The Cuban National Assembly is currently meeting and there is a lot of speculation surrounding the naming of a younger generation of leaders to positions of political and influence. The Castro brother are both in their 80s and most of the country's other most influential politicians and military officers are also well past a conventional retirement age. Will we see a generational change in Cuban leadership without a few further nudges in the form of illness or death? To go along with this story I've chosen a couple other articles which address the difficulties surrounding power transitions. Leaders are often loathe to give up their power. Some leaders are considered irreplaceable by their supporters.
Along with Cuba, this week's articles consider the continuing uncertainty surrounding the health and leadership of Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez and Pinochet's loss of the 1988 plebiscite in Chile.
Here are the articles:
Cuba's Castros prepare to step back after end-of-era election
Venezuela: the homecoming
Chile's Pinochet tried to cling to power in 1988
Questions:
1) Do term limits strengthen or hinder government responsiveness and accountability?
2) How best can a country transition from an autocratic to a democratic government while minimizing economic and political instability?
Enjoy!!
I think that this is an interesting article because it is an example of the regions worries about the health conditions of Hugo Chaves. While Venezuela is a close ally with Cuba, and it is questionable what might change if Chavez and Castro are both replaced. Whoever does take over for Castro will have a huge economic responsibility if they are to transition towards a democratic style government. To answer the first question, I would say that term limits strengthen accountability and responsiveness. With a short term, you are more responsive. If you have a long term, you are more accountable. What I found most interesting was the first sign of a transition towards a democracy. By making the citizens economically independent from the state, the people have a higher sense of freedom. This is a big step for Cuba, but the future is still questionable and hard to predict.
ReplyDeleteThe period of Cuban history, which is about to take place is one that demands the most attention. For almost sixty years the Cuban government has been headed by a Castro, a name synonymous with authoritarian and leftist power in Latin America. Hailed as a undefeated bastion of anti-western ideal for so long it is unclear if this new move marks the end of an era or a continuation of Castroismo.
ReplyDeleteWhat Raul Castro seems to be doing today, legislatively, mirrors what Pinochet did in Chile at the end of his regime. As a clear attempt to solidify the legacy of the communist regime so that in the decades to come Cuba remains a "viable" example of socialism in the world.
It will be interesting to look back on this transition of power similar to the facts that are now emerging from the Pinochet regime. Yet due to the authoritarian nature of the Cuban society it is unlikely to experience the same forms of transitionary policies due to the democratic atmosphere. The fact that the Castro regime has been in power for so long, allowing to solidify their power through violence and long term solidification of norms, makes it probable that this will be a relatively silent transition. The true issue is who will take the lead of the regime in the wake of the Castro absence.
This leads us to the greater picture of Latin America. Who generally speaking will take the ideological position of Castro. With Hugo Chavez' insecure condition who will take the lead? Many have said that Rafael Correa is the likely man to step up to the plate and lead the socialist movement in Latin America. In any case, this is the ultimate question. After a half century as the figure of Socialism... And the only continuos Socialist state in the world... Will the cause end or continue?
In recent years, Cuba has passed many reforms to give more individual freedom to the citizens. For instance, a Cuban citizen can now buy a cell phone, own a home, and business owners can pay their employees larger salaries. While it may seem as though the long time socialist state is moving closer to a democratic one, many are asking to what extent these reforms are merely a facade. While these reforms look nice to the outside world and seem to give Cuba more political credibility, they actually do very little to give individual freedoms to citizens. For the most part, Cubans cannot afford cell phones so having the freedom to buy one means nothing. Just as most employers cannot afford to raise salaries of their employees. Lastly, while Cubans were given ownership of their land and homes, It is still against the law for them to sell that property.
DeleteThis very well may be a facade yet the liberation of human movement is evidence that Cuba is in fact transferring its ideals to, in the least, a less socialist state. Like all recent liberalizations, the emigration laws have conditions (specific demographics are barred from leaving, passport prices are exorbitantly high)but I still believe this is an incremental opening of Cuba to the global market. Currently, it seems as though the next regime will not reverse any previous decisions on personal freedoms.
DeleteThe motive for such policies (allowing travel, etc) in Cuba does seem to be more economically incentivized; an end goal being, perhaps, the restabilitization of Cuban economy in support to reaffirm socialist rule. However, if there is any truth to the modernization theory, promotion of travel and foreign education, etc, may instigate a movement of the people away from a more authoritarian model of autocracy and toward greater democratic representation. Is the modernization theory, therefore, reaffirmed by the prohibition of international relation and the strict regulation of internal factors of society in Totalitarian societies?
DeleteThe articles also call into question the notion of democracy and the "democratic" election/ delegation of regime-like governments. Is a nation, like Venezuela, still democratic because a majority favors a more authoritarian leader or has it moved away from democracy through the extension of length of terms? Also, the articles question the matter of foreign intervention and encourage the reader to consider what authority foreign nations have in promoting democracy-as-such in a nation that has "democratically" opted for more totalitarian governance.
Until December 1998, Venezuela had the longest and most stable democracy in Latino America (40 years). It was considered the most rapidly developing country in the region capitalizing on its oil industry, diversifying industries, modernizing infrastructure, meanwhile corruption and populism were undermining its growth. So in total contradiction to Chile, perhaps the question to ask about Venezuela is: How can a country transition from democratic to an autocratic government while maximizing economic and political instability?
ReplyDeleteThe current situation in Venezuela is characterized by the control of a populist/socialist/autocratic government that came to power through democratic elections to serve five years but has perpetuated for already 14 years and is trying to hold for at least 6 more. Its leader, Hugo Chavez, initially stated that he was not socialist and defined Cuba a Castro’s dictatorship (watch 1998 interview in Spanish https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=458913047501501) Soon after, the president started to change the Venezuelan Constitution in order to adapt it to his own objectives (indefinite re-election), declared the Bolivarian Revolution and rapidly took over all government institutions including the judicial, legislative and electoral powers. In parallel, he guaranteed the loyalty of the military forces by forcing to retirement all high ranked officers and promoted his peers from the military academy and the loyal officers that accompany him in his failed 1992 coup d’état to then President Perez. An autocratic government was established.
Regarding term limits or in the case of Chavez, the lack of limits, has neither strengthened nor hindered government responsiveness and accountability. As stated in The Economist’s article, current government official, after 14 years in power, still blame the almost extinguished private sector for their own incompetence in economical, financial and management matters. So, no accountability or responsibility is assumed. Responsiveness from the government to its supporters is mainly seen previous to elections when gifts and money are widely exchanged for votes. Perhaps, what we are able to see are signs of exhaustion and ineptitude that are becoming evident, as well as conflict among power seekers within the Chavismo.
Venezuela’s “constitutional limbo” is not new for the Venezuelan opposition that has been enduring, resisting and fighting all sorts of interpretations of the Bolivarian Constitution depending on Chavez and government officials needs. Nevertheless, the illness, disappearance and come back of Chavez have set a different dynamic among the country. New elections are soon to happen, the opposition has already aligned its candidate, Henrique Capriles. The Chavismo, with out its leader, is considering Maduro, a loyal man to the Cuban regimen and appointee by Chavez. However, there are other strong men in the Chavismo, such as the President of the National Assembly and military fellow, Diosdao Cabello, and many more. There are definite tensions among chavistas, to whom the lost of power would also mean the lost of wealth and eventually confronting the old laws.
The country is divided between the ones that fall for the illusion (Chavistas) and the ones that see through it and are in fact striving for a change in Venezuela (Oposición). Soon we will see which way Venezuela will go.
I never thought I would say this about the Catholic Church, but it seems like Pope Benedict XVI is the only geezer with any brains around here. He's 85, of course it's time to retire! Fidel and Raul Castro are 83 and 81 respectively, Chavez is cancer-ridden and pushing 60...what do these men have in common? They're dying. How is any representative supposed to be the voice of a people two generations younger than him/herself? All it does is stunt progress by maintaining archaic ideals in government. I understand that established men in power are often unwilling to relinquish any of that power, but that's just too bad. I'm surprised they haven't been ousted already.
ReplyDeleteClearly, term limits serve an important purpose; the question isn't really whether a country should implement term limits, but for how long. Too short and nothing gets done, too long and someone is bound to stick his or her hand in the proverbial pot. Based on familiarity with four-year limits, I feel that a two year term limit in Cuba is excessively short. In the US, four-year terms, including a year of campaigning, interrupt delegations and stall progress. But maybe Cuba will prove to be remarkably efficient and pull it off.....
These “geezers” that hold their positions of power for far longer than they should is a rather undoubted fact. I agree that as these men become increasingly timeworn (politically and literally), they should pass their power to someone else. However, it is easier for someone in the United States who sees a new president every four or eight years to say this than for someone who thinks of their president as more than just the head of government. Someone that serves as the “face of the country” may have much more ease in retaining power for a number of decades than someone who is simply expected to “do the job” in the time allotted. Hugo Chávez serves as a textbook example—he has held onto power for fourteen years but serves as the symbol for Venezuela. Similarly, Fidel Castro had been considered far more than just the leader of Cuba for all his decades in power. With that said, I do think that employing a term limit will increase responsiveness (as the new leader will strive to get things done in the time he has), but not so much regarding accountability (as he may be less inclined to complete his promises knowing that he only has a certain number of years anyway).
DeleteI think you make a very good point, Rachee, in regards to term limits, in that the important question is not IF countries should have term limits, but rather HOW LONG they should be. I steadfastly believe that limiting the duration of any one leader's rule is necessary, as it is important to have leadership which reflects the changing will of the people - thus helping to ensure government responsiveness and accountability. How long, however, is a rather difficult question to answer, as there are examples of both short term limits and long term limits being successful throughout history. Ultimately, I think the question comes down not only to limits, but to the integrity of the entire political system itself. If a system is rife with corruption and elections are neither fair, nor open, nor free from manipulation (Latin America has particularly suffered in this regard), then a term limit is really just an unenforceable empty promise that serves no real purpose (other than to offer the illusion of democratic legitimacy).
DeleteI agree with Lizzy that some of this political figures represent not just someone that takes on a "job" for a a term or two, they are rather "the face of their country". Terms are necessary, but I do not think that 4 years is enough, specially if these elected officials are not allowed to be reelected. A longer term limit should, in my opinion, increase responsiveness, as this elected figure will have a longer lasting impact on the future of the country. In Cuba's case this transition from socialism to democracy has to be gradual. The Castro's has in power for so long that essentially for new generations its the only way they know. A complete change would cause more political instability, and with its economic infrastructure, Cuba is not ready for this sudden change.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree that changes to the system have to come gradually so as not to upset the order of things and shock the system. However, the article stated that the goal of the current government is to adjust the system without undermining it, and I think this will be tricky. For example, Eduardo Garcia, the repair man mentioned in the article, talked about his frustrations with having more economic independence but still feeling constrained by the system. And the article also mentioned that political reforms had not matched the economic reforms. I think this is problematic, as economic freedoms typically lead to demand for more political freedom and may lead to a questioning of the system itself, which is what the current government is trying to avoid altogether.
DeleteI also agree that these political figures represent "the face of their country" and as long as they use their power fairly to support the needs of the people then it doesn't matter how old or long they have been in power. The influence of either short or long term definitely varies in several cases which makes it hard to determine what the "correct" way is. If the term limit is too short, there's not enough time to make a difference. It would be reasonable to have a 4 year term and then allow them to run again. If there is a fair election process, then society will decide whether or not he/she would continue to be a good candidate, if not someone else would be elected.
DeletePinochet's rise and fall in power is by now, known by all of us. While I believe the article was written in an anti-Pinochet bias (he wasn't the best individual) it does well in reporting the previous foreign relations of Chile and the U.S. What amazes me is that the Military Dictator's satiation for power, even after seventeen years in office, was still not achieved after being called to step down. The contradictions of his self-image when compared to his actions are similar to other authoritarian regimes attempts to validate a non self rule government. The fact that information is still being revealed about US - Chili foreign relations proves that ties were most likely closer than previously believed. It begs the question of what if the U.S. or other military allies had intervened and successfully kept Pinochet in power?
ReplyDeleteWhen considering modern-day Latin America, Cuba and Venezuela are certainly the most interesting examples of countries currently experiencing transitional politics. Cuba has been ruled by the Castro family for more than forty years, leading to even international questioning of who is to take over in their old age and declining health. Venezuela’s president on the other hand, only 58 years old, has been battling cancer and is speculated to actually be on his death bed. What makes the situation even more interesting is these countries’ unique alliance – perhaps in part due to their similar authoritarian, leftist governing. So the question becomes how to analyze each of these countries as future potential models for a peaceful transition of power?
ReplyDeleteWhile it seems that Cuba may be further along the road to democracy than is Venezuela at this particular moment, it is important to consider how a transition from autocratic to a democratic government might occur in either country. I would agree with several of the comments posted on the blog already – the reason that these men so easily yield power is because they are seen as more than just politicians; they are more importantly seen as the symbolic faces and personalities of their respective countries. Their often romanticized images gives authoritarian leaders, like Castro and Chavez, the flexibility needed to over-exert their power. This aligns with some of the earliest chapters from V&P, because from this reading we learned that Latin American political culture places an emphasis on how personable and charismatic political figures are. The reason I highlight this is because I am suggesting that perhaps a peaceful transition to democracy is possible through a parliamentary system. Unlike current presidential systems, I believe a parliamentary system would give Latin American politics what I would consider the best of both worlds: the citizens would benefit from the additional civil liberties of a democracy while allowing for a “symbolic face” to simultaneously represent the country. Ultimately, there would be separation of head and state and head of government which is currently fused. In my opinion, this would allow the head of government to focus on the country’s politics as the head of government takes over more traditional, ceremonial roles that seem to be so important to Latin American culture.
I believe a parliamentary system would also have added benefits in terms of the second question - accountability and responsiveness. In this type of democracy, the head of government is much more easily removed from power if the legislature sees it as being fit. The result is that this political figure has greater accountability for his/her actions because invariably he/she DOES have a term limit, but this term could end at any time. This close relationship between the head of government and legislature would also improve political responsiveness – as alliances within the government increase, the possibility of gridlock lessens. Legislation would get passed more easily and political agendas could be pursued quicker. However, it is important to note that this close relationship between the legislature and head of government could also pose a threat considering Latin America’s tendency toward authoritarianism. If there is no opposition to the ruling party, the possible abuse of power will exist.
1) Do term limits strengthen or hinder government responsiveness and accountability?
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion term limits strengthen government responsiveness and accountability. Having a sense of feeling that you're time in office isn't eternal, is something that should be essential when putting anyone into power. Term limits definitely promotes accountability. If the current government makes terrible legislation or executive decisions that negatively affect the economy or the population as a whole, come election time these costly decisions will reflect in the voters. Also it is intuitive to believe that people in office want to leave a legacy that will be remembered long after they are gone, and if they have one horrible term then they will either be remembered for just that or forgotten all together.
In addition term limits are vital so that it ensures that at the point of turnover, the regime that is in power does not go past its prime years and face having to scramble for new youthful leaders that will ensure their policies are put in place and to be able to carry out the same principles. As was discussed in the Venezuela and Cuba articles both Chavez and the Castro’s have had the pleasure of enjoying unlimited terms. In the Castro’s case they are both nearing the end of not only their political careers, but also their respective lives. They are now in a mode in which they are seeking new leaders that can mirror their current regime. This could have been an easier transition had they left power years ago and let new leaders lead the nation and they could have seen the progression from afar as oppose to hoping that the nation follows in their footsteps soon after they die. In Chavez’s case he has been his health has rapidly been deteriorating and is presumed to be nearing his death as he has cancer. In my opinion it should be even questionable if he is fit to even make executive decision for a country in his current status. In the publics eye there should be a lot of uncertainty as to what is actually transpiring within the government, because their president makes rare appearances and is too busy visiting cuban doctors. questions such as who is making decisions for Venezuela? How big of an influence does Cuba have on the country? should be valid questions and should be affecting the publics confidence in the current administration in moving forward.
The political and economic alliance between Cuba and Venezuela has significantly improved during the Presidency of Hugo Chavez. Cuba’s emergence from relative isolation into the international arena has fostered many important relationships, especially with Venezuela who provides Cuba with cheap oil in exchange for their world renowned doctors. This relationship is built on a commitment to the preservation of a socialist system, seen as an alternative to American Democratic Capitalism. The connection between Cuba and Venezuela is particularly interesting because the leaders of both countries are no longer fit to rule, signifying a change in leadership that will most likely occur sometime in the near future. How will this alliance be effected by the change in leadership? What will this transition look like? These are questions that must be answered in order to further address the problems associated with transitional politics.
ReplyDeleteThe political culture in Latin America often fluctuates between military rule and civilian electoral democracy. Judging from the historical political instability in the region one could argue that term limits in fact hinder government responsiveness and accountability. When term limits are present leaders feel pressured to produce results, often creating ambitious reform plans that are reliant on debt. Debt creates many problems for a country which in some cases, such as Venezuela in the 1980’s, leads to the devaluation of the currency in turn creating higher prices and lower wages (V&P). In this situation poverty rates increased and corruption within the government began to get worse. Although there are many other factors besides term limits that contributed to the increased corruption and poverty rate in Venezuela during the 1980’s it is important to consider the political and economic influence imposed on many Latin American countries by more developed nations that force grand utopian plans for sweeping reforms that often make matters worse.
An important aspect to consider when analyzing the best way for a country to transition from an autocratic to a democratic government is the armed forces. In order to transition from a dictatorship to a democracy the democratic government must have the support of the military. Latin America has a long history of political turnover through military coups which has created a lasting legacy in which militaries are still able to influence the political process. A unification of the armed forces and the government in which the government is in full control of the military would ensure political stability by minimizing the militaries influence over the political process while also minimizing the threat of a military coup.
Referring to the article “Cuba’s Castros prepare to step back after end-of-era election, we see the island of Cuba suffers from long term policies implemented due to several years of service of political leaders. Being that political powers were passed from one brother to another, policy and shared idea on communist government have prevented the common people from receiving fair rights to benefit in society economically. The people have less power and for years have to suffer under a particular rule for so long. By implementing a restriction on terms for years being served this allows for election to be beneficial and for the people to have a say on what they would like to see be done. Governments control along with policy that ultimately affects the people as well as the economy is in some ways limited. By restricting political leader’s terms this would allow for a system of checks and balances towards the country. If a particular policy fails it wouldn’t have the people wouldn’t have to suffer for longer periods of time, thus creating involvement of the people making their society more democratic.
ReplyDeleteCastro’s being in power setting regulations is very similar to the issues concerning Pinochet while ruling in Chile. The control would seem well structured at times depending on perspective, but there were many unhappy people and an economy that began to struggle. After Raul Castro’s term ends it will likely be new policies put in place to discourage these long term elected officials.
However, my opinion of a more democratic society may still be a long way to come. Even though political leader’s terms will be shorter this doesn’t mean that the idea of radical left policies will be thrown away. It is very possibly that leaders that come into play with theses new elections share the same political vision that Castro had. For some political leaders government is about bettering the quality of life for the people as well as the country. In opposition to that, some leaders like the idea of having an elite class which base the decision of the government on what better serves their situation during a particular time.
In all we can suggest what policy will work best for Cuba, I do believe a restricting time period can be a positive for the people of Cuba, however, depending on political leaders views and values of what’s important to them ultimately will determine how successful the country becomes.
In response to question one. I believe that term limits can both strengthen and weaken government responsiveness and accountability. I will provide two examples of different types of term limits and then make an argument for my vision of what ideal term limits would look like.
ReplyDeleteIn Cuba we have seen what term limits can do when there is no cap put on them. Cuba has failed to globalize it fails to benefit from the idea of comparative advantage and it has been left in the dust due to sanctions the US and other countries have put on Cuba barring trade with the them. In the recent change of leader we have seen a change that is making it easier for Cubans to obtain passports and leave the country. If cuba where to have limited the length time any leader was in power i believe we would see a much more modernized and globalized cuba. Term limits allow people to come in with new ideas for the direction of the country and this is never a bad thing.
Chile is another example of how term limits caused inefficiencies within government. Pinochet brought times of economic success to Chile, but also failed to realize when the bubble was getting to big. With no term limits to influence the analysis and effectiveness of the current system, we end up failing to adjust and restructure poicies to best benefit the people and promote economic growth. Since the fall of Pinochet Chile had moved to a presidential system that limits to 4 years with only two consecutive terms allowed to be served. With this change we have seen a much more democratic and stable Chile. Because people are at risk on not being reelected for that second term we end up getting a system that promotes efficiency and involvement by the people.
In the united stats we have a four year system as well but because the president has very limited power this rule plays a very small difference in out comes. The house of reps has no term limit and this is where much of the inefficiencies come from.
The ideal term limits would be 4 years for presidents and 6-10 years for reps and the senate. This would allow for the influence of younger generations to play more in the role of policy development and it would make sure that the house of reps is being held accountable for their jobs. Term limits mainly eliminate the disparities between the political views of the younger voting generations and the generations making and voting on the laws. Term limits provide incentive for responsiveness and accountability by influencing politicians to provide policies that will best help now.
I would argue against your point that the President in the United States has very limited power. I believe that term limits actually allow the President to have even more power than the House in his ability to use his executive orders. When a politician has no fear of re-election towards the end of his second term in the White House they take advantage of their executive powers to go around the House and pass legislation that benefit them personally or their political party. There are always pros and cons toward term limits and I do believe that term limits do more good than bad, however there is always a way to manipulate the system and I will be surprised if Castro actually steps down from office after his second term.
DeleteStatistically shown in the United States term limits don't really hold anyone accountable and typically decrease productivity. However as we've seen in Brazil many people continue still vote for known corrupt politicians. And we see rampent corruption and outdated politicians leading autocratic nations, so a middle grown must be taken into account.
DeleteOften at least in my opinion this is due to state controlled media. When the people don't get all the information or it has been primed and framed for them in a certain light it is easy for autocratic regimes to remain in power. North Korea is an excellent example, I personally feel that computers and the internet helped lead to Pinochet's downfall. As we read Chile by the end of his regime was making headway in the technology market. Free information means free thoughts and eventual displeasure and civil upheaval as we saw with the riots at the end of Pinochet's regime. As is the case the with the United States the incumbent receives a significant advantage in reelection, often in my opinion cause few people care to really learn anything about the candidates. Term limits don't really help to the responsiveness of the nation, public opinion and mood is the key ingredient.
We are drawn to the news as countries in the Middle East are changing policies and governments on the daily, but it is important for us to bring our attention to the changes in governments a little bit closer to home. As Raul Castro pushes for small reforms in Cuban government, and as Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez’s health remains an issue, we look to the idea that these countries in Latin America may soon have dramatic political shifts. However, problems do occur when a government switches gears for reasons such as authoritarian control—Cuba—and a corrupt democracy in Venezuela’s case.
ReplyDeleteIn a country that is so dependent on its government, like the Cuban’s are to Castro, changing policy is very delicate. For Cuba, which has seen the same power for generations, implementing term limits could either make or break the government’s control and accountability. Since the government has been ruled by the same political power for over 60 years, the people of Cuba have never really known any other sort of government, so giving the people of Cuba the opportunity to choose their next ruler, or even be the next ruler is a huge step forward, democratically. However, with political change comes the prospect of many new reforms and implementation of new policy. For Cuba, this means that there could be great conflict between the followers of Castro’s socialistic government and those trying to reform into a more modern democratic government. Adding a term limit invites change to the government in Cuba, however, this could hurt relations with Cuba’s current best ally, Venezuela. The Castro family and President Hugo Chavez have a very close personal and business relationship which presents the possibility of economic instability, if a change in politics is to occur. So while I believe that term limits are crucial, I don’t think that term limits are going to strengthen the government’s accountability just yet. In order for a country, which has been under the same rule for so long, to transition to a democratic government, I believe that new economic and political ties must be made. This could hinder relationships with other countries, such as Venezuela and their generosity with oil, but in the long run it will help politically redeveloping nations to expand globally and regionally and allow new economic and political allies to form.
In order for Cuba to shift into a democratic government, as well, the people must be more involved in the government. The new implementation of taxes is a small step toward that goal. The people of the nation must have more say in policy. If the people work together to boost their own economy by creating self-sustaining businesses and depending less on the government for support, political change should be less of an issue. The more the people rule themselves, the more minimal economic and political instability will occur.
Transitioning governments is never an easy subject, but it is inevitable, and the Cuban and Venezuelan governments understand that. So as hard as it will be watching the still standing socialist/communist government’s make a major switch toward democratic policies, it is a step in the right direction for the global and regional stability in the long run.
President Hugo Chavez spent over two months away from his country for a fourth cancer operation in Cuba, and has only recently returned to Venezuela. However, now that statements have revealed that the leader is hardly able to speak without a tracheotomy tube, though no tube was visible in the February 15th photos with his daughters. His recent arrival in Venezuela wasn’t even documented with photos as Chavez arrived in the late night hours. Because of all this, it seems that Hugo Chavez’s health is actually worse than the government and media are promoting it to be. As a man of power, it cannot be easy for the citizens under the Venezuelan government to realize the diminishing health of their president and Hugo Chavez is likely embarrassed to put his weakened state of health on display, fueling talks of who might succeed him, especially with Chavez at the beginning of a new term. Venezuela needs to be prepared for the possibility that Hugo Chavez will not return to office and what may occur as a result. The devaluation of the currency and an increase in inflation will need to be addressed sooner rather than later and, with the president’s absence (if he is in fact still running the country), will demean the ability to aid the economy.
ReplyDeleteThe likelihood that Hugo Chavez will be unable to complete his term is increasing, and in that case, there may be potential benefits for the social status and economy of Venezuela. President Chavez has been in power for three full presidential terms and is at the beginning of a fourth, summing up to fourteen years in office and still going. During this time, there has still been a large disparity between the rich and the poor, with one of the highest inflation rates at 20.9%, ranking the country as 217th in the world. Even with a large amount of oil reserves, Venezuela is still an extremely poor country due to a poor allocation of resources. If a new president were to be elected for the first time in about fourteen years, Venezuela’s resources may be better allocated, increasing oil trade that would pump money into the Venezuelan economy. If the United States were to benefit from that oil trade, the relationship between the two countries may further be improved.
And, to address the first question, term limits in politics do have positive and negative effects, though government responsiveness and accountability is often included in the detrimental. Term limits are commonly in existence to prevent politicians and leaders from continuous rule and dominance, avoiding long-standing dictators. However, with shortened terms, politicians are frequently producing agendas they may be unable to finish within their term. While the agenda will potentially be beneficial to society, there is no guarantee in the government’s ability to effectively respond and produce a solution for the people’s needs. Furthermore, another issue with term limits involve accountability, or lack there of. An example of this often comes in the form of the economy. At times, decisions concerning the economy will be made during one president/leader’s time in office though the results, whether positive or negative, may not be apparent until after there is an overturn of leaders. The successor might either be blamed or praised for the previous leader’s decisions and, in the short run, other goals may not be accomplished on time.
The statistic concerning inflation rates is from the CIA's website:
Deletehttps://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ve.html
Term limits are necessary for strengthening government responsiveness and accountability. In the case of Venezuela, Chavez, who is likely either dead or going home to die, is in no shape to be president. The Vice President is taking over and official reports are very much in denial of the presidents' condition. Term limits would have meant another president taking over before the current one gets too old and sick to perform the day-to-day job of running a country.
ReplyDeleteCuba is another good example, as its been in the hands of the Castros for 54 years. It is good to see Raul calling for two-term limits, of course at this point it doesn't really have much effect on him; he's 82 years old. The stubborn policies of the state with its heavy restrictions on the economy have led to a stagnant economy, even with recent changes. There is clear need for new management for a more efficient economy, and improve responsiveness by having someone new take over.
Cuba has already made steps to improve economic freedom and limit state control of the economy as a response to their loss of funding with the collapse of the USSR. This has allowed many small businesses to be relatively prosperous, but they still run into problems with state restrictions. In the transition to a democratic state, they must lessen restrictions on political parties and create free and open elections with strong constitutional amendments that support democratic processes like term limits.
In Chile, General Pinochet was replaced because in his constitution he set a term length, and promised an election in '89. He placed many new constitutional reforms to maintain power, making himself a senator and giving elections to the top two. This is certainly not ideal, but the gradual transition of power did make the process quite stable, in terms of political and economic conditions.
Looking back at week 6’s article in the Economist, Cuba’s economic stability lies heavily on the outcome in Venezuela, as Venezuela has been a huge trade ally for Cuba in subsidizing its economy through the oil industry and helping the nation to slowly expand from a strictly domestic economy. I am curious as to how the passing of Chavez this week will not only affect his efforts in Venezuela to reform the oil industry and strengthen Venezuela’s economy, but how his death and any political changes in Venezuela will affect Cuba’s attempt to strengthen its economy and trade. It seems likely that the reforms Chavez was working toward will be halted while Venezuela is in political turmoil, and Cuba’s economy will likely suffer as a result, possibly forcing the nation to open its economy much faster than it is prepared for. This could undermine the socialist/domestic system in Cuba that Castro’s leadership is trying to preserve while serving his last term(s) in office. It will be interesting to see how the transition of leadership in both Cuba and Venezuela will affect democracy and economic equality in Cuba.
ReplyDeleteAs many people have already mentioned, term limits both strengthen and inhibit government responsiveness. On one hand, term limits are necessary to keep people from holding power for too long. For example, Hugo Chavez, who was in power in Venezuela for 14 years, has left the country without an elected leader. Term limits would not have allowed an ill, elderly president to hold office for so long.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, term limits fracture progress by interrupting one president's plan with the implementation of another's. This can result in a reset where any progress made by the previous leader is disregarded as the new president implements his own plan. Often new presidents are elected because voters have not seen enough progress, however, what many voters fail to realize is that progress comes with time and, often, a president cannot accomplish tangible progress within his short term.
It seems term limits are necessary for a functioning democracy. Without them it sets the stage for a leader to create a cult of personality and dominate the political landscape for an unreasonable amount of time.
ReplyDelete