wnyc.org / 93.9fm / am 820

Comments

• [1] rick from Brooklyn December 03, 2007 - 11:09AM

  I disagree with Brian's comments about Venezuela. Chavez is a democrat!! were he not, why was there a referendum; why is there freedom of assembly; why is there an opposition media? all of a sudden not having term limits makes you a dictator?? I guess that mean FDR was an S.O.B.

  the whole western media is against Chavez- and the distortions are everywhere. including on NPR.

  
  
• [2] hjs from 11211 December 03, 2007 - 11:12AM

  chavez is a democratically elected leader.

  russia is a dictatorship

  
  
• [3] Paulo from Paterson, New Jersey December 03, 2007 - 11:13AM

  Chavez wants to be a dictator. He's been given the power of decree, he's shut down opposition media, he's blacklisted WORKERS (his people aren't they?) who haven't supported him, and every time he opens his mouth something demagogic and inflammatory comes out. I'm thrilled by this defeat eventhough I think he will just find some other way to tighten his grip on power.

  
  
• [4] Anonymous December 03, 2007 - 11:20AM

  Brian's clearly biased against Chavez. Commenter Rick is 100% right.

  
  
• [5] Frank A. Ocwieja from Hartsdale, NY December 03, 2007 - 11:21AM

  Dear Brian

  Democracy is an important for establishing order in most culturally Western societies. Democratic ideals are not preferred by the members of certain societies, particularly in Central Asia and the Middle East, over the advantages to their well-being that economic and political order bring, even if at the cost of democratic ideals. This latter model applies both to Russia and Pakistan. Venezuela, alas, appears to belong to the Western cultural community.

  Frank A. Ocwieja

  
  
• [6] eCAHNomics December 03, 2007 - 11:22AM

  Paulo

  If Chavez wanted to be a dictator, he wouldn't have asked the voters to eliminate term limits. And if you think the absence of term limits equals dictatorship, then you must have the same problem with the U.S. constitution up until 1951.

  
  
• [7] eCAHNomics December 03, 2007 - 11:26AM

  Putin put the "mock" into demockracy.

  
  
• [8] RB from brooklyn December 03, 2007 - 11:27AM

  Dear Brian,

  Your guests rightly point out the importance of the media in all this. Please, note that the NYT Editorial page, for example, applauded the coup against Chavez in 2002, a coup that was backed by the US. Whatever we think of Chavez, this makes it difficult for the NYT and the US government to claim that Chavez is not a democrat and still sound sincere.

  RB.

  
  
• [9] Paulo from Paterson, New Jersey December 03, 2007 - 11:28AM

  No, the ending of term limits doesn't bother me as much as his being given the power of decree by the National Assembly. The fact that he even asked for such power is pretty good evidence that he wants to be a dictator. And why would he have a referendum? Why did Saddam have elections even after he took power? Legitimacy. Chavez thought he had it in the bag, so he wasn't risking anything. He was wrong.

  
  
• [10] eCAHNomics December 03, 2007 - 11:30AM

  Chavez is NOT anti-American. He's anti-Bush. Makes sense to me.

  
  
• [11] Julia December 03, 2007 - 11:32AM

  I disagree with your previous caller regarding Russians being willing to sacrifice their liberties for the sake of safety and economic prosperity. Growing up in Russia, and having left the country in late nineties - I have grown up watching this consistent need for "the strong powerful arm" to "guide" the country, no matter the economic conditions. The country is simply not ready for truly democratic system. And Putin "rule" is downright frightening at the moment.

  
  
• [12] eCAHNomics December 03, 2007 - 11:34AM

  Thanks Julia. That's my impression as a casual outsider, but would never have said it for fear of being accused of prejudice.

  
  
• [13] Paulo from Paterson, New Jersey December 03, 2007 - 11:37AM

  It seems that if anything, when the Soviet Union collapsed, we just thought our job was done. If anything, it was only beginning. Unfortunately, Bush isn't the man to try to guide them back onto the path to democracy.

  
  
• [14] Harry from Toronto December 03, 2007 - 12:12PM

  Brian

  I listened to your segment today, on the recent votes in Venezuela and Russia and how “democratic” either country was/is.

  Unfortunately you the way you presented the “information” on Venezuela, could be construed as FUD (or spin or “framing”).

  Being able to run for leadership of a country for more than one or two terms is more the norm rather than the exception! For example, any country in the British Commonwealth, the elected leader can be re-elected for as many times as they can get elected. For example, in Canada, more often than not, the country’s leader is in power for 3 or 4 terms.

  As well, the leader in many countries can (and have) suspended the constitution. Pierre Trudeau did suspend the constitution in Canada, specifically to stop a shoe-in political party from being elected in Quebec.

  So nothing Chavez intended to do in Venezuela is unique to democracies in the Western World (so please don’t make it sound that way.)

  
  
• [15] Anton from Bloomfield, NJ (ex Moscow, Russia) December 03, 2007 - 02:00PM

  Brian,

  What I wanted to say if my call was taken, is the following. It is clear that the regime that flourishes in Russia nowadays is nothing to do with democracy, yet the term 'democracy', perhaps with some adjective, is used by both Kremlin and the West. There are few reasons, I think. 1. As your guest mentioned, US policy was to give support to early democracy in Russia without any understanding of realities in Russia and mostly conditioned by economic progress. The West still sticks to this term. The most important step - dismantling the network of ex-party bureaucrats and KGB, which control all and everything locally, should have been the key goal. Thus democracy and true democrats were compromised by the same people who are at power now. Only that now they have 10-30 times the oil revenues to rely on, rather than economic reforms.

  
  
• [16] Anton from Bloomfield, NJ (ex Moscow, Russia) December 03, 2007 - 02:00PM

  2. The level of falsifications and control of elections in Russia is unimaginable to US people. Media fails to give full account of it. E.g. whole institutions, universities, army divisions are forced by their administration to vote in favor of pro-Putin party "United Russia" (UR) throughout the country. Results of individual vote are recorded and people are threatened by various means to obey. Buses of hired or forced students or villagers are cruising from on poll station to the next voting dozens of times for UR. Ballots are not even counted at times, protocols were already filled in advance or sent empty to central polling station. Even remaining democratic regulations of elections are violated left and right. This is a farce election and it's goal is to train the brain-washed population to vote in the spirit of Soviet 'elections', meaning to submit and get used to the absence of democracy. Once people are conditioned the term 'democracy' can be dropped.

  
  
• [17] Anton from Bloomfield, NJ (ex Moscow, Russia) December 03, 2007 - 02:00PM

  3. At the same time Kremlin is afraid that some of the people will not obey, thus they recruit thousands of teenagers and send thousands of troops and special forces to control the streets and squares of main cities to prevent any protests of those who realized that elections are rigged. The arrest opposition and human rights activists. Also out of fear, I think, they play these laborious rigging schemes, instead of simply rigging the numbers in the computer during final count, which they still do anyway. 4. Finally, Kremlin plays this pseudo-democratic game with the West because the very goal of the bureaucracy is not the power itself, but money they gain with it, that they keep in western banks and offshores, as well as all goodies these money can buy (cars, yachts, soccer teams etc). Thus isolation is very bad for them now, that they got spoiled by luxurious life abroad. I suggest to stop even using the word democracy applied to Russia. Very soon the face of regime will not look much different than that of Belorussia.