Following the Venezuelan independence day last Wednesday, US presidential nominee Mitt Romney issued a statement saying that Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez “failed to honor the spirit of freedom with which Venezuela was established. Hugo Chávez is promoting ideas in Venezuela and other Latin American countries that run counter to freedom, prevent prosperity and expand tyranny.”

The statement is typical US discourse opposing Chavez, who has long been a hate figure in US media. The populist ideas Chavez is promoting have long been a concern for the US. This was illustrated by a similar statement by former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, then reacting to Salvardo Allende’s election in Chile in 1970.

Chile was then on the verge of becoming an independent socialist state rather than a Soviet satellite, a development which, according to Kissinger, “would be far more dangerous… because its ‘model’ effect can be insidious… our main concern is the prospect that [Allende] can consolidate himself and the picture projected to the world will be his success.”

Washington’s greatest fear, far greater than communism or the rise of totalitarianism, is, and always has been, successful independent nationalism. That has currently become a reality across Latin America following the last ten year’s remarkable development known as the “pink tide.” This movement is characterized by the election of leftist governments (with notable examples such as Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, Rafael Correa in Ecuador and Evo Morales in Bolivia, among others), increased government control over natural resources with new social reforms favoring the poor and former marginalized indigenous populations, and a region-wide opposition to Washington influence stretching from Venezuela to Argentina.

Venezuela has been on the forefront of this socialist movement, initiated by the 1999 election of Hugo Chavez.

Hugo Chavez was elected President following two decades of economic turmoil in Venezuela. Chavez, coming from poor conditions himself, immediately set out to introduce reforms specifically targeting the poor majority – a former invisible group in a Venezuela dominated by a small and wealthy elite with close ties to the US.

Today, Venezuela has free health care and free education, as well as some of the highest literacy rates in the region. In 2002, the disgruntled upper class, rendered powerless under the Chavez government, staged a coup with the help of Washington. The US had been channeling millions of dollars to the coup makers through US Aid and the National Endowment for democracy. Chavez was replaced by Pedro Carmona, a businessman who suspended all members of the Supreme Court, the National Assembly and the National Electoral board and assumed dictatorial powers.

The IMF was not late to jump aboard; during a press briefing the day after the coup, Thomas C. Dawson, Director of the External Relations Department in the IMF, immediately pledged allegiance to the Carmona government, saying that “we stand ready to assist the new administration in whatever manner they find.”

All the while, official US spokesmen backed a phony story about Chavez supporters shooting innocent civilians. However, the poor masses were not going to accept being marginalized once again, and thus emerged with great numbers from the Barrios demanding Chavez reinstatement. As they approached the presidential palace, the army turned against the coup makers and reinstated Chavez, a mere 48 hours after his ousting.

Philip Agee, a former CIA agent operating in Latin America, explains why the US would back a coup overthrowing an elected government and replace it with a dictator: “In the CIA, we didn’t give a hoot about democracy. It was fine if a government was elected and would co-operate with us, but if it didn’t, then democracy didn’t mean a thing to us, and I don’t think it means a thing today.”

Venezuela is home to the largest oil reserves in the world outside of the Middle East, and is thus a country of vital strategic importance to the US. Detrimental to US designs, Chavez is forming close ties with China instead of Washington. Chavez is also cooperating closely with Cuba, Argentina and other South American nations under the premise of achieving a Latin American “grand unity,” in which Washington is not included.

The US often condemns Venezuela and its current form of democracy, while paradoxically praising and supporting the neighboring government of Colombia, a country with one of the worst human rights record in history. According to virtually unreported Latinobarometro polls, Venezuela is annually the highest ranking in all of South America when it comes to trust in democracy, assessment of the current and future economic situations, equality, justice, and education standards.

Venezuela has got its far share of problems, such as mounting inflation and continuous corruption, but compared to the pre-Chavez Venezuela, where the majority of the population were completely marginalized, the democratic development is nothing far from remarkable.

As Latin America is steadily slipping out of US control, Washington is waking up to a new multipolar world in which its powers are no longer taken for granted. The continent has seen a remarkable reversal of detrimental financial and social policies during the last ten years. The region, which contemptuously has been known as Americas “back yard,” is moving towards a future in which a bewildered Washington no longer has a place.

No wonder Mitt Romney is disgruntled.

Image COurtesy of   ¡Que comunismo!

The article A Dangerous Model: Venezuela and the Pink Tide appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Despite being only 7 kilometers apart, citizens of Villarejo, Segovia have three times less the voice in the Spanish general election than their neighbors in Somosierra, Madrid. Interestingly enough, a vote in Villarejo is equivalent to 3 votes in Somosierra.

This is possible owing the particular electoral system that Spain adopted into its constitution in 1978. Despite the bicameral system, the legislative power is nowadays mainly held by the Congress with 350 deputies selected during general elections.

For this purpose, the country is divided into 50 provinces each one granted with minimum two deputies just for the matter of being a province and two autonomous cities, both in Morocco coastline, with one deputy. So from 350 total deputies, 102 are fixed among provinces and 248 are divided equally between all the provinces by their number of registered voters.

According to the Ministry of Home Affairs, Madrid is granted two deputies per province plus 33 deputies for its 4.5 million registered voters while Segovia has two deputies plus one for its 124,000 electors. A deputy must obtain over 128,000 votes to be elected in Madrid — far more than the whole total amount of registered voters in Segovia, where only around 40,000 votes can decide a deputy. Sometimes it gets worse — like between Barcelona and Teruel were differences are even bigger.

This makes the voting system bipolar; on one side, regional parties always campaign for their own province’s welfare, obviating the needs of other parts of the country and targeting only potential voters living within the same region. They therefore reach a very limited number of deputies.

On the other hand, the main nationwide political parties, Partido Popular (PP) and Partido Socialista Obrero Español (PSOE), target citizens throughout the country and have obtained the bulk of deputies so far. In Spain since 1982 there have been eight general elections where both PP and PSOE together obtained between 80 and 92 percent of the 350 deputies while remaining in positions covered by minority regional parties and other minority nationwide parties.

This system made a lot of sense when it was approved back in December 1978, only three years after the death of dictator Francisco Franco. By that time, the dictatorship had centralized all power and control in Madrid to make it easier to oversee what was going on and rule the entire nation.

But when the democratic process began, many regions started to claim autonomy. The dictatorship had severely repressed the desire of autonomy in regions like Catalonia and Basque Country, abolishing antique fiscal privileges and suppressing the recognition of Basque and Catalan as official languages.

Regions have been struggling for more independence after Franco´s death and while dismantling the old regime structure and creating a democratic one, the makers of the constitution feared a national partition into several independent countries — or a new civil war. In order to avoid this, they developed a voting system to support more power in regional minorities.

Nowadays, all Spanish regions have obtained more authority on such matters as education, health, transportation, economy, public security and so forth, transferred by the central government over three decades. They have gained an autonomous status with their own regional elections and parliament.

Moreover, the central government has given many other authorities to Brussels after the admission to the European Union. So what is the point of maintaining the system unchanged if regional minorities today have gained most of their demands? For instance, Izquierda Unida (IU), a political party whose ideals rest between communism and socialism obtained at the last general elections almost a million votes — but only obtained two deputies.

Meanwhile, Partido Nacionalista Vasco (PNV), a seeker for independence of Basque Country, received merely 300.000 votes but gained six deputies. Obviously, the vote to deputy ratio does not hold. Imagine that someone decides to create a new party supporting gay and lesbian rights and gains support in the community.

Unfortunately, the gay community is considered a national minority; in aggregated numbers there are several hundred thousands but divided by provinces, their numbers are limited, as low as 3 percent, and not enough to obtain a deputy to represent them. Project this to other national minorities like environmental activists, communists, immigrants with the right to vote, pacifist and so on. Under this system they will never be able to obtain a chair in the Chamber of Deputies.

In 2008, according to the Ministry of Home Affairs, there were 98 different political parties. Nevertheless, two parties obtained more than 90 percent of deputies, effectively holding the legislative right og Spain without effectively representing the diversity of the nation.

The last opinion poll dated September 2011, just two months before the polling day, shows the same scenario for next general elections. A scenario where the PP and PSOE will obtain over 75 percent of the total votes. Either the Spanish citizens are quite homogeneous or there is a fake democracy in place where plurality has no effect.

Democracy is not only the right to vote once every four years, nor the right to do it freely and secretly. Democracy must encourage dialogue, space for confrontation between ideas and ideals, space to be heard and a space to defend your rights.
Natursports / Shutterstock.com

The article The Death of Spanish Democracy? appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Panama City, Wednesday, March 23rd,10 p.m

My dear Amora,

Finally I have reached Panama City alive, can you believe that?  Alive! Well, my words are apparently counted, so no time for bollocks!

So Panama «riecht von oben bis unten nach Bananen!», but I will start telling you about what really happened in this country, a little lesson of history would not be out of context, I guess!

I think you already know the general story of Panama : CIA, Dictators, USA, etc. But that is the common known story in South America in the second half of the twentieth century! But for once,  France have something to do with it ! Panama got the canal, whereas the other countries used to have nothing else but some Batista or Somoza. But I won’t begin to talk about this, otherwise I might spit so much on the U.S.A and seem so European that I could lose the opportunity to continue writing for the nice people in New-York!

The French were the first to show up here and build the canal, after the success of the one of Suez. But I have learn today, that the French were trying to dig through the «Gold Hill» ( a famous place over here) the thing is that this hill is situated in a place where it is impossible to dig ( something about the tectonic plates, quite interesting).

Any-road, they spent five whole years trying, which turned out to be totally pointless. In the meantime, they were loosing money, so monkey business settled in. A lot. The cost of the construction was too high and then they (politicians) began ( as usual) to do craps with money. When this came out to light, many of them disappeared, or committed suicide, or were fired. And the construction work was abandoned, until the Americans ( bless them!) arrived to take it over, whom continued and finish the work. During the first and second World War, the Panama canal was the most defended place in the entire world. The one who was controlling this passage, was controlling the world.

Anyway, back in the eighties, an ex-CIA agent named Noriega, was on power for ten years. During this period, mister Reagan was complaining that his ex-citizen didn’t respect his engagement toward the United States. So in 1989 Bush father (with his legendary wisdom) organized the Operation «Just Cause». To be short, they  invaded Panama and re-enforced the American control over the canal until 1999. Whereas from taht date on the Canal return to the power of the Panamanian people

Well, I have so much to talk further about, but I already pass the «dead words line».

As usual, I hope that everything is going muy perfecto por ti, mi amorcita. Hasta mañana Linda !

Your panaman boy!

The article History of Panama appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.