|
Archived Articles
Simeon Mitropolitski is a Canadian analyst, of Bulgarian origin, and a former syndicated columnist with the Bulgarian News Agency (BTA). He is the author of several hundred articles dealing with hot political and economic topics, both national and international.
He was part of the first group of Bulgarian intellectuals and students that began the opposition movement that finally put an end to the communist regime in this country in 1989, and in 1996-1997 participated in international observation teams during the elections in several Balkan countries - Romania, Albania and Bulgaria.
In 2002 Simeon and his family moved from Bulgaria to Canada where they live now in Montreal, province of Quebec. Simeon is a Master of Political Science from McGill University and a B.A. of Political Science and History.
Global Real Estate Project
|
 |
Venezuela: 'No' to 'bonapartism', this timeHugo Chavez, the president of Venezuela, lost a plebiscite. If victorious, he would have been able to run for a head of state without limitations; he would have also legally undone the liberal political system; and finally he would have installed new kind of economy where private interests and the property rights going with them might be criminalized. With a slight majority the people said 'no' to this proposals, this time. Chavez promises to push ahead with his radical agenda, and we must trust him on this. At a certain point any radical social reform hits the wall of popular mistrust; those in charge have to choose between either pushing ahead with their radical agenda, or deepening their popular support. What we call 'democracy' ins't the only way of making the popular voices heard. In fact, some may even say that it's the most bizarre type of popular government ever invented. In ancient Greece, 'democracy' meant two different things: first, rule of the mob, highly non-recommended form of political regime, usually leading toward tyranny; second, appointment of politicians by pulling their names out of boxes where all citizens' names are put. We don't practice these forms of democracy. Since the early 19th c. there is another alternative form of popular rule, which is the plebiscite. Within the framework of democratic legitimacy of power, the strong person asks permission from the people to implement important changes in the social life. For historic reasons this form is called 'bonapartism'. It may sound bizarre, but in the 19th c. many conservative and liberal thinkers saw the 'specter of socialism' in the plebiscites. The plebiscites are cost effective way of acquiring legitimacy for difficult decisions. Instead of doing long and winding negotiations between many social groups and actors, with one stroke of hand the strong person puts all dots on all 'i's. The opposition is marginalized, both in terms of numbers and in terms of legitimacy. Once the 'people' has spoken, nobody is able to contradict the strong person policy. Slightly different is the situation when the strong person loses the plebiscite. Then he himself de-legitimizes the popular vote, for this time. If the 'yes' vote is definitive, the 'no' vote is just an accident. Examples are countless. France voted 'yes' on the treaty of Maastricht, and this vote was considered as definitive; France voted 'no' on the treaty of EU constitution, and this vote isn't considered as definitive; the next time France decides on the EU constitution there may be no popular consultation at all. With this excursion in history it seems clear what the logic of Venezuelan president Chavez is, and what he will do next. He used the good old technique of plebiscite a la Bonaparte because this gave him a strong leverage against the opposition, the political parties, the other political institutions, and the foreign critiques. If the people had voted 'yes', this would have been considered as definitive. The people, however, voted 'no'. No surprise then that Chavez doesn't consider this vote as definitive. Next time, the radical reforms he proposes for Venezuela may pass without any popular consultation at all. The 'socialism' that Chavez proposes to his people, with no discussions, with high concentration of power, with no independent from the government social forces, including the press, this 'socialism' needs strong personal power. This social system is incompatible with the liberal version of democracy, but it tries not to contradict at least its plebiscitarian form. At a certain point, however, any radical social reform hits the wall of popular mistrust. For different reasons, many of those who were with Chavez would go into opposition to his regime. Some because he's gone too far; some because he's gone not too far. And he'll have to choose between abandoning all democratic rhetoric, and playing by the liberal democratic rules until another elected president replaces him, before 2031.
Venezuela profile: -------------------- See also the directory of companies providing real estate services in, and general real estate information of Venezuela.
|
See also:
