Reply #16: How about FDR--who ran for and won FOUR terms in office...

[Peace Patriot]

and died in his fourth term? (He was "president for life.")

It was a U.S. Republican scheme in the 1950s, to ram through a 2-term limit on the president, so that no "New Deal" would ever be possible again, and so they could begin to dismantle the one they've hated so much.

Most of our Founders opposed term limits as undemocratic. They felt that the people should be able to vote for whomever they wish to hold public office.

And in fair and honest, and transparent, conditions, why shouldn't they?

The trouble is, in Colombia, political leftists, union leaders and other community organizers are routinely murdered, creating conditions of extreme intimidation against voters, and opposition candidates and organizers. 29 political candidates were murdered in last year's elections. Further, the FARC guerrillas still control 20% to 30% of Colombia. These are by no means fair and honest, and transparent, conditions.

Venezuela, by contrast, has NO political murders. The opposition operates freely, says what it likes, runs candidates, organizes street protests, and sometimes wins--for instance, they narrowly defeated the Chavistas' recent proposal of 69 constitutional amendments, one of which was to remove the term limit on presidents. Chavez and his government took the defeat gracefully, and moved on (although they would have been within their rights to challenge it--it was so close). And Venezuela's vote counting system puts our own to shame, for its transparency.

So, I can say, with confidence, that, whatever Venezuelan voters are voting on, it is more than likely a true expression of the will of the people. I think that what the people were expressing in the constitutional referendum was their objection to the confusion of 69 amendments, on many different issues--including, for instance, equal rights for gays and women (in a Catholic country, with particularly rightwing clergy). It was an up or down vote on the package of amendments. About 10% of normally pro-Chavez voters voted no, or sat on their hands. But, whatever they were objecting to, there is simply no question that everyone was free to discuss it, without fear, and the vote counting was TRANSPARENT.

If the Chavistas come back with a one-issue amendment on the term limit, for a vote of the people--which they very well might do--then we will see clearly what Venezuelans think of terms limits, and whether they want Chavez to run again. The Bushites have poured millions of U.S taxpayer dollars (through USAID-NED and other budgets) into rightwing groups in Venezuela. We are funding and organizing the opposition there. Venezuela's democratic institutions have been strong enough to elect and re-elect Chavez as president, to turn back a U.S.-supported recall election against him, and to elect a pro-Chavez legislature as well--despite relentless Bushite hostility and plotting. That says a lot about Venezuela's democracy. It is not perfect. But it is in good working order.

The dangers of long presidencies--or long time rule by one party--are obvious: entrenched power, corruption, tyranny. In the many countries with no term limit on the president (like our own used to be), the benefits of long rule (such as FDR having time to implement the New Deal) must be weighed against the downsides: possible abuse of power, and political dependence on one personality. There have been no serious charges of abuse of power against Chavez (they have all been debunked, to my satisfaction--mere Bushite, rightwing propaganda). But he has been criticized--by left and right--for "cult of personality" politics. What happens to the Bolivarian Revolution without Chavez?

One test of how serious this danger is in Venezuela, is the Chavez government's efforts at widespread citizen participation. They cannot be faulted on this score. They've done everything they can to increase citizen participation--from their strenuous efforts to eliminate illiteracy to giving away power over federal funds to local communities to their printing and distribution of millions of copies of the Constitution. It's pretty clear to me that Chavez is as much the product of a vast, successful, GRASS ROOTS social justice movement, as he is a leader of it. He holds power because of this movement. He has not seized power over it. And, indeed, he would be powerless today--and possibly dead--if the people of Venezuela had not rescued him from the 2002 coup attempt.

Yes, "personality" has always been a problem in politics. It has been since the dawn of humanity. It is not going to go away. What are the "checks and balances" is the question to ask? How is personal ambition constrained by law? And also, what does a popular leader seek, or, if he/she seeks more power, what is it for?

FDR was a strong leader. Was that bad? The left needs strong leaders to counter the entrenched power of what FDR called "organized money." That's how I see Chavez. He is ambitious, visionary and powerful. And he has been running a beneficial government for ten years, with scrupulous adherence to the rule of law. A strong leader? Yes. A tyrant? No. Should he continue? I don't know. That's up to the Venezuelan voters.

In Uribe's case, however, I don't trust their election system. I don't think it's possible to know what most Colombians want. But I do see one advantage of a Uribe third term--even if it's achieved by crooked means. It's better than a military dictatorship--which is a real threat in Colombia.