Venezuela Chavez: Special President Powers Could Last 18 Months

[bemildred]

For those interested in Hugo's prospective "dictatorial powers".

CARACAS -(Dow Jones)- Venezuela President Hugo Chavez said late Wednesday he has formally asked Congress to give him special presidential powers for a period of 18 months.

"We've asked for a special presidential powers law to last a year-and-a-half," Chavez said during televised remarks.

Members of Congress are expected to approve Chavez's request in a first reading Thursday. The special powers law would give Chavez freedom to tinker with or overhaul a host of economic laws over the next few months without congressional approval.

---

The president is expected to change major tax legislation that covers a value- added tax and even income-tax rules for the oil sector. He is also expected to retool the commerce code, which underpins the way business is conducted in the Andean country.

Reuters

[aquart]

1. George will be simply sick with envy.

Or maybe he's just asking for as many as George took.

[Warren Stupidity]

2. Not exactly dictatorial powers.

The venezuelan constitution allows, as we have recently seen, for a recall election at anytime to remove the president from office. While Chavez will have a limited power to rule by decree (as does our executive, in an ever-expanding, permanent, and ambiguously defined manner) for a limited period of time, he will not be a dictator. If his actions are unpopular, he will be removed from office.

[bemildred]

3. All executives have powers to rule by decree.

The US Congress delegates a lot of legislative power to the President, in addition to what derives from the Constitution. The true issue (IMO) is whether the executive is accountable in a meaningful way for what he does with that power.

[Warren Stupidity]

4. And given venezuela's recall provision Chavez is very accountable.

It is not just that our congress delegates power to the president, the use of executive orders to avoid the legislative process entirely, and the use, as we have seen in the Dumbass administration, of signing statements to essentially nullify or drastically modify legislation, are both ambiguously defined (if at all) in the constitution, and have been used increasingly since WWII (or perhaps for even longer) to accrue more and more power in the executive at the expense of congress and without any formal delegation at all.

[bemildred]

5. Chavez is very accountable.

Can you imagine the US President being subject to recall by popular vote?

[John Q. Citizen]

13. I can dream, can't I?

[IndianaGreen]

6. Confused About Venezuela?

Confused About Venezuela?

By Eva Golinger

1-16-07, 9:13 am

Over the past few days, major newspapers in the United States, such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times and The Wall Street Journal, have published editorials aggressively and harshly criticizing recent declarations and decisions made by re-elected President Hugo Chávez and his cabinet. A large percentage of the content of these editorials, which reflect the viewpoints of the newspapers, are based on a distortion and misconception of new policies being implemented in Venezuela and the overall way government is functioning. In the Washington Post’s “Venezuela’s Leap Backward”, published on January 10, the editorial board intentionally and mistakenly portrays the recent presidential elections this past December in Venezuela as illegitimate and unfair. By falsely claiming that Chávez conducted a “one-sided campaign that left a majority of Venezuelans believing they might be punished if they did not cast their ballots for him”, the Post wants its readers to think Venezuelans who voted for Chávez did so under duress and fear. Nothing could be further from the truth. A majority of Venezuelans publicly express their sincere admiration and approval of President Chávez in an open and fearless way on a daily basis in this country. Most Venezuelans believe Chávez is the best president the nation has ever had, and statistics prove that his government has built more bridges, railroads, hospitals, clinics, universities, schools, highways and houses than any administration in the past. The Post editorial also attempts to downplay the “only 7 million votes” Chávez received, not mentioning that those seven million votes represent more than 63% of total votes – a landslide victory to the opposition candidate’s 37% - and that no president in Venezuelan history has ever, ever received such a large number of votes in an election.

The New York Times editorial, also published on January 10, attacks a recent statement made by President Chávez regarding the nationalization of one telephone company, CANTV, and an electric company. However the Times doesn’t explain that the CANTV is the only non-cellular telephone company in the country, giving it a complete monopoly on national land-line telecommunications and control over a majority of Internet service as well. Furthermore, the CANTV was privatized only in 1991, during the second non-consecutive term of Carlos Andrés Pérez a president later impeached for corruption who implemented a series of privatization measures, despite having run for office on a non-privatization platform just three years before. In fact, as soon as Carlos Andrés Pérez won office in 1988 after convincing the Venezuelan people he would not permit “neo-liberalism” on Venezuelan shores, he immediately began to announce the privatization of several national industries, including telecommunications, education and the medical and petroleum sectors. This deception led to massive anti-privatization protests during February 1989 during which the government ordered the armed forces to “open-fire” on the demonstrators and arrest and torture those not killed. The result was the “Caracazo”, a tragic scar on contemporary Venezuelan history that left more than 3,000 dead in mass gravesites and thousands more injured and detained. The re-nationalizing of Venezuela’s one landline phone company is a strategic necessity and an anti-monopoly measure necessary to ensure that Venezuelans have access to telecommunications service. (Take it from someone who lives here. You can’t even get a landline if it isn’t already installed in your residence. The waiting list is over 2 years and you have to bribe someone to actually do the job). And furthermore, the new Minister of Telecommunications, Jesse Chacón, announced that any company “nationalized” will be fully compensated for its shares and property at market value.

The third issue put forth in the editorials is the recent announcement by President Chávez that the license of private television station RCTV to operate on the public airwaves is up for review in May 2007 and most likely will not be renewed. The government has based its denial of the license renewal on RCTV’s lack of cooperation with tax laws, its failure to pay fines issued by the telecommunications commission, CONATEL, over the past twenty years, and its refusal to abide by constitutional laws prohibiting incitation to political violence, indecency, obscenity and the distortion of facts and information. The public airwaves, as in the case of the United States, are regulated by government. Television and radio stations apply for licenses from the telecommunications commission and are granted those licenses based on conditional compliance with articulated regulations. When a station does not abide by the requirements, it generally is fined and warned, repeatedly, until compliance is assured. In the specific case of RCTV, the station and its owner, multi-millionaire Marcel Granier, have refused to comply with the law and have continued to abuse and violate the clear and concise regulations that are supposed to guarantee Venezuelan citizens their constitutional right to “true and accurate information” (Article 58 of the Constitution).

RCTV’s owner, Marcel Granier, played a key role in the April 2002 coup d’etat against President Chávez and has used his station to engage in an ongoing campaign of anti-Chávez propaganda and efforts to destabilize the nation through distorting and manipulating information to create panic, apathy, fear and violence in Venezuelan society. The station’s clear violations of the telecommunications regulations and the Constitutional guarantees that protect freedom of speech and access to true and accurate information provide sufficient reason to deny the renewal of its license to use the public airwaves. Unlike the editorial board of the Los Angeles Times (Fidel Chávez?, January 11, 2007) mistakenly claims, Chávez and his government are not “shutting down” the private media station. RCTV can continue to operate on the private airwaves, i.e. cable and satellite television. As would be the case in any country where law and order are respected, RCTV will not receive a renewal on its license to remain on the public airwaves because it repeatedly violated the law during more than a decade.

http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/4695/1/235/

[Say_What]

7. Venezuelanalysis: Venezuela’s Legislature Approves Emergency Sessions for “Mother of Laws”

<clips>

Caracas, January 17, 2007 (venezuelanalysis.com)— Venezuela’s National Assembly approved a resolution yesterday, according to which the legislature would declare emergency sessions for the approval of an “enabling law,” which will allow President Chavez to pass law-decrees on specific issues in the next 18 months. The National Assembly (AN) will begin deliberations on the law tomorrow.

Chavez had asked the AN for an “enabling law” last week, during his swearing-in ceremony last week, saying that such a law is necessary to accelerate the process of creating 21st century socialism in Venezuela. Chavez presented the AN with the proposed law last Saturday.

The proposed law, for which there is express permission in Article 203 of Venezuela’s 1999 constitution, would allow Chavez to pass decrees that have the legal standing of laws in ten different areas. The last time Chavez was allowed to make use of this provision was in 2001, when he passed 49 law-decrees. Previous presidents, such as Carlos Andrés Perez in 1976, were also given temporary authority for such laws.

The ten areas in which Chavez will be allowed to legislate are:

1. Transformation of the institutions of the state. Chavez would be allowed to change state institutions so that these become more efficient, include greater citizen participation, and are more transparent.
2. Popular participation. Here the President would be allowed to develop norms that enable citizen participation in public oversight. Also part of this is the “enabling of the direct exercise of popular sovereignty.” Exactly what is meant by this has so far not been explained.
3. Establishing norms for the eradication of corruption. This would also involve changing the civil service system.
4. The creation of norms for adopting existing legislation to the construction of a new social and economic model, in order to achieve equality and equitable distribution of wealth, under “the ideals of social justice and economic independence.”
5. Finances and tax collection. The development of norms to modernize monetary, banking, insurance, and tax sectors.
6. Citizen and judiciary security. The development of norms for updating the systems of public health, citizen security, prisons, identification, migration, and judiciary.
7. Science and technology. Norms for the development of science and technology to satisfy the needs of education, health, environment, biodiversity, industrialization, quality of life, and defense.
8. Territorial order. Norms that establish a new territorial organization on the sub-national level, so as to optimize state action.
9. Security and defense. Norms for enabling the co-responsibility of state and organized communities by establishing a new functioning of the institutions of security and defense of the nation.
10. Infrastructure, transport, and services. Norms that support the use of the human and industrial potential and the existing infrastructure to improve transport systems, public services, home construction, and telecommunications, among others.

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news.php?newsno=2195


Venezuela's Chavez, Ecuador's new President Rafael Correa, and Bolivia's President Evo Morales during the symbolic indigenous inauguration of Correa.
Credit: ABN

[Judi Lynn]

11. Great photo! n/t

[bemildred]

12. Damn , that's a great picture. nt

[cigsandcoffee]

8. What's wrong with Congressional approval?

...and why on Earth would their Congress approve something that negates their power?

[Say_What]

9. From the Venezuelan constitution:...

Do some f*k'n research for keeerist's sake.

From the Venezuelan constitution:

....Enabling laws are those enacted by a three fifths vote of the members of the National Assembly to establish the guidelines, purposes and framework for matters that are being delegated to the President of the Republic, so that he may issue Decretos con Fuerza de Ley or D.F.L. (Delegated Laws or decrees with the rank and force of law). The Assembly may thus delegate to the President the power to set norms with the status of law on specific matters. They are issued by the President by means of that delegation of competence from the Assembly. The President (the delegate) would not normally have competence to sanction that law, but has acquired the power to do so. Most of these decrees deal with economic or fiscal regulation, support and control of enterprises, scarcity of natural resources, and politically related issues.

http://www.nyulawglobal.org/globalex/Venezuela.htm#_B._Types_of_Legislation

[Taoschick]

31. 3/5ths

Of a national assembly that does not include the opposition isn't exactly a shining beacon of democracy.

[Judi Lynn]

32. You should take that up with the opposition.

They knew they were going to lose badly, because of their bad history with the majority of the Venezuelan people, and they are the ones who opted to boycott the election. It sounded childish then, and it still sounds childish, but if they had voted, they STILL would have lost, and the result would have been the same.

That's the problem THEY CREATED. You're not even close to being accurate if you attempt to lay that at the feet of the normal Venzuelans, or Hugo Chavez.

If they want to seat their candidates, they're going to have to move to programs which don't make life difficult for the poor.

Do yourself a favor, and start keeping track of current events, the way the rest of us must, in order to know what we're talking about.

[Flanker]

10. The short answer is that congressional approval is slow.

And there is tons of backlog, so much so that very few procedural votes even happen.

Chavez would not have any problem passing almost anything, he would be branded a dictator anyhow but things would be done quickly.

[classysassy]

16. The decider

Maybe Chavez is the decider.

[UTUSN]

14. BwahahahaHAH! The feathers on the duck continue to sprout n/t

[Tempest]

15. You might want to read the posts in this thread before making that claim

n/t

[UTUSN]

17. BwahahahaHAH! The feathers on the duck continue to sprout n/t

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[UTUSN]

21. Ah! The good old accusation of "trolling". This would be a DIFFERING OPINION.

The cadre of Hugo-Fidel cultists here invariably respond the same way:

1) I voice my disregard for totalitarianism whether from the Right or from the Left, in this case from the Left.

2) The cultists reply by:

a) dissing WHATEVER link is provided, anything Google has provided. If it's a newspaper, then the cultists call it a wingnut rag. Even the Associated Press.

b) name calling: "Corporate/capitalist DLCer!!!1" Or in this case, TROLL. Or freeper.


Notice that I attack HUGO/FIDEL, and the cultists attack ME PERSONALLY. Ain't it special that the cultists cannot tolerate a DIFFERING OPINION, that THEIR opinion is called FACT, that this is essentially a TOTALITARIAN stance!!!1

Quack, quack. We continue to see the WALK, QUACK, FEATHERS of the duck: Multiple "elected" terms. QUACK. Asking for TWENTY FIVE YEARS of "presidential term." QUACK. Cracking down on media. QUACK. And on and on. QUACK. QUACK.
http://redwing.hutman.net/%7Emreed/


*************QUOTE*********

"So remember, next time you feel the urge to flame another DUer, that we all share the same hopes and dreams. We are all on the same side. We may not support the same candidates in the primary, but we are ALL capable of treating other people with respect. I am not always perfect in this regard, and I don't expect you to be either. But I do expect everyone to make a real effort. Ask yourself how your actions can help increase understanding, and how you can help bring people together during this time when we need each other so much."

--SKINNER

************UNQUOTE*************

[IndianaGreen]

18. Venezuelan duck is better than American turkey

The day Americans abolish the Electoral College and go about electing their Presidents directly, that's the day that we can start talking about democracy in other countries.

[Vidar]

20. Hear, Hear!

[Eugene]

22. BBC: Rule by decree passed for Chavez

Last Updated: Friday, 19 January 2007, 00:23 GMT

Rule by decree passed for Chavez

Venezuela's National Assembly has given initial approval to a bill granting
President Hugo Chavez the power to rule by decree for 18 months.

Mr Chavez said he wants to approve "revolutionary laws" to enact sweeping
political, economic and social changes.

-snip-

The bill allowing him to enact laws by decree is expected to win final approval
easily in the assembly next week on its second reading.

-snip-

Full article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6277379.stm

[Bacchus39]

23. but its only 18 months so its cool I guess

n/t

[1932]

24. Chavez had same powers in '01, passed 49 laws, and improved democracy, btw

And these are the ten areas in which the new allows him to pass legislation:

Transformation of the institutions of the state. Chavez would be allowed to change state institutions so that these become more efficient, include greater citizen participation, and are more transparent.

Popular participation. Here the President would be allowed to develop norms that enable citizen participation in public oversight. Also part of this is the “enabling of the direct exercise of popular sovereignty.” Exactly what is meant by this has so far not been explained.

Establishing norms for the eradication of corruption. This would also involve changing the civil service system.

The creation of norms for adopting existing legislation to the construction of a new social and economic model, in order to achieve equality and equitable distribution of wealth, under “the ideals of social justice and economic independence.”

Finances and tax collection. The development of norms to modernize monetary, banking, insurance, and tax sectors.
Citizen and judiciary security. The development of norms for updating the systems of public health, citizen security, prisons, identification, migration, and judiciary.

Science and technology. Norms for the development of science and technology to satisfy the needs of education, health, environment, biodiversity, industrialization, quality of life, and defense.

Territorial order. Norms that establish a new territorial organization on the sub-national level, so as to optimize state action.

Security and defense. Norms for enabling the co-responsibility of state and organized communities by establishing a new functioning of the institutions of security and defense of the nation.

Infrastructure, transport, and services. Norms that support the use of the human and industrial potential and the existing infrastructure to improve transport systems, public services, home construction, and telecommunications, among others.

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news.php?newsno=2195

[Taoschick]

25. Yeah, that's some "democracy"

When you can be imprisoned for "disrespecting" the President, his attorney general, members of the National Assembly and senior military leaders, you're not living in a "democracy".

There is never any excuse for silencing the opposition.

[1932]

26. You can't be imprisoned. It's a fine for slander.

You can do it. You just have to pay when you do it.

The UK has more restrictive, speech-chilling rules on slander. In the UK repeating a slander can cost you money regardless of whether you knew it was slander. So you could trust that a newspaper in the US was reporting on something accurately, repeat it in the UK and be liable for damages if it turns out to be slander.

[Taoschick]

28. Sure you have to pay...

With imprisonment.

Go ahead and look up article 147 of the Venezuelan Penal code.


It should also be noted there are different prison sentences for *public* disrespect and *private* disrespect. If you criticize Chavez in public you can go to prison for a longer period than if you "disrespect" him in the kitchen of your home and your kid rats you out to his/her teachers.

Viva Democracy indeed.
:eyes:

[Warren Stupidity]

27. Yeah I'll go turn on AAR.

Oh wait, I can't, they can chased off the air in the Boston area, locked out of the market. What a coincidence.

[Taoschick]

30. I guess I missed the part

Where the government passed legislation that took over ownership of AAR and dictated what they may or may not say on the air. Can you point me to a link?

[Judi Lynn]

33. Do more reading. It can only help. The Venezuelan government does NOT own

any part of the tv station.

On edit:

Not About Free Speech
The Case of Venezuela's RCTV
By GEORGE CICCARIELLO-MAHER

Caracas.

No single news item emerging from Venezuela has made foreigners, and especially North Americans, more queasy than the recent decision by the Chávez government not to renew the broadcasting concession previously granted to Radio Caracas Television (RCTV). Perhaps with some justification, many have a severe allergy to anything that smells of an attack on "free speech." Such hyper-sensitivity, however, obscures a crucial detail of the matter: the non-renewal of RCTV's concession is simply not about free speech.

The claims of the opposition and the foreign press, which assert a veritable "trampling" of human rights and press freedom, rest on a series of faulty claims:

1.) The Venezuelan government is behaving abnormally.

Central to the opposition's framing of the issue is the broad background of a slide toward authoritarianism and fascism. According to many, Venezuela has stepped decidedly outside the democratic norms governing behavior in the post-Cold War world, and the non-renewal of RCTV's concession is proof of this ab-normality.

This, however, could not be further from the case. The Bolivarian Constitution of 1999 does boast the most stringent requirements imposed by any constitution on the private media, enforcing above all a broad notion of "responsibility" on the latter. Media magnates have expressed a clear concern over this provision, and with good reason, since they had been operating irresponsibly for quite some time.

Were this constitutional provision fully enforced and legislated, the private media might be able to claim that their existence is somehow more difficult than other media outlets the world over. But as it stands, legal requirements and enforcement are hardly out of the ordinary. The Ley Resorte, or media responsibility law, has as its objective the "social responsibility of radio and television service providers," and has been credited with both protecting the rights of children and increasing the amount of domestically-produced programming.

However, the idea that media concessions entail responsibility is not at all unique. Even the U.S. FCC maintains a similar position, notwithstanding the swift de-regulation during the early years of the Reagan administration. As we all know, the FCC maintains certain content restrictions on broadcasting (more strict, it should be mentioned, than in many European nations), and is not unwilling to silence those who infringe upon these restrictions. Moreover, ever since the Janet Jackson "wardrobe malfunction," the enforcement of such restrictions has been ratcheted up (as in, e.g., FCC efforts to shut down infamous radio host Howard Stern, not to mention the continuous closure of smaller outfits).
(snip/...)

http://www.counterpunch.com/maher01122007.html

[Doctor_J]

29. Smirk's have lasted 6 years

Hugo's just getting warmed up.