Ah ok.
AS for the “undemocratic” allegations, see my previous post.
Democracy isn’t the most efficient form of government, its not the most effective form of government, damn sure isn’t the most rational and reasonable form of government. It is simply the most just form of government. And my adamant and unwavering committment to democracy is based on nothing more. And nothing less.
So DS, it’s OK when Uribe does it – append the Constitution for re-election – but when Chavez and/or Morales does, “they are not ready for democracy.” 
Meanwhile it must come as a huge surprise to Germany’s Chancellor and/or France’s, Spain’s, Italy’s, Japan’s or the UK’s Prime-ministers, amongst others, that they are not ready for democracy as there are no inherent time limits in their respective Constitutions.
What else have you got? Because so far you have nothing…
PS-For that matter neither does the US Senate. Robert Byrd, Strum Thurmond, Ted Keneddy, Dan Inouye et al…ring a bell?
-
Did I say that Uribe’s efforts are any different? You must have me mixed up with someone else…
-
The issue is not one of inherent term limits. The issue is one of changes made for the purpose of obtaining power and in the process circumscribing the democratic process. And when another decade has passed, and all these men are still in power, and democratic opposition to them has been stifled, when they have cemented themselves in power, and reduced the checks on the system from other branches of government, y’all will see why these things are important.
Or, as H.L. Mencken put it, “Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.”
And when (if) that happens, we will condemn any undemocratic actions on their part.
What undemocratic actions are Chavez et., al commiting now?.
Why did you mention all the leftists presidents (Morales, Ortega, etc) as plotting to become dictators but failed to mention Uribe?.
OK. So Colombia is not ready for democracy either. We appear to be running out of countries that meet your criteria for democracy.
Just sayin’
Should have told us from the start that you’re a Seer. Can’t argue with such awesome predictive powers. Not with logic anyway.
By the bye, any cites for Frodo’s question?
Evo Morales’ new constitution wins in January, 2009 referendum. This constitution, among other things, allows Morales to run for a second term, which he would not previously have been allowed to do. He has promised not to run for more than one such additional term, a promise I can almost guarantee he will not keep if he has his choice.
One of the real potential problems in democracies is the possibility of the “tyrrany of the majority.” This was understood by our founding fathers; they spent agonizing weeks during 1787 trying to figure out ways to make sure that a sudden shift in popular sentiment couldn’t result in a reduction of the rights of those not in the majority, or a manipulation of the process to result in changes in the structure of the government. This is why our constitution has many “checks and balances.” Thus, for example, the Congress can impeach the President, the Supreme Court’s members are appointed for life (subject to impeachment, of course), impeachment requires a super-majority, the members of the representative branch of Congress have a two-year term, so that they must face public opinion again every two years, and cannot entrench themselves easily (of course, the Gerrymander and computers have rendered that a nullity, but oh well), etc. Amendment of the Constitution is such an onerous process that we’ve only done it 15 times (once with 10 at once, once with 3 at “once”). By contrast, various state constitutions get amended regularly because they don’t have such an onerous process, and the result is not pretty (see California’s current predicament).
Now we’ve not been perfect by any means. Anyone who lived through the late 40s and early 50s and the efforts of Sen. McCarthy and others to eradicate the supposed infection of Communism in our government and society can attest to that. There have been other isolated sad episodes (internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII, for example). But we’ve managed to resist the really unfortunate result of people in power in our national government trying to extend that power through changing the way it works. Indeed, the only time we elected someone to the office more than twice, we promptly made it so that it cannot happen again, we were so worried about the precedent it set and the effect it had on our government. Of course, limitations on the length of a leader’s time in office aren’t mandatory in a democracy, but it’s reasonably important that the democracy not be subverted to extend the rule of a leader as part of the tyrrany of the majority. That’s why people are worried about what happened in Iran. It isn’t that Ahmadinejad won that is bothersome, but that it may have been the result of manipulating the system, both subtly, and grossly.
Now to cut off a potential response, the fact that England doesn’t have a written constitution doesn’t mean it doesn’t have its own checks and balances in place. And as Margaret Thatcher showed, even though you can be in power as a Prime Minister for a while, there is a sense that you cannot stay there for very long, or it is a bad thing for Democracy. And imagine the outcry if instead of letting her existence in that office be the result of the election process in place, she had used her power to reorganize the ridings so that her ability to stay Prime Minister was made much more certain?
So I maintain that the efforts of the current crop of leaders in Central and South America (regardless of whether viewed as “leftist” or “rightist”) to modify the working democratic institutions in such a way as to consolidate their power and extend their time in office is bad for democracy. It will, in the long run, require that changes be made to ensure it cannot happen again. And, of course, we see in Honduras that at least SOME portion of the country doesn’t want to see it happen to their country.
I dont see where a new constitution approved by democratic and legal means constitutes and undemocratic act.
Where the amends to to the US constitution undemocratic too?.
Deleted double post
Key word there, being of course, “wins.” Kind of how democracy works.
And that was exactly what the non-binding survey proposed by Zalaya wanted to find out: what percentage wanted change and which didn’t. IOW, democracy in action. Again.
I can see how that is just plain wrong on so many levels. Not.
Well, I’ve already said that Argentina appears to have learned its lesson, so there is one. 
So far as I can tell, Chile has learned the lesson, also. President Bachelet isn’t engaging in any efforts that I am aware of to extend her life in office. She’s term limited in that she cannot serve successive terms. And the Chileans have modified the constitution a couple of times since the end of Pinochet’s regime to decrease the power of the elected officials, and reduce the chance of creating a democratic strongman (for example, shortening the presidential term from 6 to 4 years).
In Brazil, President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva has specifically eschewed changing the constitution to allow him a third term. He’s a leftist, and has been cultivated by Chávez as part of the growing block of anti-American leaders, but he has also been pragmatic and keeps ties with the US strong. Clearly, Brazil has learned its lesson; when Lula came to power, many worried he would be much like Chávez has been.
I don’t think I need work hard to establish the credentials of Uruguay’s government as being quite democratic. Similarly Costa Rica. Mexico has turned things around, and of course is experiencing the growing pains of moving from one-party statism to multi-party democracy (for example, the troubles in the Yucatán).
So, you see, there are plenty of Latin American countries that appear to understand the benefits of letting a true democracy florish.
You are impatient, young padawan. It takes time to get this sort of thing organized.
Here’s something you won’t be seeing on CNN:
Recent scenes of the reigning chaos plus a number of Honduran reporters explaining how the Army took over their their stations at gunpoint.
Democracy in action.
Ok, I’m not going to continue a discussion of political science with y’all if this is the best contribution you can make. As I pointed out in my next to last post, you cannot simply let the “people” run things through majority rule. That’s NOT democracy in action, or, to be more correct, it is democracy in action, but we’ve learned you cannot let democracy have its way in all things. That’s exactly the lesson Germany learned in 1933 et seq., a point y’all are VERY quick to ignore. You might also consider that both the Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China were/are nominal democracies. So is Iran, so, too, is Pakistan, and we’ve seen the troubles there. “Mob rule” is another way of characterizing democracy, you know.
So if you really think that the way a good democracy works is to simply let people vote on things and whatever the majority approves of is ok, well, then all I have to say is that the Greeks figured out some 2300 years ago that doesn’t work so well. :smack:
STOP characterizing what the military did in Honduras as “democracy.” I’ve already pointed out it’s not democracy, and there are very few here who are trying to posit that it is. Strawman fallacy. :mad:
It’s called “sarcasm.” And relax, I wasn’t responding to you. 
'S a good thing you put that phrase in quotes, because the pony you’re trotting out for show is mooing.
Hitler was never elected to the office of Chancellor. He was appointed by Hindenburg. From there Hitler pulled undemocratic stunts like the Enabling Act and merging the chancellorship with the presidency after Hindenburg’s death, but he was not chosen by the people of Germany to do so.
Now to the example of Zelaya, with whom you’re trying to draw a parallel here. Let’s look at the basic chronology of events as they were supposed to happen, shall we? Three steps:
- A poll, which was to have taken place in June 2009, to determine if people wanted:
- A referendum on a constitutional assembly, to be decided on Election Day, Nov 2009, which could result in:
- A Constitutional Assembly. Given that it takes some time to elect delegates, organize a schedule, prepare a meeting place, and settle other logistical necessities, I’d say it’s a safe bet the Assembly wouldn’t have convened until 2010.
Look at the order of events, and think for a moment: If the current constitution is still in effect in Nov 2009 because the Constitutional Assembly hasn’t even been formed yet, much less addressed the question of term limits, how is Zelaya supposed to stay in office? He’s constitutionally barred from seeking re-election - the first person who might be able to do so - if the non-binding poll indicated a referendum was desired, and if the referendum is held, and if a Constitutional Assembly is called - is his successor.
Like I said, I’ve seen nastier power plays coming from my stepkids over the toys they’re playing with.
Thanks for posting that straight forward chronology of events, Olentzero. Although not as thorough as the time line I originally linked to, it makes an almost unassailable case for the fact hat Zelaya was not indeed seeking re-election for himself. Further, here we have an interview (cited in source) published in Spain’s newspaper of record, El Pais, on Sunday the 28th – the very day he was deposed. In it, this is what he says:
– translation mine.
Further, here we have a copy of the alleged “letter of resignation”. Something looks rather odd, does it not? What could it possibly be?
Take a look at the date: 25 de Junio! IOW, a full three days prior to the actual coup.
Banana Republic Coup alright.
It might have been feasible for Zelaya to shoehorn the Constitutional Assembly in between the election and the end of his term, but he’d still be constitutionally barred from re-election before it started. He would have been out no matter what.