Venezuela Blogger: Reflections of a Spoiled Brat!

[Joanne98]

http://daniel-venezuela.blogspot.com/2007/12/unacceptable-result.html

The unacceptable result

Tonight, sipping a little glass of merlot rose and giddily happy from my Saturday business trip to Valencia where I saw people in the streets and stores wearing a NO T-shirt (an unthinkable sight a few weeks ago!) I am in the mood to settle a few issues before tomorrow’s vote and results. Bear with me as I indulge and blame it on the wine.

There is a canard that chavismo is trying to circulate as a justification of who knows what somber plan the empire has. Namely that the opposition, the US and many other people will not recognize a SI victory tomorrow. While away, one reader had the courtesy to post in comments a link to such an example from perfidious Albion herself. Well, the perfidious pseudo left in Albion to be more accurate because the letter to the Guardian is signed by no one else but Ken Livingstone, a hypocrite, leading one of the wealthiest city in the world, and receiving oil subsidies from a third world country for his political benefit. There are other nefarious luminaries signing that letter too, such as Harold Pinter probably looking for ideas for new plays in Chavez bad “novela” and Tony Benn who obviously forgot to ask about Chavez what he is reputed to always ask "What power have you got? Where did you get it from? In whose interests do you use it? To whom are you accountable? How do we get rid of you?”

These people ask nothing less than that the world respects the result of Sunday, not suspecting that the first person they should ask that from is Chavez himself. It is also interesting that the letter comes right after Friday when Chavez denounced that the US would refuse to recognize the result and ordered the militarization of all PDVSA installations in case the marines were to land or something. The army obeyed, and driving in front of El Palito refinery today I saw indeed a few small tanks and armed to the teeth soldiers guarding the entrances. Needless to say that even though I had my camera I did not feel like stopping for a picture….

Now, I do not want to enter into any silly discussion as to whether the US is funding some destabilization plan. I do think that if such a plan exists it is discreetly managed and limited to some funding to pay for electoral posters or what not. After all, nothing that Chavez is not doing himself all over Latin America. The US have no incentive to do more than that, they know that Chavez will be forced to sell them at least half of his oil for the foreseeable future and that is ALL that the US wants. Period. So forget about the latest “operacion Tenaza” nincompoopness: it is just something made up by chavismo to confuse the simple minded and managed by even more simple minded folks like Eva Golinger.

What I want to say is that any SI result tomorrow cannot be recognized by any democrat in the world. One cannot recognize a result that will use part of one country to diminish the civil rights of another part of the country. It cannot be accepted, ever.

It does not matter if the result tomorrow is 90% SI and that I am given access to everything that will prove to me without the shade of a doubt that the Venezuelan people voted massively for the SI. I still will not accept it. I cannot accept that my life will be forever subjected to the whimsy of a now certifiable man, I cannot accept that some of my basic human rights such as my right to be informed at all time, the right to own my home and business, my right to work in any morally acceptable pursuit, my right to seek redress for injustice, my right to organize people to seek referendum for changing the opprobrious, my right to have a local ruler elected by my community at all times, my right to keep my private life away from the queries of a militia, and more rights that I still do not know of will be diminished when not eliminated.

I will not accept and even less recognize as legitimate such a vote result because voting on such things is profoundly undemocratic. In fact, it is ademocratic, a word that needs to be coined for the occasion. All those who support such result are themselves ademocrat, and probably amoral. They should get ready for the consequences of their actions as bloodshed always follows such exercises in rights restriction. It is just a matter of time. Grab any history book to find the examples you need to get convinced of my words.

-The end-
http://daniel-venezuela.blogspot.com/2007/12/unacceptable-result.html

[MADem]

1. The fat boy in the red shirt knows full well that ya get what ya PAY for, I guess!

Ken Livingstone, a hypocrite, leading one of the wealthiest city in the world, and receiving oil subsidies from a third world country for his political benefit.


....So forget about the latest “operacion Tenaza” nincompoopness: it is just something made up by chavismo to confuse the simple minded and managed by even more simple minded folks like Eva Golinger.


Sounds like my VZ pals talking!

Good article.

[boricua79]

2. the "canard" is called Operation Pliers

"I do think that if such a plan exists it is discreetly managed and limited to some funding to pay for electoral posters or what not."

Oh get out of here. The Contra War in Nicaragua, among other things, was not "some funding to pay for electoral posters". Big amounts of cash were passed to do a Whole host of things. Read your history.

As for your comments on democracy...sounds like sour grapes.

I've had to live in Bush America, even though I didn't vote him. You don't see me advocating for violence or not recognizing democratic results thereafter.

So pucker up and grow up.

[paulk]

3. I think he makes some decent points

you, of course, characterize him as a "spoiled brat", but that is the usual tactic of the Chavenistas - to personally denigrate the opposition...

[Peace Patriot]

4. "...voting on such things is profoundly undemocratic." That says it all, for the anti-Chavistas.

How else you gonna organize societies in any kind of democratic order, except by voting? Only the propertied vote? That was more or less the norm early in the American Revolution, but that didn't last. One man, one vote, became the norm for democracies. And, finally, one person, one vote--in the 19-20th century.

There have been many constitutions, written, voted on in various ways (directly, by representatives), re-written, superceded, violated, re-written again, and on and on, throughout the history of modern democracy. Our relatively stable constitution (and the difficulty of modifying it) is a rarety. Consensus on the basic law of the land MUST be achieved by some process of voting or representation. And constitutions OFTEN favor one group or another, sometimes quite pointedly, and they are sometimes later overturned, democratically, and sometimes undemocratically. How do you achieve sufficient consensus on fundamental law so that society can proceed? The best process is wide discussion, participation by all elements of society, and a process of decision that is the most representative--because this process is the least subject to distortion by cabals, especially cabals of the rich and powerful, and the merely self-interested.

What does this blogger think of the U.S. Constitutional amendment banning the sale of alcohol? Clearly wrong, from this end of history, from our perspective. But the law of the land then. It was voted on, I can't remember if by the states, but at least by representatives of the voting group of that era. And what do you do about it? You lobby against it. You organize. You make your case that it's wrong and unfair, and you get it repealed. What of the Constitutional provision of a Senate, and the Electoral College, that favored the biggest landowners and richest people in the country? Unfair. Yup. Been a problem ever since. What do you do about it--if you are not a big landowner, or (these days) a corporation, and not rich? You either live with it, and work for your interests and good policies with the given system, or you try to get it changed?

Constitutions grant or recognize rights of many different kinds, and sometimes restrict rights (as with Prohibition)--some of it good, some bad; they create favored groups, end up disenfranchising some people, create inherently unbalanced institutions, have amendments added to them to correct problems, and often get re-written. I don't know how many Constitutions France had had. It must be hundreds. If you're lucky, you end up with a relatively stable document that creates good order, with maximum freedom and justice, over long periods.

But this "spoiled brat" doesn't seem to have an understanding of history, and of democracy, nor respect for the poor majority in Venezuela. The Bolivarian Constitution is, in many ways--the first one, and the amended one--a Poor Peoples' Constitution. It enshrines basic human ECONOMIC rights, in contrast to our own, which enshrines only poitical and civil rights. It adds to the sum of human rights--for instance, guaranteeing pensions for informal sector workers, and a shorter work week for all workers at the same pay, so that poor workers have more time for civic involvement, education and their families.

Early American democracy held that certain people didn't have political and civil rights--unpropertied workers, women and slaves. As these groups fought for and gained these rights, there were many in the privileged groups who said they hadn't "earned" them (by acquiring property), or were inherently "less human" and unworthy of such rights. Well, society felt differently, eventually, and the privileged position of rich white males diminished accordingly.

Why, then, can't this blogger see that the Bolivarian Constitution is a similar development? Why have a Constitution that locks the privileged into privilege? Why not have one that changes the balance of power, to spread rights, wealth and power around in a fairer fashion--just as amendments to our Constitution broadened political and civil rights?

In any case, it's useless to whine about it. That's immature. Even silly. What a silly blog this! Time to grow up and face reality and take responsibility both in your own life and for the society you live in. If this Constitution impinges on your life, you deal with it, you adjust, and you work and organize for a better one.