The NY Times chastizes Chavez

Jose G. Perez jgperez at SPAMfreepcmail.com
Sat Aug 21 17:21:50 MDT 1999



<META content=text/html;charset=iso-8859-1 http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META content='"MSHTML 4.72.3110.7"' name=GENERATOR>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2>    <FONT color=#000000>America's
newspaper of record, in an editorial, chastizes Venezuelans in general and
President Chavez in particular:</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2><FONT color=#000000></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>"Hugo Chávez won the presidency nine months ago promising to
end the corruption and mismanagement that has helped to squander Venezuela's
riches. But while Venezuelans overwhelmingly supported radical reform, they
should be very wary of the methods Mr. Chávez is using. He is drawing
power into his own hands, and misusing a special Constitutional Assembly meeting
now in Caracas that is composed almost entirely of his supporters."</DIV>
<DIV>
<P><FONT color=#000000 size=2>The editors of the Times are particularly upset
that Chavez and his backers view the Assembly as "originaria," i.e.,
as the supreme embodiment of sovereignty and subject to no pre-existing
restraints. For some reason, the editors feel compelled to complain that Chavez
wants the presidential term lengthened, and would even allow a president to be
re-elected. </FONT><FONT color=#000000 size=2>The Times also stanchly opposes
reforms of Venezuela's basket-case judiciary, as well as of its ultra-corrupt
Congress.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=2>Normally, such an august body as the editorial board of the New
York Times could care less about the formalities of bourgeois democracy. They've
yet to complain to the brits because Prime Ministers serve for up to five years,
instead of four, nor for the practice of allowing prime ministers to be
re-elected. Even much more substantial questions of bourgeois democratic
legality --such as the separation of powers, which in Britain does not really
exist-- have not moved the editors to complain. And there's a reason for this,
simply, that the Times editors care deeply about the class nature and the
effectiveness of bourgeois governments, but not about its constitutional forms.
The Times's real worry about the Constitution of a country which the majority of
its editors have never even set foot on is revealed in an adjective:</FONT></P>
<P>"It is hard to see how the Jacobin decisions of Mr. Chávez and
the assembly will help Venezuela."
<P><FONT color=#000000 size=2>Jacobin decisions. Very well put. One could do
much worse than go down in history as the first Jacobin of the 21st Century. For
what did the Jacobins represent but a change in the class nature of the French
state. It is a name that has gone down in history identified with the most
vigorous pursuit of revolutionary transformations.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT color=#000000 size=2>* * *</FONT></P>
<P><FONT color=#000000 size=2>    Y ahora en
castellano.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT color=#000000 size=2>    <FONT color=#000000>El Times de
Nueva York, algo así como el órgano oficial del comité
central del imperialismo yanqui, se ha tenido que molestar para darle un fuerte
regaño a ese muchacho travieso Hugo Chávez y al pueblo de
Venezuela.</FONT></FONT></P>
<P><FONT color=#000000 size=2>    A los directores del
prestigioso diario --que sin duda jamás han visitado Venezuela-- les
parecen mal todas las propuestas constitucionales de Chávez, el
término presidencial, la re-elección, la reforma del
escandalosamente inoperante poder judicial, la re-estructuración del
ultra-corrupto poder legislativo.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT color=#000000 size=2>    <FONT color=#000000>Normalmente
al Times poco le importan los detalles de la institucionalidad
democrática-burguesa de otros países. Cuantas veces denunciaron a
la Thatcher por haberse excedido los 4 años de mandato? Y Cuantas veces
le reclamaron a los británicos por permitir la re-elección de la
primera ministra, o por no mantener una separación virginal entre los
poderes del estado, centralizándolos, para todos los efectos, bajo la
dama de hierro y un parlamento servil? El Times no se quejaba de la
violación de los principios legaluyos de la democracia burguesa gringa
porque entiende perfectamente lo importante, que no radica en las formalidades
del derecho constitucional, sino su caracter de clase.</FONT></FONT></P>
<P><FONT color=#000000 size=2>    <FONT color=#000000>Esto es
también lo que le preocupa en el caso de Venezuela. Fustiga a Chavez y la
Constituyente por proponerse "decisiones Jacobinas." El calificativo
está seleccionado con gran precisión. Qué representaban los
jacobinos sino un cambio en el caracter de clase del Estado? Es un nombre que ha
pasado a la historia identificado con perseguir las transformaciones
revolucionarias con máxima energía.</FONT></FONT></P>
<P><FONT color=#000000 size=2>   ¡Ojalá que Chávez
y el pueblo Venezolano pasen a la historia como los primero jacobinos del Siglo
XXI! </FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=2>José</FONT></P>
<P><FONT color=#000000 size=2><FONT
color=#000000></FONT></FONT> </P></DIV></BODY></HTML>
</x-html>








More information about the Marxism mailing list