New Statesman: "Venezuela: still a democracy":
[...] The biggest fuss this time seems to be the amendment that would abolish term limits for the presidency.
Perhaps it is because I am from Chicago, and had only one mayor from the time I was born until I graduated college, that I am unable to see this as the making of a dictatorship.
Not to mention that if Hillary Clinton is elected next year, we will have Bushes and Clintons as heads of state for a full consecutive 24 years, and possibly 28 . . .
Some [proposed constitutional amendments] have drawn opposition even among Chavez's supporters. If they are approved, it will likely be because the majority of voters trust Chavez and the government not to abuse their powers.
And there is some basis for this trust: the National Assembly earlier this year gave Chavez the power, for 18 months, to enact certain legislation by executive order. The pundits screamed about Chavez "ruling by decree," but in fact this power has not been used much at all, except in dealings with foreign corporations.
In any case, the voters will decide, with a far stronger opposition media than exists in the United States proselytising against the government. Venezuelans have not lost civil liberties the way people in the U.S. (or even the UK) have in recent years, and ordinary citizens continue to have more say in their government, and share more in its oil wealth, than ever before.[...]
Apologetics for Mugabe are at the more-advanced blame-somebody-else stage:
Khaleej Times: "It’s time for Britain to give Mugabe a break!":
THE recent announcement by British Prime Minister Gordon Brown that he will not be attending the Portugal Summit because Robert Mugabe has been invited to it is, to say the least, laughable . . .Crossposted on Soccer Dad
The British have turned Mugabe into such an ogre that they themselves have become hostage to their own propaganda. Truth be told, Mugabe's critics do not have a moral right to criticise his policies because Zimbabwe's economic and political woes, partly blamed due to Mugabe's land reforms, have a lot to do with its former colonial power, Britain.
Let's not forget that the British government failed to honour an agreement that was entered way back in 1979, where it pledged to rectify post-independence imbalances in land ownership between blacks and whites. The meeting in London hosted by former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher agreed to help Zimbabwe carry out a land redistribution exercise, but later when the Labour Party came to power, they withdrew from the programme.
Of course many other nations in Africa that were colonised by Britain up to date have huge swathes of land still being occupied by the colonisers, and here, I have to point out that Africans appreciate the work they are doing to promote agriculture and the general economies of the respective countries. But Mugabe sought to use his own way and reclaim the parcels of land. Whether his move was wise is debatable, since he's just a victim of broken promises from Britain. [...]
No comments:
Post a Comment