Chavez: for or against

No, the Venezuelen constitution authorizes a referendum, but in August at the earliest. The protestors want the referendum NOW, though, which is a bit silly, IMO.

Please include a cite on this Guardian article, this is the first I hear of Cuban-American involvement.

Is this it?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4398499,00.html

Nope, that sounds like a Bush administration official, who happens to be Cuban-American executing the administration’s policy. Long way from
your original quote

If that’s the article you remembered then I’m gonna have to take exception with your characterization, and call you on it.

Bayonet1976, that involvement by an administration official actually makes it sound worse than just an involvement by right wing Cuban-Americans.

Here is the article I remembered:

I have to acknowledge something: not all Cuban-americans are like that.

This is now only an opinion: I had the impression there was more to it. I will always think that when Miami is the place one escapes, I suspect the extreme right Cubans to be involved:

Or at least, the administration not bothering to investigate coup plotters that move in.

Nah, Miami has been the traditional place for Latin and South American exiles to gather. Castro himself spent some time in Miami when he was preparing for his invasion of Cuba.

Agree, but times are different; after the recent INS scandals, America is supposed to be more capable on finding the differences between a bona fide exile and a coup plotter.

Or is the administration looking the other way in this case? :dubious:

Pay closer attention, bayonet1976: it wasn’t me–it was Gigobuster.

Hello all, I’m happy to see that so many people gave their opinions on this matter, sorry that I couldn’t reply sooner but I’ve been busy….
To answer what Beagle asked: The thing that Chavez has done that I dislike the most is the polarization of an otherwise peaceful people. Venezuelans have shared a history of peaceful coexistence for over 100 years without a single revolution or war this century. Chavez has made it clear that you are either with him or an enemy that must be defeated. This has been made clear by his refusal to negotiate on any terms even if this means the collapse of the country as we know it. In his speeches anything that is not “Bolivarian” is attacked and ridiculed. This has created a vast rift between Chavez supporters and the opposition which has lead to violence and many deaths. A proper analogy would be if Bush said that anyone that was not a Republican was a traitor to the nation.

  • On the matter of the referendum: Today the Venezuelan supreme court ruled out the validity of a referendum, that was to be held Feb. 2, basically on a technicality. This referendum was simply to ask the people whether they approved of Chavez or not. If he lost the referendum he did not have to stand down, it was simply to officially show that he did no have the support of the majority. Such referendums are in the constitution and all the legal steps necessary were taken to undergo it (such as collecting 2000000 signatures).
  • Another issue that I would like to settle: Chavez does no have the support of the poor, most of his support comes from the poor classes but this is different than having the support of the poor. Chavez has between 30 to 20 % popularity (this may seem like a lot but remember that he has pushed anyone that does not support him to despise him, which means that 70% can’t stand the sight of him.) In a country with 70% of the population being poor, you don’t have the support of the poor if only 30% is with you. And on a side note, basically all democratic Venezuelan presidents have been populist (you don’t win an election in a country with 70% of poverty without at least making yourself seem like a populist) so those of you that say past Venezuelan governments have been right wing assholes exploiting the poor, let me tell you that you are wrong.
  • And let me remind all of you that still believe Chavez is a great democrat, He was discharged from the army and arrested for leading a military coup in 1994.
  • About the “coup”: what happened here in April was very peculiar. I guess it was a coup, but not in the traditional sense of the word, it was kind of a constitutional coup (this is evident in the fact that none of the coup leaders have been arrested on any formal charge and they are all free and protesting in plaza Altamira). There is a controversial article in the Venezuelan constitution, article 350, which basically gives you the right to not recognize a government that violates basic human rights. On the 11 of April, many of the military high command used this article to ask for Chavez’s resignation because of the violence that occurred that day on an opposition march towards the presidential palace (19 people were killed). No tanks assaulted the palace or any troops fired any bullets (although some legions loyal to Chavez went to defend the palace). Chavez resigned (he himself has admitted this) and then the army put Carmona Estanga as president who then, thinking that it was a traditional coup, went on to violate the constitution which lead to the collapse of his government. I believe that the US had little part in these acts, it was all very haphazard and bizarre.

More bizarre it sounds because you are not taking into account the fact that while he was prisoner by the coup plotters, members of the government and sympathizers of Chavez were being rounded up and as Narco news reported some were murdered. In those conditions anybody could be forced to say they resigned, but I have yet to see a quote were he says that he resigned while not in custody, it does stretch the truth when I see this being put forward still. The reason why the Venezuelan media got to be discredited was that Chavez “resignation”, and the fact that they called the coup a “democratic action” even weeks after the coup.
In other words: do you have a cite for that admitted resignation?

And I already knew about Chavez previous coup history, the Venezuelans knew that already when they voted for him! Bringing that up is just interesting, but the majority of Venezuelans choose to dismiss the past.

Can you call him a dictator if it allows a hostile press to remain even after all that?

And for the umpteenth time: I think he should be voted out of office. The opposition is not off the hook: IMO it takes two to tango, and it is silly to say Chavez alone is the reason for this mess.

**If you resign at gunpoint, does that count as a “resignation”? I can’t find where Chavez himself got up and announced that he had resigned–one of the generals apparently issued the statement.

http://www.inq7.net/wnw/2002/apr/13/wnw_1-1.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1925161.stm

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/04/13/world/main506100.shtml

I am not saying that I approve of the coup, it was a coup. I just wanted to point out that it was not all that unconstitutional. It is also interesting to point out that the military general who publicly announced Chavez’s resignation is today the minister of defense. But this is not the issue at hand and I would not like to have this debate go off in this direction…
GIGObuster:
I don’t have a CITE for his admitted resignation but I heard him say it on TV in an address to the nation after the coup. What do you think of Chavez’s refusal to hold a referendum? It’s in the constitution, you can have a referendum on any matter at any time just to see what people think. The fact that Chavez has boycotted this referendum (first by not allocating the necessary funds for it and then by having the supreme court dismiss it) is proof that he does not have popular support. If he did, holding the referendum and winning it would solve all his problems, the opposition would no longer ask for elections it would not win and the strike would end.

Um, how is a military coup d’etat ever “not all that unconstitutional”? You’re saying that a military coup can be constitutional? How?

If Chavez had announced his resignation on television, presumably the Honor Guard would have laid down their arms. But by late Saturday night, April 13, they hadn’t.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/americas/04/13/venezuela/

Timeline.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/americas/08/14/venezuela.unrest/

After Chavez was reinstated on Sunday, April 14, he did make a national television address.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/not_in_website/syndication/monitoring/media_reports/1929184.stm

So it doesn’t look to me like he ever publicly resigned.

Maybe you’re thinking of his April 14 “call for peace” address? Because the military had him in custody for those three days (“detention”)–he wasn’t allowed to make a statement to the press. That was why Rincon made the announcement.

The coup leaders did not break the constitution or any law in asking Chavez for his resignation, this is why they are free today and have not been acquitted for any crime. The act of removing Chavez from power was “constitutional” (there is a loophole in the constitution that allowed this). On a later date Chavez admitted that he resigned, but that it was not of his free will. There was an act and everything in which the Vice President gave Chavez the presidency back.

** Actually, it looks to me like both sides are exploiting technicalities. That’s how Politics works.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/americas/01/23/venezuela.strike.ap/index.html

The reason he resigned in 2000 was because of another referendum, to ask people if the current union leadership should be replaced.

Now, in a free society, the People decide what kind of trade unions they want; the President doesn’t impose them from above.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1047268.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1053594.stm

I don’t “get” that.

If it was constitutional, then why were the leaders of the coup brought up on charges? If it was legal, why were all these people arrested? The word “treason” was used. If the coup really was constitutional, “treason” shouldn’t even have been an issue.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2002/04/item20020414095530_1.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2194206.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2182097.stm

And, this says the coup’s transfer of power wasn’t constitutional anyway.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/04/13/world/main506100.shtml

http://www.inq7.net/wnw/2002/apr/15/wnw_1-1.htm

The legislature never officially accepted Chavez’ resignation, so that makes Carmona’s temporary government illegal. Then after Carmona resigned, the legislature named Cabello as acting president, with the understanding that it was only until Chavez got back.

If you think the Venezuelan constitution contains a provision or loophole permitting the transfer of power through military coups, I’m going to need to see a cite before I’ll believe it.

Here it is in words of one syllable. “The army kicked Chavez out.” Show me how it’s legal.

http://www.washtimes.com/world/20020413-18120759.htm

Please accept my apologies. On the other hand, was your post intended to support Gigobuster’s position that Cuban americans participated in the coup?

My post was intended to supply information. “Is this what you were thinking of?” I was asking him.

First, as some people already know by now, I am against Chávez.

And I want to clarify something that the international press or malinformation has being spreading.
The referendum that the opposition wanted to convoke was a “Consultive Referendum”. It is in the constitution, and it can be called in any time of the presidential period.
This referendum is consisted in a question or a group of questions that have to be approved (they were approved).
two million signatures (as Nanu said) were gathered for the approval.
It is important that you understand that this referendum is not a presidential election, and is not the Revocatory Referendum that others talk about (the one that can be called at the presidential midterm).