The Price Of Politics - Hugo Chavez and NI Politicians
| 13:44 UK time, Monday, 15 May 2006
Northern Ireland's politicians are getting paid for what exactly?
Well, they would say for representing their constituents in many ways, not least trying to create a lasting political settlement for the generations to come.
But they have to face the accusing stares of British taxpayers who are watching them taking more than $100,000 per annum while not sitting in their assembly or governing the province.
Meanwhile, Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez is winning fans amongst left leaning voters around the world, spending money his country earns from high oil prices - which he could spend at home, of course.
President Chavez knows about political symbolism - spending money on subsidised oil for s.
Meanwhile, according to some reports, his promises to the poor in his own country are still to be met.
According to the Financial Times: "The Chavez administration's record on social and economic progress is brittle. Housing provision has been a disaster. In 2005, the government constructed 41,500 new homes - only 34 per cent of its target.
In one area - poverty - the government is adamant that it scores top marks. But there are doubts over the reliability of official data.
Early last year, Venezuela's National Statistics Institute said 53 per cent of the population lived in poverty at the end of 2004, 9.2 points higher than in early 1999, at the start of the Chavez government.
Irked by the numbers, the president ordered a change in INE's "methodology". Shortly after, it announced that, in mid-2005, only 39.5 per cent of people lived in poverty - a 14.5 point "improvement" in a few months."
None of this seems likely to lead to his defeat in December's elections, if opinion polls are right.
And he is causing a stir around the world. I would guess a lot more people know the name of the president of Venezuela than did five years ago.
Maybe Venezuelan voters believe they're getting value for money.
In Northern Ireland, according to the voices we are hearing, voters are less satisfied with the return on their investment.
Many people we interview say the assembly at Stormont is irrelevant. The British and Irish governments have given the elected politicians until November to form a government or find another job.
What's your cost/benefit analysis on your own representatives?
Comments
What has happened in Venezuela was the result of the two political parties being out of touch with the people [and an excess of state of course].
In Venezuela, like the rest of the American Continent [including Cuba and the USA] there is tis fear of the unknown and people prefer the backwardness of the Cold War Left Overs [Republicans, Democrats, Communism] to progress.
I hope that the situation can reverse itself with the American Continent emulating the European Union. I also hope that real democracy can take root in the American Continent [Canada and Costa Rica are the only countries with real democracy. Venezuela , Cuba, and the United States are at the bottom of the list with police states].
Remember that Chavez and Bush are of the same league, Cold War vestiges bent on reestablishing Cold War Mentalities on the New World.
16 May 2006
Chavez has seen capitalism bump up against its natural limits - its complete dependence upon unfettered growth and its tendancy in its late stages to create small clusters of the very wealthy, the very powerful and the very priveleged. Only Venezuela's upper classes benefitted from capitalism and so Chavez tried something else.
That something else was socialism - anathma to the Unites States - where capitalism had not yet produced the social distortions seen in Venezuela. The reaction to "creeping socialism" from the American government, seething in frustration because of its inability to dislodge Castro even after 50 years of embargo and hostile radio broadcasts, was to foster a coup.
The coup failed to oust Chavez but it succeeded in enraging him against Washington. Then one of Mr. Bush's television evangelist supporters openly advocated that Chavez be murdered. It is illegal in the USA to call for someone's murder - to say nothing of the victim being the head of a sovereign nation. But the worst that happened was a half-hearted rebuke from the authorities.
That signalled the end of any potential for reproachment between Caracas and Venezuela. Chavez, having nothing further to lose from the USA, was free to openly deride it in general and Bush in particular.
In earlier times, the leader of an oil-rich South American country would have had little chance to defy the economic power of the USA. But times have changed. The Iraq war, started by Bush to gain control over its oil resources, has driven up the price of that oil to such an extent that Chavez, now vastly enriched, dispenses his cash throughout the world. He uses his new power to undermine the Iraq war, Mr. Bush and America, and, in the most exquisite of ironies, capitalism, itself.
But Dan, Chavez is spending money on BOTH international and domestic priorities. Doesn't Britain do the same thing?
As evidence of his domestic spending, UNESCO certifies that illiteracy has now been eliminated in Venezuela.
Why did it take 500 years to bring that about?
Matt
PS: You're the best! prefer you to lees douset, judy swallow, and owen bennett jones. we just differ on this point.