To those criticizing Chavez: Do you realize that both Blair and Mandela ruled by decree?

[HamdenRice]

This is somewhat of an exaggeration, but only a slight exaggeration. My main point is that a country can be considered a democracy without the broad scope of political checks on the executive that we are used to. The fact that Chavez may be granted plenary power to legislate after winning an election does not mean that Venezuela ceases to be a democracy.

In judging other countries and leaders, please try to keep in mind that the United States federal government is very unique in being designed not to be able to get very much done. You are all familiar with the idea of "checks and balances."

But most democracies, especially parliamentary democracies, do not have "checks and balances," but follow the doctrine of "parliamentary supremacy." Even some presidential democracies grant the president the kind of concentrated power that we associate with parliamentary democracies.

In Britain and other parliamentary democracies, a person becomes prime minister if his party achieves a majority in Parliament -- either by his party winning an outright majority or by agreement in a coalition government. In the case of an outright parliamentary majority, the basic model is that every single piece of leglislation the PM proposes will be adopted by his party. This concept is so strong that if the government fails to pass a piece of legislation, or parliament passes a no-confidence vote, the government "falls" and early elections are held.

Note how different this is from our idea of divided government, in which the legislature (Congress) can be of a different party than the executive, and in which for all practical purposes, a super majority is always required in the Senate to pass legislation, giving the minority party a de facto veto.

South Africa took parliamentary supremacy and concentrated executive law making a step further. The parties that created the South African constitution of 1994 wanted a very strong central government that could enforce the "bargain" that led to majority rule.

They adopted a parliamentary system with proportional representation. In the first election, the ANC won about 65% of the vote, giving them 65% of the seats in parliament, meaning that with the exception of a few areas requiring super majority votes, the ANC could pass any legislation it wanted. This was because all the parties, even the minority parties, including the white parties, wanted strong parliamentary discipline. So in addition to parliamentary supremacy and proportional representation, the constitution had a "no defect" clause. This meant that if any ANC member (or the member of any other party) decided to vote his conscience against his party, Mandela or the relevant party leadership could dismiss that member of parliament and replace him with someone else on the party list. This meant it was actually impossible for the executive to fail to pass a law or for a no confidence vote to pass.

This meant that the office of the president basically ruled by decree with a veto proof, defect proof, majority in Parliament between each 5 year election cycle. The only "checks and balances" on presidential law making in South Africa were (1) the Constitutional Court, (2) the provincial legislatures, on certain issues, and (3) the informational requirement to present or "table" draft legislation and reports in parliament.

Now perhaps you would prefer not to live in such a democracy as Britain, South Africa or any other parliamentary democracy. Perhaps I would not want to either.

But you can't say that, just because a legal system gives a president plenary power to legislate, after an electoral victory, that that system is not democratic. You are imposing your views based on the unique US system, of what constitutes a democracy. Comparative constitutionalists, however would disagree with you.

[RaleighNCDUer]

1. Well said.

It amazes me sometimes how even here on DU folks can have such ethnocentric views of the world. The American way is not the only way, and other ways seem to work just fine for most other people in the world.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

2. Yes it is and if you don't like it we'll shoot your ass. Hear that Iran and

all the rest of youse? We're coming for ya YEEEEEEHAAAAAA!!!!!! :sarcasm:

[HamdenRice]

3. Yes, it's not just Chavez loathing ...

It's a fundamental lack of knowledge about how most democracies work, and a horror that many are designed to actually get things, that have been endorsed by an election, done.

[LittleClarkie]

5. It's not Chavez loathing

Chavez criticism is not Chavez loathing, just as criticizing the way America might be headed doesn't mean you hate America. It's not Chavez that sets me off in these threads, but the attitudes of some of his admirers. Anything he does is just spiffy, regardless, and any criticism means that we hate Chavez. Reminds me entirely too much of the behavior of some Bush folks I've seen.

[LoZoccolo]

6. I would add that to me, the existance of a shrill personality cult is a red flag in and of itself.

It's like supply and demand, except for popular approval. When someone's trying to sell you something really hard, trying to create demand where it is not there already, you get a sense that something's wrong. The same thing when people have to resort to extreme tactics to sell us on this guy - why do they have to work so hard to convince us?

[NoPasaran]

4. So did Stalin

He also showed that he would not be pushed around by native capitalists, international imperialism or the kulaks.