Re: [Marxism] Venezuela

["Paula" <Paula_cerni@xxxxxxx>]

David wrote
> I congratulate you on missing the main point to my post, it being that
> substantially the chief of government in a parliamentary monarchy has
> identical powers to the chief of state and government in a presidentialist
> republic.

I disagree, because a state has much greater powers than a government. The 
state, for example, is a body of armed men; the government is not. The 
executive president is the political personification of the power of the 
state; the head of government (or prime minister) is not.

If a political party in Venezuela was to propose separating the roles of 
head of state from those of the head of government, so that Chavez would 
only be the latter - would he and his supporters have a problem with this? 
Of course they would. They would recognize the difference straight away; 
they would not think it was insubstantial.

With an executive presidency, we don't have the protection of a separation 
of powers. Term limits, then, are used as an alternative form of protection.

> By art 56.3 of the Spanish constitution, any
> acts of the king must be co-signed in the manner indicated in art 64, 
> except
> as otherwise provided by art 65.2. If they are not so co-signed, they are
> void, and have no force to compell. Art 64 indicates that the acts of the
> king are co-signed by the president of the government

But if the power of the state (the body of armed men) decides to ignore the 
government, the government is powerless.

>It's irrelevant though, considering
> that title II of the Constitution (on the Crown) and other articles that
> establish the form of state are protected by art 168 by a very rigid 
> reform
> procedure that requires: two thirds of Congress, two thirds of the Senate,
> disolution of Parliament, again two thirds of both chambers, and 
> referendum.

The problem does not lie with the letter of the law. Rather, the letter of 
the law reflects the real problem - the power of the state over the people. 
And that is the very reason why democratic rights (such as a republic) need 
to be defended. They can only be effectively defended by a rival power - an 
organized movement of people. In the presence of such a movement, procedural 
obstacles are shown for what they are - merely procedural.

> Pretty much the whole of the left except for PSOE is republican
> The left has better things
> to do than fighting massive public opinion and a lobsided procedural rule
> with no chances of winning in the end. Not now, not yet.

In practice, therefore, that left is not republican. Not now, not yet.

Paula 


________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism