Do Dictators Lose Elections?

The Bushies have called Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez a dictator and a tyrant... but since when do dictators lose elections?

CARACAS, Venezuela, Monday, Dec. 3 -- Voters in this country narrowly defeated a proposed overhaul to the constitution in a contentious referendum over granting President Hugo Chávez sweeping new powers, the Election Commission announced early Monday.

[...] The outcome is a stunning development in a country where Mr. Chávez and his supporters control nearly all of the levers of power. Almost immediately after the results were broadcast on state television, Mr. Chávez conceded defeat, describing the results as a "photo finish."

"I congratulate my adversaries for this victory," he said. "For now, we could not do it."

Our close ally in the "war on terror," Pakistan's Pervez Musharraf, he's a dictator. Our good friend King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, now he's a tyrant. But Chávez congratulating his adversaries for winning an election? That's not a dictatorship... that's a functioning democracy.

Now if only Bush had accepted the will of the people as graciously as Chávez....

[Read more from David Goldstein at HorsesAss.org]

Comments

[melonman]

You can't help but respect the Davids of the world who look the Goliaths right in the eye and don't blink.

Even if Chavez' generous support of the poor is self-serving (and who among us can honestly make that accusation?), he's doing more good with less resources than shrub.

I'd say we need more dictators like him and fewer "leaders of the free world" like shrub.

[quadman]

Dictator, probably just a wannabe. Wasn't it last week he told the Venzuelan people that those who voted against his referendum were traitors? Chavez does want absolute power but he wants it to be legitimate. Other dictators from history have done the exact same thing. The majority of Venezuelan voters smelled a rat for this referendum and rejected it.

I have always thought that term limits were good things. It helps to keep good leaders honest and limits the damage of bad ones. Too bad only the executive branch of the US has term limits. Maybe if we had them, more effort would be made about solving problems and less time would be spent trying to secure and retain power.

[gevan]

When dictators lose they find some way around the difficulty. Hitler's Reichstag fire emergency or Lenin's dissolution of the Constituent Assembly are blueprints for greater control.

[realitytrumpsbull]

I don't care what country it is you're talking
about, including ours, elections are no guarantee of anything.

When they re-do the whole business to where
an elected person has to SIGN something, 'put
it in writing' in terms of campaign promises,
meaning they have to try their damndest to
live up to their stated purpose, intention,
and principles etc., or face getting canned
on-the-spot, basically making all this stuff
a lot more at-will and contractual, then,
and then only, will the People of any given
country have something a little more substantial
than a bunch of people in really nice clothes
making promises that last until the day after
they get the job.

In terms of talking about countries like
Venezuela, well, one more reason for achieving
that energy independence, there, so we can
also have economic and political independence.
OPEC did this B.S. to us once, we need energy,
we currently still need oil to provide that
energy, but there's no law, exactly, that
says we have to keep doing what we've always
done and subsequently end up paying through
the nose to continue on as we always have.
Better to take the strong medicine of
realizing that the old paradigm has some
problems, and figure out how to develop
America 2.0 to be able to be independent.
George(Washington) warned about this kind
of stuff, yet, here we are, of course
Smedley Butler warned about stuff like
Iraq, and there our troops are, and
wherever you go, there you are. There's a
song like that, I think...

[PerryWhite]

I believe that the reason that he is a bit humbled is that he knows that he didn't lose by two percentage points, but rather by something like a two to one margin.

[peterg76]

Chavez is a little too eager for power, but calling him a dictator is like saying the US does not torture.

[KenoshaMarge]

Excellent point. The truth is we use derogatory language towards those we wish to marginalize or demonize and praise those, even knowing their bad behavior, if they kiss enough American ass. Not hard to figure out if you're paying attention. But don't expect corporate media to tell you the truth about this. No money in telling the truth.

[GoodBrownie]

Let's not get too excited and jump on the Chavez-isn't-so-bad train. "For now, we could not do it" translates to "we'll try this stuff again." We should until the time comes for him to step down, and then we'll see what he does. In the meantime, I expect more pro-Chavez posts here at HuffPo since he is so vehemently anti-Bush.

[FogBelter]

Mr. Goldstein, the crime of Hugo Chavez in the eyes of the Bush Administration and the US Chamber of Commerce is he has forgotten the job of the President of Venezuela is to act as overseer of Plantation Venezuela.

Self determination? Rights for the Venezuelan People? The assumption that the National Resources of Venezuela are to be used for the benefit of the Venezuelan People?

Come now, Chavez must but down his Noam Chomsky and reread the document that pertains to him ... that being the Monroe Doctrine ... At least, I'm sure that is the thinking of the Bush Administration and the US Chamber of Commerce ...

For myself, I enjoy watching a functioning democracy for a change ... I wish the US had one.