Articles 328 and 329: Alek Boyd

Article 328 (1999): The National Armed Forces constitute an essentially professional institution, with no political orientation, organized by the State to guarantee the independence and sovereignty of the Nation and ensure the integrity of its geographical space, through military defense, cooperation for the purpose of maintaining internal order and active participation in national development, in accordance with this Constitution and the law. In performing their functions, they are at the exclusive service of the Nation, and in no case at the service of any person or political partisanship. The pillars on which they are founded are discipline, obedience and subordination. The National Armed Forces consist of the Army, the Navy, the Air Force and the National Guard, which function in an integrated manner within the scope of their competence to fulfill their mission, with their own overall Social Security system, as established under the pertinent organic law.

Proposed Amendment:
Article 328: The National Armed Forces constitute an essentially patriotic, popular and anti-imperialist institution organized by the State to guarantee the independence and sovereignty of the Nation; to preserve it from any internal or external attacks and ensure the integrity of its geographic area through the study, planning and execution of the Bolivarian military doctrine, the implementation of the principles of integral military defense and the war of popular resistance, the permanent participation in tasks akin to maintaining security of the citizenry, and the upkeep of the internal order as well as the active engagement in economic, social, scientific and technological development plans in accordance to this constitution and the law.

In the performance of its functions it will always be at the service of the Venezuelan people defending its sacred interests and under no circumstances will serve any oligarchies or imperial foreign powers.

Its fundamental pillars are this constitution and the law, as well as discipline, obedience and subordination.

Its historical pillars are in Bolivar's mandate: to free the nation, to take the sword to defend social guarantees and to deserve people's blessings.

Commentary: The first and most important aspect that jumps from the proposed amendment is that the National Armed Forces will no longer be an apolitical body. Professionalism is replaced by “patriotic, popular and anti-imperialist” one supposes according to Hugo Chavez's understanding of these terms. A fact that has not gone unnoticed in recent military parades in Venezuela is the chant “fatherland, socialism or death” (Patria, socialismo o muerte). In fact president Chavez maintains that such premise has to become the backbone of Venezuela's soldiers.

This amendment plainly seeks to remove any traces of separation between Executive and military power, fusing the two and subordinating the latter, according to the new constitution's fundamental pillars, to the president, ergo Hugo Chavez effectively becomes the people. Such absolutist measure has no parallel in Venezuela's contemporary history though it is to be expected from a militaristic caudillo hell bent in ruling indefinitely.

The term “popular” seems misplaced within the context. However the introduction of an “anti-imperialist” reference within the constitutional framework serves the purpose of legalizing an otherwise rhetorical term, deprived of its meaning, commonly used by the president and his supporters, considering the leverage that the Cuban dictator has not only on Chavez but in matters of State in Venezuela.

The Boliviarian military doctrine remains as unknown as an intelligible definition of 'XXI century socialism.' However the term “war of popular resistance” has got an awfully similar ring to Cuba's “guerra de todo el pueblo.”

Article 329 (1999): The Army, Navy and Air Force have as their essential responsibility the planning, execution and control of military operations as required to ensure the defense of the Nation. The National Guard shall cooperate in the carrying out of these operations, and shall have as its basic responsibility that of conducting operations as required to maintain internal order within the country. The National Armed Forces shall carry out activities of administrative policing and criminal investigation activities as provided for by law.

Proposed Amendment
Article 329: The Bolivarian Armed Forces are formed by the different land, sea and air bodies, administratively organized in the following components: the Bolivarian Army, the Bolivarian Navy, the Bolivarian Air Force, The Bolivarian Territorial Guard and the Bolivarian Popular Militia, said components structured in combined units of assistance, training and joint operations, both at the tactical and strategic level in order to fulfil its mission.
The Bolivarian Armed Forces will be able to perform administrative police and penal investigation activities as mandated by law.

Provisional ordinance (from the National Assembly dispositions)

The National Guard will become an essentially military body that might be destined by its commander in chief to form land, sea and air units as part of other military components. With part of its human, technical and material resources police corps could also be formed. Its military definition will change to that of Territorial Guard.

Another provisional ordinance

The units and components of the military reserve will become units of the Bolivarian Popular Militia.

Commentary: “defense of the nation” is not reiterated in the proposed amendment to article 329. Rather it aims at restructuring the armed forces and introduces the militia, that president Chavez has been forming and arming, as just another branch of it. To date no legislation to regulate the militia has been drafted and no evidence has been presented as to the final destination of the many thousands of Kalashnikov riffles imported from Russia, thought to be in the hands of the militia. The common military hierarchical meritocratic structure will coexist alongside a poorly trained civilian component. Revolutionary fervor and absolute allegiance to Hugo Chavez appears to make up for military knowledge. The interesting aspect of it is that Bolivarian militias will perhaps keep orthodox military personnel / components in check in order to inform the maximum leader. Having no formal, professional or institutional structure militias could have direct access to the office of the presidency. Needless to say that there is no contemporary constitutional precedence of giving praetorian guards such status within Venezuela's armed forces. Again its resemblance with Cuba's structure is remarkable

It is to be noted that the Bolivarian militias, as part of the armed forces “will be able to perform administrative police and penal investigation activities as mandated by law.” It remains to be seen what laws will be drafted and passed to regulate such activities, in particular those of the militias and what balancing mechanisms will be put into place to make it accountable before the law. Taking into consideration current circumstances it is highly unlikely that victims of 'revolutionary laws and justice' will get any redress from Venezuela's totally subordinated to the Executive judiciary. The implications that it has for the common folk are manifold, however the most worrying element is that the militias could become a sort of constitutionally backed vigilante groups with plenty of discretionary and fire power and under the direct orders of the president, that could be unleashed on those often referred to as the enemies of the process; read the opposition, human rights NGOs, student movements, the Church, the media, etc.

This measure regarding the militias is already affecting the region, as reports from Venezuelan military presence arrive from odd places such as Santa Cruz in Bolivia. Furthermore the prospect of a confederation between Venezuela and Cuba is constantly announced by president Chavez and one is already seeing Cuban ‘doctors’ working alongside Venezuelan military / militia, as denounced in Bolivia . To date the representatives of the Venezuelan people –read Congressmen and Congresswomen- have not legislated and approved laws with regards to sending troops to foreign countries, for this is a measure that depends solely on the discretion of he in charge of conducting foreign affairs: i.e. the president. Thus the ‘enemies of the revolution’ need be countered regardless of whether they are in Caracas, Bogotá, Santa Cruz, Managua, Buenos Aires or Lima. As Hugo Chavez promised recently from Havana, he is prepared to turn Bolivia into a Vietnam should Morales opponents oust him.

Alek Boyd can be joined directly at his own site, Vcrisis.

Read More / Leer Mas......

Article 70: Virginia

Article 70 - 1999 Constitution

Means of people’s participation and involvement in the exercise of their sovereignty, in political affairs, among others, are: the election of public officials, the referendum, the consultation of public opinion, mandate revocation, the legislative, constitutional and constituent initiatives, the open town council, and the citizens’ assembly, whose decisions shall be binding. Means of participation in social and economic affairs are: the citizens’ service bureaus, self-management, co-management, all forms of cooperatives, including those of financial nature, credit unions, community enterprises, and other forms of association guided by the values of mutual cooperation and solidarity. The law shall establish conditions for the effective functioning of the means of participation contemplated under the present article.
(underlined sections are removed from the reformed article)

Article 70 Reformed

Means of people’s participation and involvement in the direct exercise of Their sovereignty, and FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF SOCIALISM are: the election of public officials, the referendum, the consultation of public opinion, mandate revocation, the legislative, constitutional and constituent initiatives, the open town council, and the citizens’ assembly, THE DECISIONS OF THE LATTER BEING BINDING, THE COUNCILS OF POPULAR POWER (COMMUNAL COUNCILS, WORKERS COUNCILS, STUDENTS COUNCILS, FARMERS COUNCILS, AMONG OTHERS), THE WORKERS DEMOCRATIC MANAGEMENT OF ANY DIRECT OR INDIRECT SOCIAL PROPERTY ENTERPRISE, THE COMMUNAL self-management, FINANCIAL AND MICRO-FINANCIAL COMMUNAL ORGANIZATIONS, COMMUNAL PROPERTY COOPERATIVES, COMMUNAL credit unions, NETWORKS OF FREE ASSOCIATED PRODUCERS, VOLUNTARY WORK, community enterprises and other forms of association constituted to develop values of mutual cooperation and SOCIALIST solidarity
The law shall establish conditions for the effective functioning of the means of participation contemplated under the present article.
(sections in capital letters are new in the reformed article)

The section in parenthesis was modified by the National Assembly in the following way:

…/…THROUGH THE COMMUNAL COUNCILS, WORKERS COUNCILS, STUDENTS COUNCILS, FARMERS COUNCILS, ARTISAN COUNCILS, FISHERMEN COUNCILS, SPORTS COUNCILS, YOUTH COUNCILS, ELDERLY ADULTS COUNCILS, WOMEN COUNCILS, DISABLED PERSONS COUNCILS, AMONG OTHERS…/…

And the last paragraph will say: A NATIONAL LAW, instead of ‘The law”

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

In order of appearance, this is the second article in the proposed reform presenting socialism as an exclusive system framing the activity of the government and of the citizens. “Means of people’s participation and involvement in the direct exercise of their sovereignty, and FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF SOCIALISM”.

Taking into account that article 2 - part of the Fundamental Principles which cannot be altered by a constitutional reform- says that political pluralism is held as a superior value of the legal order and actions of the State, the first question the new article 70 poses is: Which article describes the means of participation of the people for purposes different from the construction of socialism?

There is no such article.

Does that mean that participation for other purposes will be considered unconstitutional? Let’s see:

“The government is and shall always be democratic, participatory and pluralist”, says Article 6 and “the organs of the State emanate from and are subject to the sovereignty of the people”, says article 5. The protection of the democratic exercise of the will of the people is guaranteed in article 3. All three also being part of the unalterable Fundamental Principles.
Furthermore, article 21 says that “all persons are equal before the law, and, consequently any discrimination with the intent or effect of nullifying or encroaching upon the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on equal terms, of the rights and liberties of every individual shall not be permitted”.

Moreover, article 22 says that “The enunciation of rights and guarantees contained in this Constitution is not to be understood as negating others inherent to individuals, not expressly mentioned in such enunciation. The absence of a law regulating these rights shall not adversely affect the exercise thereof.”

The content of articles 2, 3, 5, 6, 21 and 22 clearly lead to the conclusion that the words ‘FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF SOCIALISM” are superfluous and useless. And that is not even considering that the alluded socialism, (if it is the same as the so called ‘21st century socialism’) is nothing anybody can agree or disagree with, since it has only been defined in terms of what it will not be. It is something yet to be invented.

But this conclusion is only valid if the interpretation of the constitution is performed by an autonomous and impartial Judicial Power, one where its members are endowed with the honesty, capability, probity and excellence mandated by the constitution. With a Judicial Power under the control of the Executive and where the president of its Supreme Tribunal (twice fired from the Judicial system for illicit actions, in 1989 and 2003) is a member of the presidential committee for the constitutional reform (which makes her a judge and a party in the issue), the intention of the reform of article 70 of reducing the political rights of citizens to a single alternative becomes evident.

Another modification in article 70 is the elimination of co-management as a way of participation in social and economic affairs. Now there is no distinction between political, social or economic means of participation and only self-management is mentioned as a form of workers involvement in enterprise management. Is this an improvement? It depends on what kind of enterprises will the workers be allowed to manage themselves. Would Petróleos de Venezuela (PDVSA) for example be managed from now on by the company workers? Well, no. The article makes it clear that only in the restricted realm or environment of what is ‘communal’ the workers may have any involvement. The term ‘communal’ would be related to either Communes (political entities with forms of self government equivalent to parishes) or Communities, (a new micro political division that is being introduced by article 16 which can only be explained as an obsession to micro manage the lives of the people.- Mousqueton-Article 16). The alleged increase in participation and power transfer to the people, used to advertise the constitutional reform would be manifested only in matters of little transcendence, matters with virtually no significance in the national context.


Then what is the meaning of ‘THE WORKERS DEMOCRATIC MANAGEMENT OF ANY DIRECT OR INDIRECT SOCIAL PROPERTY ENTERPRISE’? Perhaps PDVSA falls into the category of Social property? Well, no. Direct Social Property will be “what the State assigns to Communes or Communities or Cities”. Indirect Social Property is something “exercised by the State in the name of a Community”, according to the reformed article 115. Again any enterprise management where the workers will be in charge will not be anything over which the State doesn’t have full control. Nowhere in this reformed article it is said that the workers will have something to do with Public Property, the one that ‘belongs’ to State Entities. One can foresee that it is in the latter category where PDVSA belongs.

Notably missing among the means of participation listed in the new article 70 is the exercise of popular control over the State entities through ‘contraloria social’.

The effort of the National Assembly to make this article attractive by adding Fishermen, The Young, Women, Disabled people etc, to the list of the Councils of Popular Power (where they were already implicitly included with the words ‘among others’), denotes the disregard and disrespect of the servile group of legislators (that represents less than 20% of the electorate) for the citizens, condescendingly underestimating intelligence. Why? Because the Popular Power, as described in the reformed article 136, is not exercised by electing any communal, woman, elderly or student leader in any election. It is exercised by “being part of communes, communities and cities self-government.”

The National Assembly was careful to emphasize that no form of self-government at any of the micro-levels where participation is graciously allowed could ever create special legislation.
They had to include the word ‘National’ to qualify the type of law that will establish the conditions for the effective functioning of the means of participation.

Another reduction of the people’s rights is the transformation of the formerly binding decisions of the Open Town Councils (Town Meetings), into non-binding in the reformed article 70.

There is no way to know how “SOCIALIST solidarity” deviates from the universally understood concept of solidarity. But if the deviation follows the same pattern as “revolutionary justice” or “revolutionary democracy” from their respective original concepts, we can expect a result with no resemblance whatsoever to what the term pretends to invoke.

Finally, voluntary work now is characterized as a means of participation. Since it is incomprehensible to consider it as a political, social or economical right, it is feasible that some National law will make it a duty or a condition to exercise some fundamental right.

Article 70 is under TITLE III of the constitution, which refers to Duties, Human Rights and Guarantees. The proposed modifications imply a substantial reduction of the people’s rights,
which is contrary to the principle of progressiveness, contemplated in the 1999 constitution.

Read More / Leer Mas......

A first evaluation of the impact of the 69 amendments to the 1999 constitution (Guillermo P. translation and introduction)

Although Hugo Chavez is fond of portraying himself as a revolutionary in the tradition of Lenin, Mao, Fidel and Che, he has followed a distinctly unique approach on his path for absolute power over Venezuela. The key to that approach has been a limitless patience as well as an ability to charm a wide range of Venezuelans and international citizens. He has managed to convince many that his is a peaceful and democratic revolution, whose main concern is the well-being of the poor in Venezuela and the world.

But as the December deadline approaches for the modification of the Venezuelan constitution, Chavez's mundane desires become clearer: to have absolute power for as long as possible. As the constitutional lawyers Alirio Abreu Burelli and Carlos Ayala Corao point out in this article for El Nacional on Sunday, the modifications to the constitution represent an assault on democratic principles. Up until now, Chavez has been able to proceed by masking his dictatorial intentions. However, these constitutional changes being voted on by a puppet National Assembly are a de facto constitutional coup d’état that will centralize power in Chavez's hands and allow him to stay in power indefinitely. Abreu Burelli and Ayala Corao discuss some of the consequences of this impending assault in seven different sections of the constitution.


(Editor's note: To help illustrate the absolute power for Chavez trend within the regime El Nacional publishes this revealing picture of Chavez in the middle of his court. The original Spanish text of El Nacional article, by subscription, has been posted here. )

More losses than gains
El Nacional, 28 October 2007

Alirio Abreu Burelli, ex-magistrate for the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, and Carlos Ayala Corao, ex-president of the Inter-American Commission on Human rights, warn about the risks of modifying the Magna Carta so quickly and how it is an attempt to tailor it to the President’s political project.


AUTONOMY OF POWERS
It Will Be Easier to Remove Magistrates

What is lost?
The Supreme Court judges will be able to be freely removed by a simple majority of the National Assembly. Such a change reduces the independence and autonomy of the highest authorities of the Judicial Power, to the degree that they could give in to pressures in order to keep their positions.

The postulation committees will be made up of entities of the State and not by organizations from society, which diminishes the guarantees of impartiality for the rectors of Judicial Power and Citizen Power. The National Assembly will not have to approve the Plan for National Development.

The autonomy of the Central Bank of Venezuela, the autonomy of monetary policy and the administration of cash; all these will be in the hands of the President of the Republic.

The national government council and the State council were presided by the vice president (now it will be by the President).

What is gained?
More awareness within Venezuelan society about the importance of the independence and autonomy of public powers for a democracy.

More awareness among the international community about the undemocratic nature of the constitutional reform.

DECENTRALIZATION
The Entire Country Will Be Controlled From Miraflores Palace

What is lost?
The “national system of cities” will imply centralization in the Executive Power of the local duties of cities. The nationalization and centralization of the regulations for Caracas and the Federal District.

The centralization of communal councils within the national power; their registry, regulation and financing.

The centralization of the national government council: its members will include only those governors and mayors “convened” by the President.

The President will be able to create military regions and name their authorities.

He will be able to create central entities that are above the states and municipalities, such as federal provinces, federal territories, functional districts; and to name their authorities (they will not be elected).

The elimination of the Metropolitan District of Caracas and its substitution by a Federal District. The democratic origin of its authorities is not clearly visible.

What is gained?
In theory, more constitutional stipends, but not in practice, because now the states and municipalities will have to share not only with the Federal District, but also with the communal councils and the rest of the organs of popular power (and it is not clear if also with the federal provinces, federal territories and functional districts).

STATES OF EMERGENCY
The Government Will Act Without Control During Emergencies

What is lost?
The right to information and due process could be affected, rights that are fundamental for avoiding abuses of authority. It is not enough to guarantee a few rights of due process, since it is an integral right that cannot be divided.

When article 337 of the current Constitution is modified, in order to exclude the right to information as one of the rights that cannot be suspended during states of emergency, the principle of progressiveness is violated, as expressly consecrated in article 19 of the Magna Carta.

The parliamentary control for revoking the decree of a state of emergency.

From the limited notion of “restriction” we now return to the dangerous notion of “suspension.”

The temporal limits of states of emergency as a guarantee.

The judicial control that figures in the current Constitution as an unavoidable requisite is not made clear.

Specific references to the international limits of states of emergencies (Inter-American Convention on Human Rights and International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights).

What is gained?
More awareness about the risks of restrictions on freedom of expression during states of emergency.

PROPERTY
Goods Deemed Liable to Expropriation Can Be Occupied Immediately

What is lost?
The explicit constitutional acknowledgment of property as a right.

The consecration of the social function of property.

The universality of the goods that can be the object of property. The distinction between “goods for use and consumption” and “goods for production acquired legitimately” is an invitation to arbitrariness so that the law can determine what goods are susceptible to property. Moreover, what does goods “acquired legitimately” mean, and who will determine what they are?

The goods that are the object of appropriation can be occupied administratively without any previous judicial authorization, which leaves them practically powerless at the hands of the State.

The guarantee against the confiscation of land.

Environmental offenses will be able to be punished with the confiscation of land; moreover, the types of offenses are not determined.

The dismantling of intellectual property, its protection is not fully guaranteed.

All of this generates judicial insecurity for all Venezuelans.

What is gained?
More awareness about the risks of arbitrary actions against property in the new Constitution.

WORKERS RIGHTS
Security for Independent Workers Was A Debt

What is lost?
Work as a freedom for human beings.

The right of citizens to dedicate themselves to a legal economic activity of their choice. Now, Venezuelans will work under whatever conditions the Government imposes, within the range of State policies.

The risks for the autonomy of unions when facing the new workers councils.

In practice, the right of workers to associate with one another for the sake of making demands could be evaded by a State-promoted leadership, despite the fact that in many cases the State is the patron.

What is gained?
The reduction of the work cycle to 6 daily hours or 36 weekly hours.

A social security system that supports independent workers, with the provision of creating a fund nourished with contributions from the State and the worker.

Because it is a matter of social justice, it is logical to see an almost general support for the improvement of the working conditions and guarantees for Venezuelan workers.

Both matters could have been resolved legally several years ago, according to the specific mandates of the current Constitution.

PARTICIPATION OF CITIZENS
Now It Will Be Harder To Revoke Bad Elected Officials

What is lost?
Political pluralism, since the mechanisms of participation (elections, referendums, etc.) will be tied to a single ideology: socialism.

The conditions that facilitate popular initiatives (constitutional and constituent reform) and the various referendums.

Governance by elected authorities. The President of the Republic will be able to name central authorities to govern without being elected (federal territories, federal provinces, functional municipalities, military and special regions, and others).

A popular power that does not surge from the votes of the people. The authorities in charge of popular power will not be elected by their communities through free and secret elections.

The gathering of society and the masses under the control of the State: Popular Power ends up being a “power” of the State, and it no longer belongs to citizens who participate from society.

What is gained?
More awareness among people about the loss of participatory and democratic spaces in the new Constitution that is about to be approved.

An excessive stability for elected officials.

NATIONAL ARMED FORCES
The State Will Fight Against the “Internal Enemy”

What is lost?
The character of an institution that is not at the service of any single person.

Its institutional mission within a Constitutional State of Law, beyond any political or party conceptions (Bolivarian Armed Forces).

The conception of the Armed Forces as being within “national security” so as to maintain order and defend itself from “internal” enemies.

The militarization of a large sector of the population, by means of their incorporation to a new component of the Armed Forces: the national militia.

The promotion of a popular war of resistance, instead of a culture of peace.

The disregard for recommendations by international organizations about the need for security forces to be of a civilian nature.

Increased direct interference from the President in promotions at all levels.

Increased direct interference from the head of State in the bodies, components and units of the National Armed Forces.

What is gained?
More awareness about the risks of dismantling the institutional nature of the National Armed Forces with the new Constitution.


(Editor's note: this is the first comprehensive summary of the new changes, which include the articles added quickly by the National Assembly to the Original proposal of Chavez of "only" 33 articles. That is, the changes now are a whopping 69 amendments to the 1999 constitution. We must admire the efforts of Abreu and Ayala to have tried to be as objective as possible in their discussion of such a flagrant legal coup).

Read More / Leer Mas......

Article 90: Manuel T.

Old Article:
Working hours shall not exceed eight hours per day or 44 hours per week. Where permitted by law, night work shall not exceed seven hours per day or 35 hours per week. No employer shall have the right to require employees to work overtime. An effort shall be made to reduce working hours progressively in the interest of society and in such sphere as may be determined, and appropriate provisions shall be adopted to make better use of free time for the benefit of the physical, spiritual and cultural development of workers. Workers are entitled to weekly time off and paid vacations on the same terms as for days actually worked.

New Article:
With the intention that workers have enough time for their integral development; day-shift work hours shall not exceed 6 hours per day and 36 hours per week, and night-shift work hours shall not exceed 6 hours per day and 34 hours per week. No employer shall force its employees to work overtime. Moreover, it (the subject in the Spanish version is tacit, so I’m guessing it refers to the employer as well) shall program and organize the mechanism for the better enjoyment of workers’ free time in benefit of their education, and human, physical, spiritual, ethical, cultural and technical development.

Workers shall have the right to a weekly rest and paid vacations in the same conditions as regular work shifts.


Well, where do I start? First and foremost, I see no reason why such an article should be in the Constitution. Whether you agree or not with constraining work hours, the Constitution is not the place for this kind of stuff. This could be written in a regular law, if anything.

Before going to the economic analysis of imposing a shorter work shift, let me point out some details of the proposed article. The new article encourages employers to “program and organize the mechanisms for the better enjoyment of workers’ free time in benefit of their education and integral development.” I guess employers know better what’s in the best interest of their employees, do they? Let’s say you have a couple of more hours to do what you please during the day. What would you do? In principle you would choose whatever it makes you happier (in the broadest sense of the word). I hope you agree with me on this. As far as I know that could include going home with your family or to the library, a museum, school, the gym, the church, yoga class, or even your favorite bar. If you feel that you need more education, you would enroll in classes at the nearest college (or any educational institute that suits you), or simply go to the library and pick up a couple of books in Accounting or Philosophy. If you think that you’re a bit out of shape, you would hit the gym, take yoga class, or go hiking to the mountain more often. And so on. More importantly, perhaps, if you think that you have a poor “integral development” (whatever that means) , probably you would do your best to improve in that direction. I don’t see a reason why you wouldn’t. If a couple of more hours daily are what you needed, then you’re all set. Unless one argues that you are shortsighted and myopic, and therefore don’t know what’s best for yourself. Generally that’s not the case. I think everyone one of us has a pretty good idea of what we want, of what makes us happy and better person, right? So, why would our employer organize something for us to do in our free time for our benefit? Plus, if we believe that each one of us has different goals, preferences and constraints, then a one-size-fit-all employer-organized free-time program would not work for all its employees. Unless you think everybody should be and do the same, and their individual differences do not matter.

I personally believe that this little twist in the proposed article does not aim the (shrinking) private sector but the (growing) public one. I can imagine some governmental institution coming up with the idea of organizing one-hour daily workshops on (presumably) some topic of interest for its employees, say “The New 21st Century Man”. I can also imagine that participation in this type of events will not be exactly voluntary.

I also think that this addition to the article is to some extent irrelevant for all practical purposes. Nowadays, the government already coerces its workers to participate in certain extracurricular activities. Thus, I don’t see how they would not organize a “The New 21st Century Man” workshop if they wanted to even without the proposed reform. Now you could say that if they haven’t done it yet, why they would do it after the constitutional reform. Obviously, the “revolution” is moving forward (or is it backward?), and with it, we’ll see all sort of new things.

How about the economic consequences of the proposed article 90? In general, a tighter constraint on work hours cannot make anybody better off as long as we assume that the length of the work shift is an endogenous variable of the economy. Nowadays the limit is 8 hours. Some people may choose to work less than that. Don’t you think that if everyone were better of by working 6 hours daily they would have done that? But they didn’t. So it must be that they are fine with working 8 hours. Of course, you could argue that our evil entrepreneurs are forcing their employees to inhumanly work that much. But I wouldn’t give much credit to that argument because that would mean that there exists a huge market failure that workers and unions wouldn’t have let pass that easily. I have never heard unions seriously complaining about the shift length. If that market failure existed, it’d be in workers’ best interest to fix it. However, for quite some time they were happy with the 8-hour shift. Oh, it could be now that Chavez not only realized of this failure but also came to the rescue of the people. Right!

Now, let’s analyze the short-run consequences of the new article 90. Bolivarian revolution wisdom would tell you that the people is going to benefit with this because they will be able to enjoy more leisure (which everyone agrees is a good thing), at least those who have a job, and earn the same amount (as far as I know monthly salaries are not going to be initially cut because of the shorter work shift). However, there is no free lunch. Something’s got to give. So, what’s the cost of this? First of all, everything else equal, total output (GDP) is going down (1). In particular, private sector output will take the biggest hit. Public output will not suffer that much because it is largely inefficient. However, the quantity (and perhaps quality as well) of the few public goods and services the States provides will fall and taxpayers will get less for their money.

Thus far we have made a big assumption, namely, employment does not change. Bolivarian revolution wisdom would tell you here that employment is actually going to increase because firms are going to hire more people to make up for the difference. Oh boy! I beg to differ. In fact, employment (unemployment) is going to fall (increase). Why? Keep in mind that our evil entrepreneurs are profit driven whether you like it or not, right? Given prices, salaries and employment constant, when firm’s output falls, so does its profits. Remember that its wage bill is constant up to this point. So, what does this firm do? It has several alternatives. One is to adjust the number of workers. Let’s try first with hiring new workers. I can assure you that it ain’t happening. Why? Well, if it were profitable to hire a new worker now, it would have been profitable to do so before. Since the firm didn’t hire any new worker before, then it must be that it wasn’t profitable to do so and it still isn’t now.

The firm then has two other options, keep the same workers or fire some of them. If there were no firing cost and other restrictions to firing, some firms would probably lay off some of its workers because possibly some workers might “bring to the table” less than what they are paid, that is, their productivity is less than their salary. With firing restrictions, firms would lay off less people or even none if these restrictions are cumbersome enough.

Another alternative that firms have is simply to increase prices and, hence, more inflation. This is a way to adjust real wages down which would mitigate the drop in workers’ productivity. When real wages fall, the negative impact on employment explained above is reduced.

For some firms price adjustment is not an option because either they face government price controls or international competition. Some of these firms might see their profits go towards the red side, and have only one alternative. That is, to shut down. That means that unemployment will rise.

Therefore, in the short run, shortening work hours by law will only bring a combination of more unemployment, inflation, and a drop in real wages. Everyone will be worse off. For the unemployed, it will be more difficult to find a job. Some workers will be laid off and the rest, the lucky ones who kept their jobs, will be poorer.

The long-run analysis is a bit more complicated. However, I can point out some bad consequences of this measure. First, since workers are less productive, private investment will fall further, which will have a negative impact of job creation and long-run unemployment. Moreover, Venezuela will be even more dependent of oil and the public sector will more important. You could argue that the drop in private investment will be offset by increasing public investment. That could be, but in any case, public capital is going to be less productive because of the shorter work shift. So, to produce the same amount of public good it will take more public investment, meaning that there will be more taxes and less consumption.

In the long-run, this measure could also have an important negative effect on human capital accumulation. Since workers are going to be less productive (both because of the shorter shift and because of a lower capital stock), their real wage necessarily has to go down. That has a negative impact on the return to schooling, which will dampen the accumulation of human capital and, in consequence, workers’ productivity further.

In summary, putting more limits on work hours is not going to make anyone better off. I cannot think of anybody who would benefit from this. Moreover, the poor are the ones who are going to be hurt the most.

1) Why? Assuming employment does not change, if everybody works fewer hours, they are going to produce less. Unless you come up with some crazy argument in which workers will put more effort on those 6 hours up to the point where their average daily productivity remains the same. If that’s the case, why didn’t they do it long before?

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

Manuel contributed this piece from a well known Spanish campus.

He can be joined at: venezuela. constitution. trap @ gmail. com

-The end-

Read More / Leer Mas......

Article 100 (Kensey Amaya)

Article 100 (original)
The folk cultures comprising the national identity of Venezuela enjoy special attention, with recognition of and respect for intercultural relations under the principle of equality of cultures. Incentives and inducements shall be provided for by law for persons, institutions and communities which promote, support, develop or finance cultural plans, programs and activities within the country and Venezuelan culture abroad. The State guarantees cultural workers inclusion in the Social security system to provide them with a dignified life, recognizing the idiosyncrasies of cultural work, in accordance with law.

Modified Article 100
*Note modifications are underlined
The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela is a product of the mixing of various cultures; consequently the State recognizes and values the diversity of its Indigenous, European, and African roots that has created our great South American nation. The popular cultures, of Indigenous and African decent constituting the Venezuelan identity, enjoy special attention by recognizing and respecting its intercultural nature under the principle of cultural equality. Incentives and inducements shall be provided for by law for persons, institutions and communities which promote, support, develop or finance cultural plans, programs and activities within the country and Venezuelan culture abroad. The State guarantees cultural workers inclusion in the Social security system to provide them with a dignified life, recognizing the idiosyncrasies of cultural work, in accordance with law.

Comments on the modification

After reading the modified article it appears the changes are rather benign and minor. The major change has been defining the cultural heritage of Venezuela and what the “popular cultures” are. After a more careful read of the modification, one realizes that chavismo is defining what it is to be Venezuelan in a very narrow sense by inserting this statement: “The popular cultures, of Indigenous and African decent constituting the Venezuelan identity…”, this ultimately constitutes cultural and racial discrimination.

The most obvious problems with this modification is that Venezuelans are a mix of European, African, and Indigenous blood and culture. So how should Venezuelans define themselves, African? European? Indigenous? How should they/we divide and quantify the contribution of each culture when ours is a mixture of each one? To exemplify the stupidity of the modification one only has to highlight one of Venezuela’s most famous cultural traditions the Diablos de Yare. Traditions such as this were created through the mixing of Indigenous, African, and European cultures. To diminish European influence in creating Venezuelan culture and identity is cultural discrimination in its crudest form.

Chavismo’s discrimination towards European heritage is not something new. One of the most public acts was the destruction of a statue of Christopher Columbus on Columbus Day (“Dia de la Raza” in Venezuela) and the renaming of the day to “Indigenous day of resistance”. This act alone is symbolic of the dislike Chavismo has for European historical cultural heritage in Venezuela. This seems hypocritical since Venezuelan identity has been formed by these historical events, however horrifying some of them were. But rather than embrace, understand, and provide a context in which Venezuelan identity has been created, Chavismo has resorted to favoring one particular culture and interpretation of history to teach future generations what being a Venezuelan is, and is not.

The modified article is currently written in a way that suggests State support for cultural activities pertaining to the influence of European tradition in Venezuela will not be awarded. However, activities that promote the “popular cultures” (i.e. African and Indian) will be State supported. Again Chavez is discriminating against European culture by potentially not funding activities that uphold European influences in developing Venezuelan identity. Additionally, the new modification could be interpreted as allowing for State funding for autochthonous religious/cultural activities resulting in State sponsored religion. If the government were inclined to do so they could attempt to displace Catholicism/Christianity (European religion) with something more ”popular”

In a broader sense the modification is discriminatory to other cultures since it does not mention Asian and Middle Eastern influence, which has recently been influencing Venezuelan culture and history. The exclusion of these two geographic regions and its peoples from the modified article poses an interesting question. Why is Chavez limiting “popular cultures” to just Indigenous (Native Americans) and African roots? Native Americans were here before Africans and Europeans so why not define “popular culture” as just Indigenous activities? Essentially Chavez is defining what it is to be Venezuelan in a very narrow sense, by excluding recent cultural influences (ex. Asia, Middle East) and ignoring the historical European influences.

In short the modification to article 100 constitutes nothing short of cultural discrimination with the possible ulterior intention of rewriting history.

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

Kensey writes his own blog, Venezuela US topics, and he can be reached there also for further questions.

-The end-

Read More / Leer Mas......

Article 18 (Mousqueton)

Preamble: While reading the text of the proposed amendment to article 18 I remembered a conversation once held with the elected President of a Latin American country who is now deceased. We talked about the sad role of some armed forces in Latin America and how they have become the nemesis of democracy and individual freedoms and in many cases the “jail keepers” of their people. He said that while the armed forces have a congenital tendency to misread the social and political expectations of the people and therefore, most of the time, end up in the wrong side of history, the good thing is that they are slow.

He liked to say that most people believe that bullets kill people when in fact they don’t. If I put a bunch of bullets in your hand they will not kill you. It is the combination of factors and “speed” what makes a bullet lethal.

This president was a retired General and what he basically wanted me to understand is that, at one time or another, every political force has knocked on the doors of the armed forces to buy their support. Throughout history some of those forces have succeeded, though temporarily, in getting that support but it could have been far worst if the armed forces were fast at deliberating instead of slow and had supported every political adventurer who came looking for them.

You can argue with the Generals’ reasoning and certainly with his sense of style. I, for one, never cease to be amazed by the crude use the military make of that elegant language artifice called “metaphors”.

He is definitely right in one sense though; in politics, “speed” is certainly a critical element and when combined with the wrong leaders and policies it can become, if not lethal, certainly extremely dangerous.

While the modifications to article 11 provides a way for the government to have absolute power over the people and the territory of Venezuela in case things go wrong, article 16 lays out a parallel and overlapping centralized and un-elective political structure to drive the Venezuelan Federal Government into political oblivion and replace it with a centralized national power. Accomplishing this, with or without constitution, will take time though and therefore the modifications to article 18 introduces that missing critical element, “speed”, which will most certainly make the policies in these three articles “lethal” for the Venezuelan federal democracy.

Original text: The city of Caracas is the capital of the Republic and the seat of the organs of National Power. The provisions of this article shall not prevent the exercise of National Power elsewhere in the Republic. A special law shall establish the territorial and political unit of the city of Caracas, incorporating into a two-tier system of municipal government the Municipalities of the Capital District and those of the State of Miranda. Such law shall provide for the organization, government, administration, competency as well as resources of the city, with a view to its harmonious overall development. In any case the law shall guarantee the democratic and participative character of its government.

Modified text: The city of Caracas is the capital of the Republic and the seat of the organs of National Power. The provisions of this article shall not prevent the said National Power from being exercised elsewhere in the Republic.

The Venezuelan State will develop an integral policy to articulate a national system of cities, structuring logically and reasonably the relationship between the city and its associated territories and unifying and supporting the local and regional scales in the systematic vision of the country. For that purpose, the State will confront every speculative action in regard to the economic return of the land, the economic unbalances, the asymmetries in the provision of services and infrastructure as well as the conditions of accessibility, physical and economic, of each and every one of the components of the national system of cities. Every citizen, without discrimination of gender, age, ethnicity, political and religious orientation or social condition, will enjoy and will be holders of the Right to the City, and that right should be understood as the equal benefit received by each one of the citizens as per the strategic role articulated by the city both at the regional urban context and the National System of Cities. A special law shall establish the territorial and political unit of the city of Caracas, which shall be called the “Crib of Bolivar” and “Queen of the Guaraira Repano.”

The National Power, through the Executive Power and with the collaboration and participation of all the entities of the National, State and Municipal Public Power as well as the Popular Power, its Communities, Communes and Communal Councils and other social organizations, will take all necessary actions for the urban reorganization, road restructuring, recuperation of the environment, attainment of optimal personal and public security levels, integral reinforcement of the neighborhoods, urbanizations, health, education, sport, entertainment and cultural systems, total recuperation of their center and historical sites, construction of small and medium size Satellite Cities along their territorial axis of expansion and, in general, to accomplish the most humanizing sum possible in the “Crib of Bolivar” and “Queen of the Guaraira Repano.

These dispositions will be applicable to the whole National System of Cities and their regional components.

Modifications and Comments: I am herein quoting both the text of the original article 18 and the text of the modifications being proposed by the government. The underlined part of the text is all that has survived from the original article 18. The rest has either been deleted from the original text or added in the new text of article 18.

From the reading of the original article 18 it is clear that the intention of the framers of the Bolivarian Constitution was to give Caracas a special status since it is home to the Federal (national) government. It is also clear that the framers of the Bolivarian Constitution were adamant in their intention of making sure that this special status would not jeopardize the right of the citizens to a democratic representation and/or the autonomy of the State of Miranda. So much so, that the city of Caracas was defined as a “Capital District” in article 16 of the Bolivarian Constitution as opposed to “Federal District” which was the status it had under the Constitution of 1961 (article 9).

The modified text of article 18 though moves away from what was originally intended by the framers of the Bolivarian Constitution and introduces new concepts that substantially modify the structure of the constitutional text. Modifications, that are in line and expand further those shady and unconstitutional amendments introduced to article 16.

Let’s start with what has been deleted from the original text of article 18. The paragraph that has been deleted basically indicated that Caracas was to have a two tier municipal structure of government that would protect both the city and the State municipal representation. It also indicated that a special law …"shall provide for the organization, government, administration, competency as well as resources of the city”… Finally, it stated that the …"law shall guarantee the democratic and participative character of its government.”

The first question that comes to mind when you look at the deleted text is, why has this paragraph been deleted?

It is clear that Caracas needs a special law to outline its organization and government since there is no reference as to the political structure of the “Capital District” anywhere else in the constitution. As for the democratic and participative character of the “Capital District” government, it is clear that this sentence is basically guaranteeing that such authorities would necessarily have to be elected.

So; the question stands; why has this text been deleted?

The only answer I can think of is the following. The modified text of article 16 introduces a new political division called “Federal City”. Federal cities are created by Presidential decree and their authorities are designated by the “National Power” (sic). Therefore, Caracas would not need a special law if it is going to be appointed a Federal City subject to the executive power. Its government does not need to be …"democratic and participative”… either, because, according to the modifications of article 16, all the authorities of Federal Cities and Federal Municipalities will be appointed by the National Power.

The modification to article 18 goes further and creates what it calls a “National System of Cities” that unifies and supports the …"local and regional scales in the systematic vision of the country.”…

The “systematic vision” of the country has been outlined in article 16 which creates a parallel and centralized political structure to compete and eventually destroy the federal structure mandated by the constitution.

In essence, every major city in Venezuela could be appointed a “Federal City” by decree. Further, all municipalities in the city, as well as in their ..." associated territories”…. can be appointed “Federal Municipalities” and hence, all their authorities would be appointed by the National Power.

To have an idea as to how in a very short period of time (speed) the whole landscape of the Venezuelan federal division of government could be destroyed and the right of the people to elect their local authorities eliminated, we are herewith including a table of the potential cities that could become “Federal Cities” within the “National System of Cities”. We are including in this table all the capital cities of each State as well as a group of large cities with populations over 300,000 inhabitants.



Bringing 45 cities into the so called “National System of Cities” would allow the National government to exercise direct political power without elections and/or elected officials over 47% of the Venezuelan population. As a matter of fact, starting with only 7 cities would give the national government that same power over 25% of the population. Of course it will also allow the national government to control any public gathering and/or legal demonstration against their policies since the federal municipalities would be the ones in charge of granting those permits.

The two last paragraphs of the modified article 18 basically give the National Power a blank check to take over, through the Federal Cities and Federal Municipalities, almost all the functions of the Municipalities and even some from the States. Of course, it also states that the National Power will exercise all these functions through the Executive Power and that this is applicable to all the cities that are included in the so called “National System of Cities”.

Overall, most of the modifications to the text of article 18 basically expand further what has already been mentioned in article 16.

There is though some intriguing text that has been included in this article. This text basically creates a new right called the “Right to the City”; a right that, by itself, seems to be a first in a constitutional text. What makes this concept so intriguing is the fact that this right is being defined as an “equitable benefit” that every habitant has the right to enjoy and further, hold title to.

Granted that the text is as confusing as they come, there are some concepts though that could give some light as to what this text means.

One concept that I believe particularly relevant is what should be understood by the term “city”.

In essence a city is basically a gathering of private homes, private businesses, public roads, public parks, public government buildings, private empty lots, public empty lots, private social, cultural and sport facilities, public facilities such as public transportation, bus/train/sub terminals and airports, public cultural and sport facilities and the power, communication, water and sewer infrastructure. There is really nothing else in a city.

Now, most of these elements are already public and everyone has the right to enjoy them. So, why is there a need to create a special new “Right to the City” when the people already have that right? It makes no sense, unless, the intention is to make public what is not public today. That is, private homes, private businesses, private empty lots and private social, cultural and sport facilities.

Could it be that this is what the phrase “equitable access” is referring to?

I can not answer that question but I can certainly say that the modification of this article is written in such a confusing and shady way that the possibility of an outrageous violation of private property using this article as an excuse is indeed a clear and present danger.

I can also say that giving the National Power and/or Executive Power the right to exercise their power at the State and Municipal level is unconstitutional because:

1) It violates article # 164, Title IV, Chapter III of the Bolivarian Constitution of 1999 that mandates: …"Is of the States exclusive competence: … (2) Organization of their Municipalities and other local organs and the territorial and political divisions between them"…

2) It violates Title IX, Chapter II, article # 342 of the Bolivarian Constitution of 1999 that mandates: …"The purpose of the constitutional reform is to effect a partial revision of this Constitution and replacement of one or more of the provisions hereof, without modifying the fundamental principles and structure of the text of the Constitution.”…
Giving power to the National Government to act at the Municipal and State level attempts against the autonomy of the States and the nature of the Federal Government and therefore violates the fundamental principles (Title I, article # 4 of the “Fundamental Principles” - …The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela is a …Federal State”…) and introduces a significant modification to the structure of the Bolivarian Constitution of 1999.

Mousqueton
venezuela.constitution.trap@gmail.com

Spanish language version of this post can be found at the following site: “No a la reforma constitucional de Chávez”

-The end-

Read More / Leer Mas......

Article 167 (AIO)

Article 167 is notable more for what was removed than what was changed or added. Before I start though, take a look at this. Are bolivars green? How about bolivars fuertes? It’s a telling statement about what Chavismo seems to think matters in terms of government revenue…

Here is the original article (translation courtesy of www.constitucion.ve , please blame them for the poor grammar):

Are revenues of the States:
1. Those deriving from their property and the management of their assets.

2. Charges for the use of their goods and services, fines and penalties, and any charges allocated to them.

3. Proceeds from the sale of State-owned commodities.

4. The resources to which they are entitled by virtue of constitutional revenue share (situado constitutional). The revenue share is equivalent to up to 20% of total ordinary revenues as estimated annually by the National Treasure, which is to be distributed among the States and the Capital District as follows: 30% of the aforementioned percentage in equal shares, and the remaining 70% in proportion to the population of each of such entities.
During each fiscal year, the States must invest at least 50% of the amount to which they are entitled by way of revenue share. During each fiscal year, the Municipalities of each State shall be entitled to at least 20% of the revenue share and of all other ordinary revenues of the State corresponding. In the event of changes in the revenues of the National Treasury that require an adjustment to the National Budget, the constitutional revenue share shall be adjusted in the same proportion.
Principles, rules and procedures with a view to ensure the proper and efficient use of the resources deriving from the constitutional revenue share and the share of the Municipalities therein shall be established by law.

5. Any other taxes, charges and special contributions that may be allocated to them by national law for the purpose of helping to develop the state treasuries.
Laws creating or transferring tax revenues to the States may offset these allocations by means of changes in the other revenue categories indicated in this article, in order to preserve interterritorial fairness. The percentage of estimated ordinary national revenues allocated to the constitutional revenue share shall be no less than 15% of estimated ordinary revenues, taking into account the financial position and sustainability of the National Public Treasury, without neglecting the ability of the state administrative authorities to provide adequately for the services for which they are responsible.

6. Resources deriving from the Interterritorial Compensation Fund and from any other transfer, subsidy or special appropriation, as well as those allocated to them as a share of national tax revenues, in accordance with the pertinent law.

Here is a summary of changes in the proposed Article 167. Sections 1-3 were unchanged, as were the parts of 4-6 that aren’t addressed here. (And I kept some of the poor grammar.):
Are revenues of the States:
4. Minimum raised from 20% to 25%. Distribution now includes Federal Territories, Federal Municipalities, Communes and Communities. Proscribed ratio deleted.
Municipality minimum share raised from 20% to 25% (of state total).
Deleted: “In the event of changes in the revenues of the National Treasury that require an adjustment to the National Budget, the constitutional revenue share shall be adjusted in the same proportion.”
Deleted: “la participación municipal” in use of revenue share.
5. Deleted: “The percentage of estimated ordinary national revenues allocated to the constitutional revenue share shall be no less than 15% of estimated ordinary revenues, taking into account the financial position and sustainability of the National Public Treasury, without neglecting the ability of the state administrative authorities to provide adequately for the services for which they are responsible.”
6. Deleted: “Resources deriving from the Interterritorial Compensation Fund.”

First, minimum distribution of revenues has been increased, both for states and for municipality portion of that state revenue. This sounds good on the surface. However, the phrase that was deleted ensures that states will not get what appears to be their full share, at least in terms of share of total federal government expenditures.

The Venezuelan government has, for several consecutive years, created a budget, then gone and passed additional expenditures later in the year. (Often more than once.) I’d like to tell you how much that has been the last few years, but the Ministry of Finance for some reason doesn’t make that little fact easily available on its website. (Perhaps they don’t want us to know?) If you don’t think it’s a big number, consider this: the budget is drafted with an estimate of oil revenue, which is typically low. In 2006, for example, the budget value was $26. Average oil price for the year was $56.45 – 117% above the budgeted value. Since oil income is somewhere around half of national income, states can expect to lose about a quarter of what should have been their revenues. And a quarter of 25% off leaves them with 18.75% of oil income, less than the 20% they would get without the reform.

And that 25% does not include one of Chavez’s biggest pet projects: Fonden. I don’t know quite how much money that fund has supposedly received since it was created, but it’s quite a few billion (not that there are any transparent accounts if it anywhere). Let’s say it’s been 10 billion – that’s 2 billion that should have gone to the states already but didn’t. So there are two mechanisms which will ensure that states will get a larger share of the pie, but guarantee that the pie will be much smaller than it used to be.

Finally, the money distributed also has to be shared with “Federal Territories, Federal Municipalities, Communes and Communities,” not all of which exist or are even defined. Nor does it say what share those entities will get. Since there is no longer a set ratio, any of those could theoretically get all of it. I won’t predict that as a possibility, but note one fact: the new version gives no description of how those funds will be split up. Any guess who gets to decide?

Section 5 removes the minimum amount that the states could receive under any circumstances. In other words, while they used to be guaranteed 15% of total estimated ordinary revenue, there is no longer any certainty of that. Given the size of additional expenditures each year and the Fonden, it’s easy to believe that state share will end up well under 15%.

Section 6 removes the “Interterritorial Compensation Fund” from potential state revenue. Honestly, I’m not even sure what this was, but it evidently was money just for the states, and this makes one more source of their revenue dry up and go away.

So the net result of this reform will be for less money to go directly to the states, and more money to stay with the federal government. This certainly doesn’t preclude the feds from spending money on specific states, including on important projects. But it does create a system which appears designed specifically to facilitate political patronage, which has been one of the best friends of Latin American caudillos of every stripe for the last 200 years.

So the governors (and mayors, plus whatever the name of a commune leader will be) who are seen as the best at their job will be the ones who can secure the most federal funds for their areas. And the ones who succeed at that will probably be the ones who are best at sucking up to Chavez. Is that a skill that anyone really wants in an elected representative?

Our cartoon friends who help us understand the old Constitution tell us that “Los recursos son fundamentales para el desarollo de los estados” – “resources are fundamental for the development of the states.” If that was so true, then what motive does Chavez have for giving them fewer resources?

It’s quite simple: all of the funds that would have been transferred to the states remain under control of the federal government, and with fewer controls and more discretion than before. In other words, Chavez has more money at his disposal and fewer restrictions on how it gets spent.

Thanks to this reform, because even more government resources will depend on Chavez, he will be able to make himself seem even more indispensable than ever.

--- --- --- --- ---
This is the second article reviewed by AIO
aninterestedobserver at yahoo dot com

Original article published here.
Spanish version to be announced
--- --- --- --- ---

-The end-

Read More / Leer Mas......