(AP) Venezuela's pro-government National Assembly overwhelmingly approved constitutional reforms that would greatly expand the power of President Hugo Chavez and permit him to run for re-election indefinitely.

The 69 changes to Venezuela's Constitution now go to citizens for a vote on Dec. 2.

The proposed changes, Chavez's most radical move yet in his push to transform Venezuela into a socialist state, threaten to spur a new wave of political upheaval in this oil-rich South American country already deeply divided over Chavez's rule.

Demonstrators protested the reforms at several universities on Friday. One student was killed by an unidentified gunman during a demonstration in western Zulia state, Zulia Police Chief Candido Carreno told state television. Four other students were injured, he said, without elaborating. No suspects were arrested.

The amendments would allow the government to expropriate private property without having to first seek court authorization, take total control over the Central Bank, create new types of property managed by cooperatives and extend presidential terms from six to seven years while allowing Chavez to run again in 2012.

All but seven of the assembly's 167 lawmakers voted for the changes by a show of hands Friday.

"Today the Venezuelan people have a pencil in their hands to write their own history, and it's not going to be the history of the elite," said pro-Chavez lawmaker Earle Herrera.

Concerns that the measures will weaken civil liberties have been raised by university students, opposition parties, human rights groups and representatives of Venezuela's Roman Catholic Church.

Critics also worry the reforms would allow Chavez to remain in power for decades like his close friend Fidel Castro of Cuba.

Calling the reforms "unconstitutional," dissident lawmaker Ricardo Gutierrez railed against pro-Chavez congressmen for approving amendments "that don't have anything to do with giving more power to the people."

Chavez, a retired army lieutenant colonel who was first elected in 1998 on a populist platform and has repeatedly defeated his political adversaries at the polls, denies the reforms are antidemocratic.

Most "Chavistas," as the president's supporters call themselves, back the reforms as a novel means of giving neighborhood-based assemblies called "communal councils" greater decision-making power as Chavez steers Venezuela toward what he calls "21st-century Socialism."

Government supporters wearing red - the color of Chavez's ruling party - cheered outside the assembly in downtown Caracas as lawmakers left the building and walked to the nearby National Elections Council, where they asked officials to schedule a Dec. 2 referendum on the reforms.

Jose Manuel Gonzalez, president of the Fedecamaras business chamber, warned of grave consequences if voters agree to the amendments.

"If this reform is approved, it destroys the future of our institutions, isolates us as a nation, brings us back to the past and distances us from modernity and progress," he told Union Radio.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/ ... ld_3448322

THE Catholic church calls it “morally unacceptable”. Many lawyers and human-rights organisations say it violates fundamental freedoms. Even some of the government's allies have spoken of “constitutional fraud”. But none of this looks likely to hinder Hugo Chávez's sweeping reform of Venezuela's constitution. The National Assembly was set to approve the changes on November 2nd for submission to a referendum a month later.

Mr Chávez says that the reform, which follows his victory in a presidential election last December, is imperative to entrench his “revolution”. As unveiled by him in August, the reform affected fewer than a tenth of the 350 articles in the 1999 constitution (which the president himself inspired). But the assembly has added a further 36 articles.

Many of the changes expand presidential power and weaken the remaining institutional checks on it. But officials argue that the creation of grass-roots “communal councils” amounts to a big devolution of power to “the people”. At the heart of the reform is an increase in the presidential term, from six to seven years, and the removal of term limits. First elected in 1998, under the current constitution Mr Chávez would not be able to stand at the next presidential election, due in 2012.

The reform also allows the president to dispose of the country's international reserves as he sees fit, and to declare any part of the country a “federal territory”, ruled directly from the presidential palace. Another change will allow the president to declare an indefinite state of emergency and suspend the right to information and to elements of due process.

Scattered throughout the new draft are references to the “socialist state” Mr Chávez is planning. Elections, for example, are described as “for the construction of socialism”, while the central bank's job will now be to contribute to the “socialist economy”. What that means is not spelled out. But the new charter will weaken property rights, for example by allowing expropriations before rather than after a court ruling. The government will have specific powers to take over farms and food factories if “food security” is threatened.

The assembly is all but a rubber stamp for Mr Chávez, because of the opposition's short-sighted decision to boycott a legislative election in 2005. Of its 167 members, only a handful belonging to Podemos, a democratic socialist party, have objected. Podemos claims still to support the government. But it has accused the assembly of railroading the changes through, adding extra clauses at the last minute even after the reform had completed its first and second readings. The chavista loyalists in the assembly argue that these changes emerged from thousands of meetings held across the country in recent weeks.

The most vocal opposition has come from outside the assembly. This month the Catholic bishops issued an “exhortation” in which they warned that the “implantation of a socialist state...implies the end of pluralism and political freedom”. In a joint statement, the country's professional associations warned that driving through a constitution that does not command widespread consensus threatens to “create the conditions for a political and social conflict of unpredictable dimensions”.

Opinion polls suggest that many Venezuelans may not vote in the referendum. But Mr Chávez is likely to get his way. He has won every election since 1998, and the government now dominates the mass media. And the reform includes two crowd-pleasing measures: a cut in the working day to six hours and the granting of social security to informal workers, though neither requires constitutional change. If and when the price of Venezuela's oil plunges, socialism looks set to consign the country to constitutionally mandated poverty

http://www.economist.com/displayStory.c ... d=10063700

I apologize for the retro photo; note the price of gas.





I particularly like the "Self Serve" bit.

Apparently "the elite" means something different in Venezuela than it does here.

its because the biggest chavez support comes from the poors

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7124313.stm

Apparently 51% of Venezuelan voters decided that they did not want to live in Cuba Jr. Good on them.

How can we prove the Bushitler was conspiring to manipulate the vote against the will of the oppressed people?

Be very thankful if he did.

so now we must look up to Chavez and country as a pillar of democracy that we are not.... SAD

The thing is, we've moved beyond democracy. The politicians no longer need or want the voters, and the voters are happy with that. Check out America: Democracy Inaction for more details.

My dear T, democracy isnt the same thing of a dictatorship of the majority, referendums that dont give a fuck to the institutions is not a sign of democracy.

i'm referring to a leader accepting defeat in an election and accepting the original document of law

speak for yourself...who's happy with this and why? is that a book you're recommending?

Its by Jon Stewart.

He's just biding his time. He'll try this again in a few months with a couple of the more onerous proposals removed, he'll win, and then he'll do the rest.

and who will win the 2008 presidential election, oh mighty soothsayer

notwithstanding his endless assault on basic democratic institutions, of course...

...it's a wobbly pillar, that's for sure.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5346328.html

Funny how when Venezuela uses Diebold voting machines, the election results are legit, while when they are used here racist corporations manipulate the votes.

Hugo Chávez called the result as a victory of the opposition, but a shitty victory, and he really used the word shitty, "vitoria de mierda"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7212457.stm




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Heh, US Imperialism. Its callled the Monroe doctrine bub, didn't you get the memo? We own your continent, deal with it.

No, but seriously, what would the purpose of such an alliance be? There is clearly no real strategic interest here. Its just a bit of rabble rousing, and he can't really gain any prestige for himself beyond opposing the US whenever he can. There was an interesting story in the NY Times about the Venezuelan middle class moving to Florida, much like the Cubans before them. Good luck running a country populated entirely by Chavez lackeys.