Your comment is very pertinent. I admit that the election of Chávez served its purpose in 1998. I do not think it is the best thing that happened to Venezuela but I understand that for other people that was indeed the case. I have a problem with the way his regime has enormously increased the size of the state. Even though I am not for the abolition of states, I am not a supporter of megastates of huge sizes such as the one that Venezuela has become. The shortcomings of such a big state will be harshly felt next year with a low price for the oil barrel and many wasteful budget commitments already planned, plus the nationalizations of previously privately held companies that were doing just fine.
As for elections, we will have local elections in three weeks, for state governors and municipal mayors. The opposition is expected to win back several jurisdictions. This should force Chávez to moderate his discourse and would make a point that democracy, though imperfect, still holds its virtues.
The next presidential elections are in 2012. The Venezuelan people democratically rejected through the ballots last year in 2007 a socialist constitutional reform that would have allowed Chávez to run for Presidential office indefinitely. Chávez is trying to use all the powers of the megastate he has at his disposal (and paid for by the Venezuelan people’s oil revenues) to impose an amendment that will nevertheless allow him to remain in office till his death. There is a strong grassroots movement to block that as many supposrters of Chávez regime still envision a socialist system but without the nuisance of Chávez presence.
Back into privatization of natural resources in Venezuela, some authors suggest that instead of privatizing the currently state-controlled oil industry, it should be like a publicly owned corporation in which every Venezuelan citizen should own a certain qunatity of stock worth X dollars, and those citizens could buy, sell or hold these stocks, conduct their voard meetings, and manage it effectively as a private corporation. What are your thoughts about this proposal?
I agree with your analysis on the shortcomings of the political history of the country. But I do not necessarily think democracy has failed. Many people now are as hopeful for the November 23 elections as Americans were of their election one week ago. If enough opposition candidates get elected, it will be an indication that the “will” of the people is for more checks and balances, less socialism, and more encouragement to private property.
Look, if you believe that democracy is the best solution then you can’t really complain when it doesn’t go your way. What you are witnessing is the tyranny of the majority. What you really need to ask yourself is what happens if your side doesn’t regain the political upper hand that you believe it will? You see democracy is great when your in the majority because you are getting your way, now that you find yourself in the political minority it’s not so much fun anymore right? What your posts really show is that you support democracy when what you view as the enlightened people are in charge but are unhappy when your group isn’t in power.
Once you accept the legitamacy of democracy over your life then if the people in the near future vote to have you lined up against the wall and shot you really don’t have a lot of room to complain.
Currently there is only one governor from the opposition (Zulia state), the governors of the remaing 23 states are officialist. Polls suggest that most certainly the opposition will gain back some governors office. The question is how many?
If the scenario you are putting becomes true, that is, the opposition is unable to gain much ground, it will also be because of their failure to create imaginative politics. Chávez-bashing has become boring and does not attract new voters. If the opposition wishes to get back into power, it must create a new inclusive strategy such as the one employed by Obama.
