Term limits (again)
Executive power and term limits have been quite the recent theme. Now Alvaro Uribe has stepped into the mix, suggesting he might like to change the constitution (again) to allow for another re-election in case there is some sort of catastrophe and his coalition can’t unite around a candidate. This comes just after the Alternative Democratic Pole’s Samuel Moreno won Bogotá’s mayoral election, which puts him (or at least his party) in a better position for the 2010 presidential election.
So who will be next on the “I don’t want to step down as president so let’s amend the constitution” train? It's all the rage.
Just after posting, I see Miguel has addressed the same thing.
22 comments:
How interesting that nobody posts a comment about this. (I applaud you, Greg, for pointing out the elephant sitting in the room; this elephant will, for very obvious reasons, remain virtually invisible to U.S. media in discussions of the region's politics).
You see, it's only an issue when Chavez proposes an end to presidential term limits. If Uribe starts talking about it, the response of U.S. media and the Washington establishment is near total silence. The double standards are quite astounding, actually, but the inability of ostensibly "informed" people to pick up on the double standards is perhaps even more astounding.
How likely is it that a Polo candidate could win an absolute majority nationwide?
Not very, absent a coalition. And with whom? I am tempted to say the Liberals, but that still sounds too daring.
As for Uribe's coalition, I certainly would be surprised if they could come up with a single successor. It is several parries that ran separately in the last legislative elections, and that really don't have all that much in common.
(I made both of the above points at F&V back around the time of the elections in early 2006.)
It is an issue in both cases Justin.
Should we assume you support Uribe's bid on the same ground you support Chavez's?
Oh I forgot, you were suppose not to have opinions on domestic issues because you are a non interventionist.
At the present time, absent Uribe can anyone win an absolute majority? If his coalition can't come together on a consensus candidate, then who knows what might happen, as three years is a long time. Winning as Bogotá's mayor is certainly a way to become more prominent.
Given the timing of Uribe's comments, it also appears that he is concerned about the possibility.
It is an issue in both cases Justin. Should we assume you support Uribe's bid on the same ground you support Chavez's?
Oh I forgot, you were suppose not to have opinions on domestic issues because you are a non interventionist.
Actually, anonymous, I've been completely consistent on the issue and you're falsely representing my position. I've expressed neither "support" for nor opposition to ending term limits in either country. As far as I'm concerned, those are questions for Colombians and Venezuelans --not Americans-- to settle.
The point here is not about whether ending term limits is good or bad. The point is that the debate --as it's played out in the U.S. press-- is not grounded in any core set of political principles. For the U.S. press and the political establishment, the end of term limits IN VENEZUELA would somehow constitute a major problem but not in Colombia. The double standard is completely untenable morally and theoretically, but it is nonetheless ubiquitous in elite discussion of these types of issues.
If anybody here were really serious about opposing the end of presidential term limits ON PRINCIPLE, he or she would not only criticize BOTH Venezuela and Colombia for contemplating it but would also rip the U.S. press and the U.S. political establishment for their rather glaring double standards on the issue.
Somehow I'm guessing, though, that anonymous won't be ripping the U.S. press and the U.S. political establishment for such double standards in any serious sort of way.
This is crazy! The US criticizes Chavez for putting his idea on term limits to a population vote while remaining silent on Uribe who has changed Colombia's Constitution to allow himself another term. No noise about Uribe wanting to do so again either.
Indeed this is hypocritical.
Justin, You speak and act like Cantinflas. You are a non interventionist who bases his non inteventionist comments in this formula:
Right= Evil
Left = Good
Cantinflas!
Justin, You speak and act like Cantinflas. You are a non interventionist who bases his non inteventionist comments in this formula:
Right= Evil
Left = Good
Cantinflas!
I know you get your jollies off of repeating silly analogies, anonymous, but how exactly does it pertain to anything I've written in this thread?
A little piece of advice, fella. Why don't you try responding to what I actually write? It might make things a bit more interesting.
Cantinflas
Justin is sorry because nobody attacks Uribe (right wing= evil) or defends Chavez (left wing = god). I am sad because no one comments on Lula's position on the same matter: he may run again, but won't change the rules of the game:
http://www.brazzilmag.com/content/view/8759/1/
That is an ethical position.
Justin is sorry because nobody attacks Uribe (right wing= evil) or defends Chavez (left wing = god).
Uh, I know this is hard for you to grasp, anonymous, but this is a matter of principle. If you think that the Chavez government violates journalistic freedoms, you're more than welcome to criticize it on the basis of your beliefs. If you think the Chavez government is wrong to propose the end of presidential term limits, you're more than welcome to criticize it on the basis of your beliefs.
But if you turn around and defend the U.S. media's double standards on the issue (as demonstrated by their lack of criticism of the Uribe government, which acts in ways that are clearly authoritarian), don't expect anyone to think that your criticisms of the Chavez government are principled.
Changing subjects and attacking again. I am referring to your olympic ignorance of Lula's position not to the US media at all. Read the posts before evading so they make sense. Of course, a Cantinflas doesn't make sense. Sorry.
I haven't gotten around to this one yet, but if it makes Justing feel any better, I find it problematic.
I also don't think that the Colombian Congress is likely to let it happen, but we shall see.
I haven't gotten around to this one yet, but if it makes Justing feel any better, I find it problematic.
But somehow I'm betting that Stephen won't be writing any posts about U.S. newspapers' glaring double standards on the issue.
and you won't write any post about bias on the Venezuelan news agency
and you won't write any post about bias on the Venezuelan news agency
I don't even read Venezuelan state state media. But let me guess; it's biased in favor of the Venezuelan government.
Wow, that analysis will blow everyone's socks off.
The difference, anonymous, is that Venezuelans have ready access to private media and a whole other set of perspectives. They can tune in to Globovision or RCTV, they can pick up El Universal or Tal Cual. They can get their fill of Chavez-bashing.
U.S. media is not nearly as diverse. With regard to Latin America, you get one steady session of Chavez-bashing and mostly silence about what Uribe does, even if the things Uribe does are virtually identical to what we accuse Chavez of doing (like, say, censoring the press).
The difference is that the Venezuelan news agency is funded with taxpayers money. The difference is that its constitutional mandate is to be objective. And the difference too is that over 50% of Venezuelan media base is government owned. You don't know anything about Venezuela to the point that don't even read the news agency for referential purposes.
And on top of it you are a lier. You use your blog to promote ABN propaganda:
http://lanr.blogspot.com/search?q=ABN
And you accepted money from the Venezuelan propaganda ministry in charge of this agency.
The difference is that the Venezuelan news agency is funded with taxpayers money. The difference is that its constitutional mandate is to be objective.
Oh, that's an interesting standard, anonymous. So when almost all private Venezuelan media aim for the jugular of the Chavez government, plot a coup against it, and couldn't give a rat's ass about "objectivity," you somehow expect the Chavez government not to use state media to get out its own side of the story?
Wake up, fella.
As for the one "ABN" story I've posted over years of blogging, it honestly didn't even occur to me what ABN stood for, but I'm guessing, now that you mention it, that it must be something like "Agencia Bolivariana Nacional."
So, yes, anonymous, you got me. Amidst literally thousands of stories I've posted over the years, I unknowingly read and posted one by Venezuelan state media.
Now, as for me accepting money from "the Venezuelan propaganda ministry," I did indeed do one month's work of media analysis for the Venezuelan Ministry of Information and Communication in the summer of 2005. And for that one month's work, I "accepted" a whopping $700 in payment. Somehow I fail to see the relevance of this.
Somehow yo fail to see your double moral.
Somehow yo fail to see your double moral.
In English, it's called a double standard. You're the one who employs a double standard. For example, you demand that Venezuelan state media be "objective" but then ignore entirely that private media have aimed for the jugular of the Chavez government, plotted a coup against it, and couldn't give a rat's ass about "objectivity." That's a double standard, anonymous.
I am sorry to learn how cheap you are:
"And for that one month's work, I "accepted" a whopping $700 in payment"
Remember, it is you who is a self-confessed lier:
"I don't even read Venezuelan state state media."
What I didn't know was that you were also xenophobic:
"In English, it's called a double standard"
By the way, nobody here is defending the US media.
I leave you with a quote from your idol:
"En el imperio, si a alguien deviene ingresos de una entidad del estado. Es decir si alguien recibe dinero de cualquier ministerio. como viáticos o un viajecito. Entonces inmediatamente se le considera un agente del gobierno. Estoy hablando en términos legales.Todos esos periodistas que aceptaron viajecitos del gobierno de Mister Danger son unos traidores y deberían ser juzgados por traición a la patria. Yo le digo aquí al fiscal. Abrales un expediente. Que sientan el peso de la ley".
Hugo Chavez
Post a Comment