I've always wondered why there should be limits on a president's time in office if the people want him to remain. Having a vote to determine if the constitution is changed seems sensible to me. If people want a change it changes, if not it doesn't. The constitution of many countries should be reviewed imo.
When a president starts making anti-democractic decisions like forbidding freedom of speech or changing the constitution to suit his interests, then it's irrelevant whether he was elected by the majority of the population or not.
No no no. For a start in all countries (maybe there is 1 or 2 exceptions but i'd be surprised) there is not complete freedom of speech. The same can be said for Venezuela. If people vote for constitutional change on an issue like this then there is no problem with that change.
Finally some common sense in this thread. I don't care whether he got the maority of votes or not (which is debatable, giving all the fraud accusations and the all the harassment to the opposition). Even if he did get the majority of votes, there are some basic human rights that cannot be violated. Hitler got the votes too, you know.
The comparison with Bush is wrong also. I despise Bush but at least he's leaving now that his term is ending (thanks God). He's not reforming the constitution to saty in power for ever, he's not beating up those who rally against him, etc etc.
Well, I take Latin American politics and one of my lecturers was in Venezuela to oversee the vote and according to her and others like her the elections did seem to be free and fair. Of course that isn't proof, but there is also no proof that they were unfair.
What are these human rights Julio? Changing a countries constitution certainly isn't against human rights. Hitler is different. I agree totally that people who get majority support shouldn't necessarily be allowed to be in charge of a country, but Chavez has done nothing like Hitler. Indeed, what is it that Chavez has done that is so bad? There have been a few things, but some would say he's amongst the most democratic leaders in the world considering the amount of elections he's had. Parts of the media still operates it's anti-Chavez propaganda despite helping in the attempted coup against him. He implements socialist policies, but there's nothing wrong with that.
In Britain we have a guy who wasn't even elected as our prime-minister but no-one seems to see it is anti-democratic.