• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

New Canadian Politics Thread

He chose to structure the economy on nothing but oil, with zero diversification, and he allowed/caused the oil industry and his government to be inextricably intertwined and corrupt, leaving the country defenseless against a drop in oil prices.
 
His government could have done more to diversify but they were pretty busy lifting millions out of poverty. In terms of corruption, you talk as though this isn't something endemic to the state.
 
His government could have done more to diversify but they were pretty busy lifting millions out of poverty. In terms of corruption, you talk as though this isn't something endemic to the state.

Hey chile lifted millions out of poverty as well. Doesn't excuse their undemocratic tendencies either.

But you cannot blame the sanctions for their economic troubles.
 
"undemocratic tendencies" ... what would these be, precisely? I'm interested in what you think is so off that you'd call an elected government authoritarian.
 
This is a country that has been subjected to a pretty much non-stop 'destabilization program'.

Trump though, has absolutely rachetted this up (with full bipartisan support).




He's referring to the dark lord of american foreign policy, erik prince.
 
"undemocratic tendencies" ... what would these be, precisely? I'm interested in what you think is so off that you'd call an elected government authoritarian.

Because he created a system in which winning the election gave him unlimited authoritarian power with no checks or balances, which of course included the ability to manipulate the elections themselves.
 

This populist constitution-making tradition has its origins in the French Revolution. In 1789, an obscure French clergyman argued that the French people possessed the “constituent power” (pouvoir constituant) to remake the constitutional system. To do this, he argued that an extraordinary body of the people’s elected representatives—a constituent assembly—should establish a new constitutional system of government. This constituent assembly was the ultimate “free radical” of politics: Bearing the limitless power of the “common will of the nation itself,” it—and the leader that controlled it—would be superior to any pre-existing law or institution. In the years that followed, the allure of such concentrated popular power has proven irresistible to aspiring dictators.



In the late 1990s, Hugo Chavez joined this list. Hours after being sworn in as president in 1999, Chavez issued a decree calling for a referendum on a constituent assembly to rewrite the Venezuela constitution. Opponents immediately challenged this decree in court, arguing that existing constitution required the legislature to call such a referendum. The Venezuelan Supreme Court rejected this argument, upholding Chavez’s power to call a referendum because the people’s constituent power is “superior” to the existing constitution. In a subsequent decision, however, the court backed away from this reasoning, holding that if the people approved a constituent assembly, it would be “bound to the spirit of the constitution in force, and therefore is limited by the fundamental principles of the democratic state of law.”



After winning the referendum and successfully gerrymandering a majority in the Constituent Assembly, Chavez ignored this subsequent ruling completely. Calling the vote a “home run with the bases loaded,” Chavez declared the Constituent Assembly to embody the limitless sovereign power of the people. He argued that “neither the president nor Congress nor the Supreme Court, which are the maximum representatives of the constituted powers, can contrive to place themselves above, or put into a subordinate position, a sovereign elected assembly.” To prove this point, he placed his own presidency at the mercy of the Constituent Assembly, retaking the oath of office after the Constituent Assembly “re-elected” him president. Chavez was now in control of the ultimate “free radical” in Venezuela politics.



The judiciary tried to beat back these claims of ultimate power. Chief justice of the Supreme Court, Cecilia Sosa Gomez, argued that the Constituent Assembly’s responsibility was to draw up a new constitution and not to destroy existing institutions. These arguments, however, were too late. Soon after, the Constituent Assembly considered and approved a “national declaration of emergency” that authorized it to reshape Venezuela’s existing government. The Constituent Assembly fired a number of judges for “corruption” and replaced them with pliant new ones. The assembly next neutered the existing Venezuelan legislature, reducing it to a largely powerless body that rubberstamped the actions of the Constituent Assembly.



Members of the legislature challenged these actions in the Supreme Court. A reshaped Supreme Court accepted Chavez’s argument that the Constituent Assembly stood above above the existing legal order. Chavez’s coup had succeeded. He used his unfettered control over Venezuelan politics to push through a new constitution in December 1999 that strengthened the presidency at the expense of the legislature.



Constitutional Charisma



This constitution is still in force today. Chavez’s revolutionary populist arguments are now part of the text. Article 347 states that “the original constituent power rests with the people of Venezuela” and that this power can be exercised by “calling a National Constituent Assembly for the purpose of transforming the state, creating a new juridical order and drawing up a new constitution.” Article 349 of the constitution explains that “[t]he existing constituted authorities shall not be permitted to obstruct the Constituent Assembly in any way.”



These provisions are an uneasy reminder of the continuing threat of charismatic dictatorship to existing rules and institutions. With the “free radical” of Venezuela politics—the Constituent Assembly—enshrined in the text, Chavez leaves a problematic legacy for those hoping a post-Chavez Venezuela will establish “a government of laws and not men.”
 
You seem to be confusing "unlimited authoritarian power" with broadening the vote whereby the traditional elite don't get much vote because, well, they are a small minority that most people don't like.
 
This populist constitution-making tradition has its origins in the French Revolution. In 1789, an obscure French clergyman argued that the French people possessed the “constituent power” (pouvoir constituant) to remake the constitutional system. To do this, he argued that an extraordinary body of the people’s elected representatives—a constituent assembly—should establish a new constitutional system of government. This constituent assembly was the ultimate “free radical” of politics: Bearing the limitless power of the “common will of the nation itself,” it—and the leader that controlled it—would be superior to any pre-existing law or institution. In the years that followed, the allure of such concentrated popular power has proven irresistible to aspiring dictators.



In the late 1990s, Hugo Chavez joined this list. Hours after being sworn in as president in 1999, Chavez issued a decree calling for a referendum on a constituent assembly to rewrite the Venezuela constitution. Opponents immediately challenged this decree in court, arguing that existing constitution required the legislature to call such a referendum. The Venezuelan Supreme Court rejected this argument, upholding Chavez’s power to call a referendum because the people’s constituent power is “superior” to the existing constitution. In a subsequent decision, however, the court backed away from this reasoning, holding that if the people approved a constituent assembly, it would be “bound to the spirit of the constitution in force, and therefore is limited by the fundamental principles of the democratic state of law.”



After winning the referendum and successfully gerrymandering a majority in the Constituent Assembly, Chavez ignored this subsequent ruling completely. Calling the vote a “home run with the bases loaded,” Chavez declared the Constituent Assembly to embody the limitless sovereign power of the people. He argued that “neither the president nor Congress nor the Supreme Court, which are the maximum representatives of the constituted powers, can contrive to place themselves above, or put into a subordinate position, a sovereign elected assembly.” To prove this point, he placed his own presidency at the mercy of the Constituent Assembly, retaking the oath of office after the Constituent Assembly “re-elected” him president. Chavez was now in control of the ultimate “free radical” in Venezuela politics.



The judiciary tried to beat back these claims of ultimate power. Chief justice of the Supreme Court, Cecilia Sosa Gomez, argued that the Constituent Assembly’s responsibility was to draw up a new constitution and not to destroy existing institutions. These arguments, however, were too late. Soon after, the Constituent Assembly considered and approved a “national declaration of emergency” that authorized it to reshape Venezuela’s existing government. The Constituent Assembly fired a number of judges for “corruption” and replaced them with pliant new ones. The assembly next neutered the existing Venezuelan legislature, reducing it to a largely powerless body that rubberstamped the actions of the Constituent Assembly.



Members of the legislature challenged these actions in the Supreme Court. A reshaped Supreme Court accepted Chavez’s argument that the Constituent Assembly stood above above the existing legal order. Chavez’s coup had succeeded. He used his unfettered control over Venezuelan politics to push through a new constitution in December 1999 that strengthened the presidency at the expense of the legislature.



Constitutional Charisma



This constitution is still in force today. Chavez’s revolutionary populist arguments are now part of the text. Article 347 states that “the original constituent power rests with the people of Venezuela” and that this power can be exercised by “calling a National Constituent Assembly for the purpose of transforming the state, creating a new juridical order and drawing up a new constitution.” Article 349 of the constitution explains that “[t]he existing constituted authorities shall not be permitted to obstruct the Constituent Assembly in any way.”



These provisions are an uneasy reminder of the continuing threat of charismatic dictatorship to existing rules and institutions. With the “free radical” of Venezuela politics—the Constituent Assembly—enshrined in the text, Chavez leaves a problematic legacy for those hoping a post-Chavez Venezuela will establish “a government of laws and not men.”
Where is this from -- CIA world facts site?
 
You seem to be confusing "unlimited authoritarian power" with broadening the vote whereby the traditional elite don't get much vote because, well, they are a small minority that most people don't like.

I'm not. He enacted a system where there were no checks and balances left. Winning an election gave him unrestrained power.
 
This populist constitution-making tradition has its origins in the French Revolution. In 1789, an obscure French clergyman argued that the French people possessed the “constituent power” (pouvoir constituant) to remake the constitutional system. To do this, he argued that an extraordinary body of the people’s elected representatives—a constituent assembly—should establish a new constitutional system of government. This constituent assembly was the ultimate “free radical” of politics: Bearing the limitless power of the “common will of the nation itself,” it—and the leader that controlled it—would be superior to any pre-existing law or institution. In the years that followed, the allure of such concentrated popular power has proven irresistible to aspiring dictators.



In the late 1990s, Hugo Chavez joined this list. Hours after being sworn in as president in 1999, Chavez issued a decree calling for a referendum on a constituent assembly to rewrite the Venezuela constitution. Opponents immediately challenged this decree in court, arguing that existing constitution required the legislature to call such a referendum. The Venezuelan Supreme Court rejected this argument, upholding Chavez’s power to call a referendum because the people’s constituent power is “superior” to the existing constitution. In a subsequent decision, however, the court backed away from this reasoning, holding that if the people approved a constituent assembly, it would be “bound to the spirit of the constitution in force, and therefore is limited by the fundamental principles of the democratic state of law.”



After winning the referendum and successfully gerrymandering a majority in the Constituent Assembly, Chavez ignored this subsequent ruling completely. Calling the vote a “home run with the bases loaded,” Chavez declared the Constituent Assembly to embody the limitless sovereign power of the people. He argued that “neither the president nor Congress nor the Supreme Court, which are the maximum representatives of the constituted powers, can contrive to place themselves above, or put into a subordinate position, a sovereign elected assembly.” To prove this point, he placed his own presidency at the mercy of the Constituent Assembly, retaking the oath of office after the Constituent Assembly “re-elected” him president. Chavez was now in control of the ultimate “free radical” in Venezuela politics.



The judiciary tried to beat back these claims of ultimate power. Chief justice of the Supreme Court, Cecilia Sosa Gomez, argued that the Constituent Assembly’s responsibility was to draw up a new constitution and not to destroy existing institutions. These arguments, however, were too late. Soon after, the Constituent Assembly considered and approved a “national declaration of emergency” that authorized it to reshape Venezuela’s existing government. The Constituent Assembly fired a number of judges for “corruption” and replaced them with pliant new ones. The assembly next neutered the existing Venezuelan legislature, reducing it to a largely powerless body that rubberstamped the actions of the Constituent Assembly.



Members of the legislature challenged these actions in the Supreme Court. A reshaped Supreme Court accepted Chavez’s argument that the Constituent Assembly stood above above the existing legal order. Chavez’s coup had succeeded. He used his unfettered control over Venezuelan politics to push through a new constitution in December 1999 that strengthened the presidency at the expense of the legislature.



Constitutional Charisma



This constitution is still in force today. Chavez’s revolutionary populist arguments are now part of the text. Article 347 states that “the original constituent power rests with the people of Venezuela” and that this power can be exercised by “calling a National Constituent Assembly for the purpose of transforming the state, creating a new juridical order and drawing up a new constitution.” Article 349 of the constitution explains that “[t]he existing constituted authorities shall not be permitted to obstruct the Constituent Assembly in any way.”



These provisions are an uneasy reminder of the continuing threat of charismatic dictatorship to existing rules and institutions. With the “free radical” of Venezuela politics—the Constituent Assembly—enshrined in the text, Chavez leaves a problematic legacy for those hoping a post-Chavez Venezuela will establish “a government of laws and not men.”
I think you've been to university, no? So what does it mean when someone presents writing without citing the reference or noting it is not their own words?

In any event, this is from the Brookings Institute.


BI has been a major advocate for regime change in Venezuela and gives academic cover to this enterprise.


Being an advocate for regime change in Venezuela (i.e., destabilization, coups, etc.), BI gets its money from some unsurprising places. With Qatar as it's biggest foreign donor and members of the billionaire class as it's major domestic donors , the expertise on democracy is surely unparalleled.
 
Hey attack the source if you want. No source disputes the constitutional changes and what they mean. No source disputes his ill governance of their economy.


But for the life of me I don't know why you don't care when these guys get rid of term limits, abolish all checks and balances, and then leave the country in ruins while pocketing the profits.
 
Hey attack the source if you want. No source disputes the constitutional changes and what they mean. No source disputes his ill governance of their economy.


But for the life of me I don't know why you don't care when these guys get rid of term limits, abolish all checks and balances, and then leave the country in ruins while pocketing the profits.
My unbiased source on what constitutes good democracy is in bed with oligarchs and one of the most repressive governments in the world and is also a major promoter of regime change in Venezula. All good, bro. lol
 
All you got is attacking a source. Never addressing the facts. That's weak

politicacomparada.com › 201...PDF
Personalist Leaders and Constitutional Changes. Líderes personalistas y cambios constitucionales. Explorando los ... - Revista latinoamericana de política comparada
 
Any time you want to present anything defending his constitutional shenanigans, or his personal profiting while his economy burned, I'm all ears.
 
Two can play your game (although I won't present it as my own words).

Political System​


Government type: Federal republic, with five branches of government: executive, legislative, judiciary, electoral, and citizen.


Capital: Caracas


Executive branch: President Nicolas Maduro (since 19 April 2013) Chief of state and head of government are held by the president elected by popular vote for a six-year term with a two consecutive term limit. The Council of Ministers is appointed by the president.


Legislative Branch: Unicameral National Assembly or Asamblea Nacional (165 seats; members elected by popular vote to serve five-year terms; three seats reserved for the indigenous peoples of Venezuela).


Judicial Branch: Supreme Tribunal of Justice or Tribunal Suprema de Justicia. Magistrates are elected by the National assembly for a single 12-year term.


Electoral Branch: National Electoral Council or Consejo Electoral Nacional (CNE) administers all elections, including those held within civil society. Its five principal members are elected by the National Assembly for a seven-year term. The current president of the CNE is Tibisay Lucena.


Citizen Branch: This branch ensures that citizens and government officials follow the countries laws. It consists of the Attorney General (or Prosecutor General), the Comptroller General, and the Defender of the People (Human Rights Ombudsperson).


Major Political Parties:
There are currently two major blocs of political parties in Venezuela: the incumbent leftist bloc United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV), its major allies Fatherland for All (PPT) and the Communist Party of Venezuela (PCV), and the opposition bloc grouped into the electoral coalition Mesa de la Unidad Democrática. This includes A New Era (UNT) together with allied parties Project Venezuela, Justice First, Movement for Socialism (MAS) and others. Hugo Chávez, the central figure of the Venezuelan political landscape since his election to the Presidency in 1998 as a political outsider, died in office in early 2013, and was succeeded by Nicolás Maduro (initially as interim President, before narrowly winning the Venezuelan presidential election, 2013).

 
Interesting website. They quote Wikipedia for their "History" section on their front page, but decide to cut off their excerpt starting exactly here:


...The Democratic Unity Roundtable contested his election as fraud and as a violation of the constitution. An audit of 56% of the vote showed no discrepancies,[92] and the Supreme Court of Venezuela ruled that under Venezuela's Constitution, Nicolás Maduro is the legitimate president and was invested as such by the Venezuelan National Assembly (Asamblea Nacional).[93][94][95] Opposition leaders and some international media consider the government of Maduro to be a dictatorship.[96][97][98][99] Beginning in February 2014, hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans have protested over high levels of criminal violence, corruption, hyperinflation, and chronic scarcity of basic goods due to policies of the federal government.[100][101][102][103][104] Demonstrations and riots have left over 40 fatalities in the unrest between both Chavistas and opposition protesters,[105] and has led to the arrest of opposition leaders including Leopoldo López[105][106] and Antonio Ledezma.[107][108][109][110] Human rights groups have strongly condemned the arrest of Leopoldo López.[111] In the 2015 Venezuelan parliamentary election, the opposition gained a majority.[112]

...

In January 2016, President Maduro decreed an "economic emergency" revealing the extent of the crisis and expanding his powers.[129] In July 2016, Colombian border crossings were temporarily opened to allow Venezuelans to purchase food and basic household and health items in Colombia.[130] In September 2016, a study published in the Spanish-language Diario Las Américas[131] indicated that 15% of Venezuelans are eating "food waste discarded by commercial establishments".

Close to 200 riots had occurred in Venezuelan prisons by October 2016, according to Una Ventana a la Libertad, an advocacy group for better prison conditions. The father of an inmate at Táchira Detention Center in Caracas alleged that his son was cannibalized by other inmates during a month-long riot, a claim corroborated by an anonymous police source but denied by the Minister of Correctional Affairs.[132]


Maduro was inaugurated for a contested and controversial second term on 10 January 2019.
In 2017, Venezuela experienced a constitutional crisis in the country. In March 2017, opposition leaders branded President Nicolas Maduro a dictator after the Maduro-aligned Supreme Tribunal, which had been overturning most National Assembly decisions since the opposition took control of the body, took over the functions of the assembly, pushing a lengthy political standoff to new heights.[96] However, the Supreme Court quickly backed down and reversed its decision on 1 April 2017. A month later, President Maduro announced the 2017 Venezuelan Constituent Assembly election and on 30 August 2017, the 2017 Constituent National Assembly was elected into office and quickly stripped the National Assembly of its powers.

In December 2017, President Maduro declared that leading opposition parties would be barred from taking part in following year's presidential vote after they boycotted mayoral polls.[133]....



 
Back
Top