Quote:
Quote by: Chris the Chees  Actually, what it means is that it makes the process of nationalising buisness easier. Chavez did the exact same thing back in 2000 and Venezuela did not transform into the dictatorship of the like that G.Adams fears will arise. In fact it would appear that Chavez's time in office after the first three years (including the period of the first enabling act) did nothing but vastly improve the lives of the general populous. From Wikipedia: -
"By the end of the first three years of his presidency, Chávez had successfully initiated a land transfer program and had introduced several reforms aimed at improving the social welfare of the population. These reforms entailed the lowering of infant mortality rates; the implementation of a free, government-funded healthcare system; and free education up to the university level. By December of 2001, inflation fell to 12.3% the lowest since 1986,[39] while economic growth was steady at four percent.[40]Chávez's administration also reported an increase in primary school enrollment by one million students.[40]"
While I am under no illusions that Chavez is not going down a dangerous road, especially when it comes to closing down the voice of disagreement in the form of the radio station, I still think that he is being somewhat unfairly demonised.
I think a more important issue is that the US helped and funded the coup of a democratically elected president. |
until no,no one can really prove that Shavez did any concrete harm ,he only intervened in the favor of the poor .His social reforms are a real revolution.However his political reforms seems dangerous.