– fordi tiden kræver et MODSPIL

13. May 2006

Hvad vil 'demokratisk valgt' sige?

 
John Pilger foretager en ganske kættersk sammenligning af den demokratisk valgte Hugo Chavez med den demokratisk valgte Tony Blair, i en kommentar i dagens Guardian:
[Chavez] promised that his every move would be subject to the will of the people. In his first year as president in 1999, he held an unprecedented number of votes: a referendum on whether or not people wanted a new constituent assembly; elections for the assembly; a second referendum ratifying the new constitution - 71% of the people approved each of the 396 articles that gave Mavis and Celedonia and Ana Lucia, and their children and grandchildren, unheard-of freedoms, such as Article 123, which for the first time recognised the human rights of mixed-race and black people, of whom Chávez is one. "The indigenous peoples," it says, "have the right to maintain their own economic practices, based on reciprocity, solidarity and exchange ... and to define their priorities ... "
(...)
In contrast, Tony Blair, a patrician with no equivalent democratic record, having been elected by a fifth of those eligible to vote and having caused the violent death of tens of thousands of Iraqis, is allowed to continue spinning his truly absurd political survival tale.
Hermed ikke være sagt, at der ikke er andet end godt at sige om Chavez, eller at hans beslutninger, styreform eller for den sags skyld økonomiske beslutninger er helt uproblematiske; men en regering, der resolut bruger landets oliemilliarder til at afskaffe analfabetismen og give befolkningen billig mad samtidig med, at ytringsfriheden og yderligere politiske friheder bevares er nok ikke, hvad et land som Venezuela har mindst brug for netop nu.

Eller, sagt på en anden måde: Hermed ikke være sagt, at der ikke er andet end godt at sige om Chavez, men der er en hel del mere godt at sige om ham end Bush og Blair tilsammen; og det er da altid en begyndelse.

Link til John Pilgers kommentar i The Guardian.

Kommentarer: