist revolution and Chávez has begun to furnish himself with the sweeping powers befitting a revolutionary dictator.
Last month, when I was in the middle of a three-week trip through some of his country's remotest islands, his parliament, an institution packed with loyalists after an opposition boycott of elections in 2005, voted unanimously for his 'mother of all revolutionary laws', enabling him to rule by decree for the next 18 months. First on Chávez's To Do list is likely to be a measure allowing him to remain in office indefinitely.
Venezuela's armed forces, supreme court and attorney general's office have already been politicised to serve the Chávez regime.Now the country's central bank is set to lose its autonomous status as part of a purge of neoliberalism that includes plans to nationalise the electricity and telecommunications industries, secure the government a bigger portion of the spoils from the huge oil deposits under the Orinoco delta, shut down the largest opposition-run television channel and radio station and curb the powers of state governors and local mayors.
Everywhere you go, you see signs that Chávez is getting a taste for near-absolute power. Like his hero Fidel Castro, he has begun to indulge his eccentricities. Posters around the country show him donning military uniforms and presidential sashes (the latter worn symbolically over his left shoulder).
There he is on television, making rambling, hyperbolic speeches lasting several hours. His denunciation of George Bush as 'the Devil incarnate' was followed by the announcement of a direct flight service between Caracas and his new friends in Tehran — a long-haul route that is surely destined to be the least frequented in history. Twice married to women who have disappeared from public view amid rumours of domestic violence, he is alleged to have an active social life — one he shares with his brother, Adan, who, surprise surprise, has risen from obscurity to a key role in Chávez's 27-member cabinet of toadies.
If you're lucky, you'll see his fleet of enormous blacked-out Humvees sweeping through Caracas, and even in places where everyone goes barefoot and people can scarcely summon the energy to go fishing due to the equatorial climate where every imaginable tropical fruit is pretty much always in season, the very latest pro-Chávez slogans are immaculately painted on all prominent buildings. Persuading the vast majority of Venezuelans who live below the poverty line to vote for his policies of co-operatives and government subsidies was a trifle compared to the logistics of registering them to vote and getting them to polling stations.
Perhaps it sounds unnerving, but in fact, once you've grown sick of Chávez-watching, you'll find the ordinary Venezuelans have little interest in the revolutionary zeal of their President. Playful, charming and obsessed with their appearance, they struck me as natural-born consumers much more interested in tuning into MTV than redistributing the means of production along Marxist lines.
Venezuela is a country where the average citizen spends a fifth of his or her income on cosmetics and personal grooming and the reaction to living in an economy where inflation runs at between 14 and 30 per cent is to spend every spare bolivar on plastic surgery.
El Nacional, the major newspaper in Caracas, recently ran an editorial that its author précised for me as 'Big New Tits Can Buy You Paradise', describing how women would rather try to look beautiful and marry a man with money than save up for a mortgage or a university education.
Even the female receptionists at sleepy provincial car-hire outlets are caked in immaculately applied make-up, tap at their keyboards with perfectly manicured fingernails and wear six-inch heels to set off clothes so revealing they might give even Vicky Pollard pause. When a fellow passenger had a violent fit on a tiny plane I was island-hopping in, the locals on board seemed more concerned that she hadn't waxed under her arms recently than that the cabin was losing air pressure.
The national psyche of Venezuela is much too frivolous for socialism. I think it is a fun country whose culture and lifestyle is destined to get more, not less, American. The Venezuelans love telly. When they aren't watching their girls win the Miss World crown for the umpteenth time, they're glued to telenovelas — a variety of soap opera that makes Dynasty look like gritty realism. They love gambling. They have a collective sweet tooth that, combined with their insistence on driving
everywhere (petrol in Venezuela costs 2p a litre), is turning them into a nation of fatties.
When I decided to walk half a mile from a posada I was staying in on the island of Margarita to buy some chocolate, my
landlady treated the venture as an epic trek born of the loftiest saccharine-craving ideals — not because of the ever-present danger of being violently robbed or worse, but due to the enormous distance I would be undertaking on foot.
Middle-class Venezuelans, who are now severely restricted from exchanging their bolivars for dollars or any other foreign currency, don't share my optimism that Chávez will ultimately fail to subvert his countrymen's natural inclination (a Latino version of capitalism) to get rich and then pump up the music and make merry. One Venezuelan friend drew an analogy with Cuba, asking, 'Would anyone who lived through the era of Havana's casinos,dancing girls and mafia money have imagined communism would have succeeded there?' When I asked him what he would like me to send from England as a birthday present, he grimaced, then smiled, and suggested that I dispatch a parcel of condensed milk and tinned meat for the lean
times that may lie ahead.
Molly Watson
The Spectator
Part of the fun of visiting Venezuela is witnessing, at close quarters, the rapid descent into egomaniacal madness of its President, Hugo Chávez. Venezuelans, as Chávez never tires of reminding them, are in the grip of an anti-American socialist revolution and Chávez has begun to furnish himself with the sweeping powers befitting a revolutionary dictator.
Last month, when I was in the middle of a three-week trip through some of his country's remotest islands, his parliament, an institution packed with loyalists after an opposition boycott of elections in 2005, voted unanimously for his 'mother of all revolutionary laws', enabling him to rule by decree for the next 18 months. First on Chávez's To Do list is likely to be a measure allowing him to remain in office indefinitely.
Venezuela's armed forces, supreme court and attorney general's office have already been politicised to serve the Chávez regime.Now the country's central bank is set to lose its autonomous status as part of a purge of neoliberalism that includes plans to nationalise the electricity and telecommunications industries, secure the government a bigger portion of the spoils from the huge oil deposits under the Orinoco delta, shut down the largest opposition-run television channel and radio station and curb the powers of state governors and local mayors.
Everywhere you go, you see signs that Chávez is getting a taste for near-absolute power. Like his hero Fidel Castro, he has begun to indulge his eccentricities. Posters around the country show him donning military uniforms and presidential sashes (the latter worn symbolically over his left shoulder).
There he is on television, making rambling, hyperbolic speeches lasting several hours. His denunciation of George Bush as 'the Devil incarnate' was followed by the announcement of a direct flight service between Caracas and his new friends in Tehran — a long-haul route that is surely destined to be the least frequented in history. Twice married to women who have disappeared from public view amid rumours of domestic violence, he is alleged to have an active social life — one he shares with his brother, Adan, who, surprise surprise, has risen from obscurity to a key role in Chávez's 27-member cabinet of toadies.
If you're lucky, you'll see his fleet of enormous blacked-out Humvees sweeping through Caracas, and even in places where everyone goes barefoot and people can scarcely summon the energy to go fishing due to the equatorial climate where every imaginable tropical fruit is pretty much always in season, the very latest pro-Chávez slogans are immaculately painted on all prominent buildings. Persuading the vast majority of Venezuelans who live below the poverty line to vote for his policies of co-operatives and government subsidies was a trifle compared to the logistics of registering them to vote and getting them to polling stations.
Perhaps it sounds unnerving, but in fact, once you've grown sick of Chávez-watching, you'll find the ordinary Venezuelans have little interest in the revolutionary zeal of their President. Playful, charming and obsessed with their appearance, they struck me as natural-born consumers much more interested in tuning into MTV than redistributing the means of production along Marxist lines.
Venezuela is a country where the average citizen spends a fifth of his or her income on cosmetics and personal grooming and the reaction to living in an economy where inflation runs at between 14 and 30 per cent is to spend every spare bolivar on plastic surgery.
El Nacional, the major newspaper in Caracas, recently ran an editorial that its author précised for me as 'Big New Tits Can Buy You Paradise', describing how women would rather try to look beautiful and marry a man with money than save up for a mortgage or a university education.
Even the female receptionists at sleepy provincial car-hire outlets are caked in immaculately applied make-up, tap at their keyboards with perfectly manicured fingernails and wear six-inch heels to set off clothes so revealing they might give even Vicky Pollard pause. When a fellow passenger had a violent fit on a tiny plane I was island-hopping in, the locals on board seemed more concerned that she hadn't waxed under her arms recently than that the cabin was losing air pressure.
The national psyche of Venezuela is much too frivolous for socialism. I think it is a fun country whose culture and lifestyle is destined to get more, not less, American. The Venezuelans love telly. When they aren't watching their girls win the Miss World crown for the umpteenth time, they're glued to telenovelas — a variety of soap opera that makes Dynasty look like gritty realism. They love gambling. They have a collective sweet tooth that, combined with their insistence on driving
everywhere (petrol in Venezuela costs 2p a litre), is turning them into a nation of fatties.
When I decided to walk half a mile from a posada I was staying in on the island of Margarita to buy some chocolate, my
landlady treated the venture as an epic trek born of the loftiest saccharine-craving ideals — not because of the ever-present danger of being violently robbed or worse, but due to the enormous distance I would be undertaking on foot.
Middle-class Venezuelans, who are now severely restricted from exchanging their bolivars for dollars or any other foreign currency, don't share my optimism that Chávez will ultimately fail to subvert his countrymen's natural inclination (a Latino version of capitalism) to get rich and then pump up the music and make merry. One Venezuelan friend drew an analogy with Cuba, asking, 'Would anyone who lived through the era of Havana's casinos,dancing girls and mafia money have imagined communism would have succeeded there?' When I asked him what he would like me to send from England as a birthday present, he grimaced, then smiled, and suggested that I dispatch a parcel of condensed milk and tinned meat for the lean
times that may lie ahead.
jueves, febrero 01, 2007
El Blog de Rodolfo Schmidt
En el blog de Rodolfo Schmidt se coemnta la nueva Ley de Inmuebles. Este periodista hace un análisis y una interpretación de esa polémica ley. Allí se dice lo siguiente como dos informaciones alarmantes y polémicas:
“Proyecto de la nueva Ley de Inmuebles:
Art. 14 - ” Se tendrá como inmueble sub-ocupado, toda aquella unidad habitacional que, estando ocupada, supere las necesidades reales de su o sus ocupantes, sean éstos o no propietario (s) o propietaria ( s) de la misma, la cual será objeto de expropiación sin perjuicio de los anteriores, los cuales serán reubicados de acuerdo a lo dispuesto en las leyes y reglamentos que rigen la materia.”. (rmarcano99@yahoo.com)
Una vez aprobada la “ley” ¿ se aplicará sólo a los “oposicionistas” o también a los robolivarianos en el Alto Poder?. Por cierto,…
“El ex (…) del CNE, Jorge Rodríguez (hoy Vice-presidente del País) , se muda para el edificio “Parque La Cornisa” en Altamira. Allá los apartamentos no bajan de los ¡4 millardos de bolívares! (“Negociables”), como puede verse en las gráficas (Suprimidas). ¿Puedes tu comprarte esos 550 M2 de apartamento en Altamira? ¿Acaso él ha trabajado más que tu en la vida?. 5 habitaciones; baños, 4; estacionamientos, 4; 2 ascensores….”. (En reserva).
“Proyecto de la nueva Ley de Inmuebles:
Art. 14 - ” Se tendrá como inmueble sub-ocupado, toda aquella unidad habitacional que, estando ocupada, supere las necesidades reales de su o sus ocupantes, sean éstos o no propietario (s) o propietaria ( s) de la misma, la cual será objeto de expropiación sin perjuicio de los anteriores, los cuales serán reubicados de acuerdo a lo dispuesto en las leyes y reglamentos que rigen la materia.”. (rmarcano99@yahoo.com)
Una vez aprobada la “ley” ¿ se aplicará sólo a los “oposicionistas” o también a los robolivarianos en el Alto Poder?. Por cierto,…
“El ex (…) del CNE, Jorge Rodríguez (hoy Vice-presidente del País) , se muda para el edificio “Parque La Cornisa” en Altamira. Allá los apartamentos no bajan de los ¡4 millardos de bolívares! (“Negociables”), como puede verse en las gráficas (Suprimidas). ¿Puedes tu comprarte esos 550 M2 de apartamento en Altamira? ¿Acaso él ha trabajado más que tu en la vida?. 5 habitaciones; baños, 4; estacionamientos, 4; 2 ascensores….”. (En reserva).
miércoles, enero 31, 2007
Monumento a Bolívar
MONUMENTO A BOLIVAR, VECTOR APUNTADO A EEUU, DIJO NIEMEYER
Por
Karem Holmquist H.
RIO DE JANEIRO, 31 (ANSA) - El arquitecto Oscar Niemeyer, de 99 años y uno de los intelectuales más sólidos de la izquierda de brasileña, explicó que el diseño del monumento a Simón Bolívar, a construirse en Caracas, es un "vector" que apunta a Estados Unidos.
"Sabía que un monumento a Bolívar debía tener plásticamente la grandeza de esa figura de revolucionario tan querida en Venezuela y en los demás países de Latinoamérica", comentó.
"La idea que se me ocurría, un extenso triángulo apuntado hacia el exterior, me entusiasmaba. Y lo diseñé con 100 metros de altura y 170 metros de extensión", anticipó el arquitecto creador de Brasilia, la capital del país, y de innumerables obras en el mundo.
La iniciativa del monumento a Bolívar surgió de la visita que realizó el presidente de Venezuela, Hugo Chávez, a Niemeyer, la última noche en que el mandatario estuvo en Rio de Janeiro con motivo de la Cumbre del Mercosur, el pasado viernes 19.
El vector diseñado, que prevé al pie de la estructura cercada de un espejo de agua, un museo dedicado a Bolívar, apunta a Estados Unidos.
"Para algunos era una forma un poco agresiva, pero para mí justifica el momento político que vivimos en Latinoamérica, con Venezuela liderando el movimiento de resistencia a las agresiones de Bush", destacó el arquitecto en un texto publicado por la prensa local.
Para Niemeyer, el monumento "refleja cómo eran indispensables la audacia y el coraje de ese gran líder de Latinaomérica", completó.
31/01/2007 13:31
Castro and Chavez
By
Michael Bowman
Voice of America
For nearly 50 years, Cuban President Fidel Castro has been Latin America's best-known leftist revolutionary. Who will wear the revolutionary mantle in the post-Castro era? Many analysts believe President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela will pick up Castro's banner, but others question whether Mr. Chavez will ever attain the Cuban leader's international stature. VOA's Michael Bowman reports from Washington.
Until disappearing from public view in 2006, Fidel Castro lambasted the United States at every turn. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, a self-proclaimed socialist, does the same.
"The hegemonic pretensions of the American empire are placing at risk the very survival of the human species," Chavez told the UN General Assembly.
Hugo Chavez viewed Fidel Castro as a mentor and friend. Campaigning for re-election last year, he dedicated his victory to the man he called "the bearded one."
Cuba expert Wayne Smith of the Center for International Policy says, "Fidel Castro is seen as the revolutionary leader, the historical figure opposed to the United States. It is that which gave Castro his position, his standing, his stature in Latin America. Hugo Chavez, clearly, wants to receive that mantle, wants to receive that heritage."
Can he succeed? Mr. Chavez is already emulating the Cuban leader's style of governance, according to Michael Shifter of the Inter-American Dialogue, a policy analysis group.
"I think his commitment to democracy -- in terms of rule of law, checks and balances, constraints on his power -- I think [is] not too far away from Fidel Castro's. [Mr. Chavez] has a tremendous desire to consolidate and concentrate power in his own hands, to make all decisions. Just as Fidel Castro made all decisions in running Cuba, he wants to make all decisions in running Venezuela."
But can Mr. Chavez capture Fidel Castro's larger-than-life stature?
"Fidel Castro fought the revolution, fought against the Batista government. He had his troops, he went to the mountains,” explains Shifter. “This is somebody who is seen as having made a sacrifice, having fought on the basis of ideas and convictions. Hugo Chavez is somebody seen as being lucky for presiding over a situation of high oil prices and using that as a political instrument."
In the 1960s and '70s, Fidel Castro tried to export communism across Latin America. In recent years, President Chavez has used his country's vast oil wealth to forge new economic and political ties in the region. Analyst Wayne Smith says Mr. Chavez' international overtures appear to be meeting less resistance than did Fidel Castro's.
"Castro, for all practical purposes, most of the time, was alone. There was no one else [championing socialism in Latin America]. Now, Hugo Chavez has all sorts of leftist friends in Latin America to hold hands with," Smith says.
Chavez allies include Bolivian President Evo Morales, Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa and Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega. However, Mr. Chavez' tendency to declare his favorites in other countries' presidential races has led to friction with Peru, and elsewhere in Latin America.
Friction could also be on the horizon between Caracas and Havana, according to analyst Ian Vasquez of the Cato Institute.
"Raul Castro, it is rumored, is not that fond of Hugo Chavez, and will be very careful not to come under his thumb. He has been under the thumb of his own brother for more than 40 years. He certainly is not going to want to be under the thumb of a new upstart trying to model himself on his brother. So there are inevitably going to be some tensions between Cuba and Venezuela."
In an era of growing global energy consumption, analyst Vazquez says, Venezuela's vast oil wealth automatically makes it a player on the world stage, in a way that Cuba never was under Fidel Castro. But, he adds, the Venezuelan model, relying heavily on petrodollars to satisfy people's needs, is one that few other nations can follow.
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)