Firebrand, despot, demagogue, Marxist, champion of the poor, anti-imperialist, autocrat, dictator, populist, 

That such a wide array of words have been used to describe the late Hugo Chavez speaks volumes; he remains one of the most divisive and controversial figures of recent history. In the hundreds of pieces written about him – and no doubt, the influx of obituaries over the next few days – there will severely contrasting accounts.

Adored – even worshipped – by some, Chavez was the anti-imperialist, US-vilifier and embodiment of the last socialist hope in the age of global capitalism and American hegemonic governance. To others, he was nothing more than an elected despot, who – slowly, but surely – tightened his grip over Venezuela, essentially destroying any real opposition in his wake.

Yet, the accusations of a ‘dictatorship’ are wrong in so many ways. In a continent with a rich history of despots – from Pinochet to Duvalier to Leopoldo Galtieri (+Argentinean Juntas) to Noriega – Hugo Chavez is not one of them. He has consistently sought and won power in elections; all of which were declared relatively free and legitimate and with a far higher winning percentage majorities than many Western nations leaders gain. Ex-US President Jimmy Carter even went so far as to call Venezuela’s election process as the “best in the world” – hyperbolic for sure, but turnout in Venezuela still ranks in the high 70s. In his tenure, Chavez also survived an US-backed coup d’état attempt in 2002 as well as a public referendum on his leadership in 2004. This is a man who led through a public mandate, nothing else.

Indeed, even many of Chavez’s opponents would find it difficult to argue against this, with democracy flourish in the South American nation. There were no camps; no gulags; no mass arrests of political adversaries; no banning of the opposition; no night time raids on outspoken critics: essentially, no terror. To thus compare him to leaders who rule primarily through such methods is foolish at best; blind-sighted as worst. Moreover, this ‘despot’ has willingly accepted decisions that have been detrimental to his power  – including stepping down during the 2002 coup as well as a narrow loss in a 2007 referendum on constitutional reform. Hardly the stuff of a dictator then.

Undoubtedly though, there is a case to be made that Chavez has become an elected autocrat; or, to use a phrase of political science, a proponent of competitive authoritarianism. The general traits of such a system do seem to ring true for Venezuela. Dominated by strong leader? Check. Limited democratic freedoms and liberalness outside of elections? Check. Constitutional and judicial changes to augment personal power? Check.

Indeed, only two years into power, a public referendum on whether the country needed a constitutional assembly received overwhelming support. The body was soon voted in and – despite 900 opposition candidates – 95% of those voted in were Chavez-supporter, concentrating all power with the President. Reform soon followed with the formation of a unicameral house and greater Presidential powers such a longer term and the ability to legislate on citizen issues.

It was after 2002 -after the coup – when Chavez really began concentrating and levelling power in the hands of himself and key allies; government and its institutions becoming firmly centralised around him. In 2004, the Judiciary and Supreme Court lost their independence, essentially becoming appendages of the executive and losing their function as a check on the President’s power. Instead, they became tools of the government, used for political purposes beyond any other role.

The story of Maria Lourdes Afiuni is a case of point in his ever-expanding intolerance to those who dissented against him. Afiuni was a judge who was released a high-profile banker who was accused of fraud (he also happened to be a prominent government critic); Chavez, furious at the decision, accused her of being bribed and detained her without trial. She spent more than a year in prison in deplorable conditions – and was allegedly raped – with several threats to her life from criminals she herself had imprisoned. Noam Chomsky, the famous Linguistics professor and US foreign policy critic, denounced his ‘old friend’ over the incident – but in his later years, Chavez used similar bullying to shut down any such opposition.

[quote align="left" name="Human Rights Watch" role=""]By his second full term in office, the concentration of power and erosion of human rights protections had given the government free rein to intimidate, censor, and prosecute Venezuelans who criticized the president or thwarted his political agenda.[/quote]

In regards to media, Chavez accused many television networks of orchestrating the 2002 coup against him, thus soon established media hegemony. Anti-government radio and television channels were either closed, blocked or censored; Venezuela ranking 124th in the world on press freedom in 2009, according to Reporters Without Borders. Furthermore, state-media were often saturated  with coverage of the president during election periods, especially as all channels were obliged by law to show 10 minutes of state broadcasts a day. Elections were free from balloting stuffing and intimidation, but there was some tilting of the pitch to say the least.

Human rights scrutiny has also been rejected – many NGOs, international organisations and human rights defenders have been either blocked or discredited and thus unable to monitor the government’s actions. In September last year, Venezuela also withdrew from the American Convention on Human Rights. Anything seen to question the government deemed seemingly unacceptable; there were notable mass firings of public employees who had signed recall petitions for the 2004 referendum.

The steady of erosion of democratic freedoms is thus plain to see and casts a shadow over Chavez’s time in office; his restrictions of the free press, wavering commitment to human rights standards and subversion of the judiciary only serving to cement his power. It is not by sheer luck that he was both the -somewhat paradoxical - most elected leader in the modern era as well as the longest-serving head of state in the Americas.

Indeed, Chavez’s lust for power has never seemed more desperate than in the last few months of his life. After winning a fourth term of office in December last year, Chavez quickly withdrew from public life by announcing that he was still in the throes of his cancer battle. He was never seen by the Venezuelan people again, failing to even attend his own inauguration in January. Instead, he choose to rule from his hospital bed, rather than cede power to his Vice-President Nicolas Maduro, ignoring a constitutional requirement in the process. Such an action only revealed how he was determined to retain power at all costs – even when he was simultaneously losing power over his own body. It casts a gloomy ending to his legacy with Venezuela now plunged into a dangerous vacuum and political turmoil; one in which the result remains very much unknown.

Yet, the stark reality is that despite his flaws, Chavez has presided over a  government that has remained democratic and liberal at its core. There have been little signs of any serious nor extensive human rights violations; private media remains at the forefront of Venezuelan politics; and during the election last year, Henrique Capriles’ face was plastered over thousands of billboards across the country.

[quote align="left" name="" role=""]It is not by sheer luck that he was both the most elected leader in the modern era as well as the longest-serving head of state in the Americas.[/quote]

Moreover, many of post-2002 actions can be justified somewhat; an illegal coup, against the public mandate is more illegitimate than the actions of Chavez afterwards. Indeed, despite the fact that both Capriles and private media sources were heavily involved in the attempted overthrow, most perpetrators were treated leniently -  the worst incident being the refusal to renew a licence to one of the involved broadcasters.

Why then has Chavez always received such negative press? His many accomplishments often cast aside, replaced with idle and ignorant labels. In a contient where military leaders have gone on to imprison, torture and murder opponents, Chavez has only been a progressive force and a breath of fresh air in Latin American politics.

He may wear the red beret and camouflage fatigues, fit the caricature of a South American despot and be a anti-US socialist; the truth though is that there is no tyrant in there.

Whilst political interference and involvement in the Olympics truly began from the word go – and reached steam in the 1950s – it wasn’t until the 60s when countries (and people) began to understand how important the Olympics could be to send out a message on a truly global scale. Boycotts were no longer the fashion, but protests.

In the 1960 Rome Games, Taiwan protested against having to drop the name ‘Republic of China’; in 1964, in a truly symbolic move, Japan chose 19-year old Yoshinori Sakai to light the Olympic flame at Tokyo – chosen as he was born the day after the atomic bomb struck Hiroshima. He was a symbol of Japan’s postwar reconstruction, prosperity and peace.

Yet, these was nothing compared to what would come four years later at the 1968 games -  number three of our countdown with the most famous and symbolic Olympic protest ever. At the time, the world was in a time of political unrest and ‘people power’. Europe had experienced many student protests, Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy had been assassinated, whilst the Cold War rumbled on with the US still in Vietnam and the USSR invading Czechoslovakia after the Prague Spring.

The 1968 games were an Olympics steeped in controversy even before they began. With Mexico City chosen as the host, the world’s attention turned towards Latin American  for the continent’s first Olympic games. Mexico was also in some political turmoil with many student protests over the preceding summer, particularly over the invasion and occupation of the Dominican Republic by the US as well as dissatisfaction with the ruling PRI regime; and want of democracy. The protesters saw the Olympics as a unique opportunity to air their grief and problems on the world stage.

Mexican President Diaz Ortaz, concerned over the image of the country with the world watching, tried to crack down on these protests with step up of army and police presence. Such action only increased the protests in size and support with trade unions joining in, as well as infamous occupation of University campuses.

10 days before the Olympics began, this tension boiled over. On October 2nd, over 10,000 university students gathered in the Plaza de las Tres Culturas for a peaceful rally. Despite its benign nature, increased police and military presence surrounded the area as they tried to arrest some of the movement’s leaders. After shots were fired, the army began to shoot into the crowd as well as holding protestors at gunpoint. For many years, who was to blame was questioned; recent documents show that the government employed snipers to fire on fellow troops, thus provoking them to open fire on the students and other protestors. The Tlatelolco Massacre, as it would be named, killed over 44 people, with estimates ranging from 30 to around 300. The Olympics, in response, were only postponed for 36 hours.

To See The Rest Of The Article, Click Here.

In completely contradiction, athletes – despite being elite sportsmen and women too – are far more down to earth, paid a reasonable amount as well as being true heroes to look up too. The dedication is unparalleled, they are real role-models of sport – not caught doing immoral things in the background (and allowed to do it as they are footballers and thus their clubs don’t care) – as well as never arguing with officials.

Football, in the wake of the olympics, has become 2nd best; a grimy, dirty and money-driven version of sport. Footballers are too blame.

Yet, sometimes fans have to look at themselves; watching Stoke City play Arsenal last saturday was an interesting affair. The two clubs have always had a bit of a rivalry since Stoke joined the Premiership considering their style of play is the antithesis of Arsenal’s more free-flowing attacking style (some even call it a rugby team) and Arsene Wenger gets quite easily upset. Indeed, the Stoke fans enjoy a celebration which basically mimics his behaviour. Funny, if unoriginal and all relatively tame.

However, what isn’t okay is the booing of Arsenal player Aaron Ramsey. What is the crime of such player? Has he slagged off Stoke? No. Did he leave them as a player? No. Has he been known for diving? No. Maybe he fouled one of the Stoke Players? No.

In fact, completely the opposite; on the 27th February 2010, Stoke defender, Ryan Shawcross, tackled Ramsey causing a double fracture in Ramsey’s right leg, breaking his tibia and fibula. To be fair, the tackle were fairly innocuous and just happened without any ill attempt; a freak event if you will.

So why then is Ramsey booed? Well, Stoke fans says its cause he still brings the incident up (was a bit iffy about Shawcross being called up to play for Wales) and that he says Shawcross never apologised or anything. Shawcross says that he tried, but wasn’t allowed, so Stoke Fans believe their loyalty lies with their own player.

Now, to be honest, I don’t care about all that. What happened between Ramsey and Shawcross; no one will ever known in truth and that is also their own business. It does, however, not allow for stoke fans to boo an opposition player purely because he may have held some resentment over a tackle.Where is the morals in that?

There are none; it is pure and simple out of order. Football fans need to look at themselves before they start slagging off what goes on the pitch.

After all, the aim of blog (at least this one) is purely to get an opinion out there; I’m not looking for the eloquence of my articles for my student newspaper, but more a spoken word on paper argument. So yes, basically, the idea is now that when I feel something would be a good thing to write about, I just do it.

At least here’s hoping!

Reblogged from The Polifix:

Anyway, the title is, in fact, in reference to an article the Wall Street Journal published during the Olympics – by Jared Diamond, of Guns, Germs & Steel fame surprisingly – titled ‘If Only There Were a Medal for Last Place’.

Basically, for some reason – maybe cause we were hosting such a great Olympics, showing up all those held in the US – the WSJ made an ‘loser’ medal table which showed what countries came last most often with a lead medal given to last place, second-to-last getting tin and third-to-last attaining zinc.

Well, forget our gold rush (well, thats their idea) as it turns out, it was Team GB who have this dubious honour. Now the US media have already annoyed me both with NBC’s poor coverage of the Olympics – especially cutting out the 7/7 bombing tribute of the opening ceremony – but even more so when I saw a clip the other day that showed Britain in fourth place in the medal table because for some reason, they were placing it by most medals rather than the standard; gold first, silver second, bronze third format.

Why? Because the US had more medals than China at this time, but less golds; propagandist media coverage there. (In reality, it should be done in a way where Gold is given 3 points, Silver 2 and Bronze 1 as the current system means a team could have 100 medals but come 50th by having no golds compared to a country with one gold which could then be placed in the top ten). It may just turn out this how the US does it’s medal tables, but why? No one else does.

Anyway, this is just the icing of the cake. Yes, Britain is probably last, but it is a deceptive statistic. In race-like sports -swimming, rowing and athletics, for example, coming ‘last’ in a final actually means you are in the top eight of the world; in fact, you can come 6th and still be classed as a ‘loser’ in this statistic. For example Kayaker Tim Brabants reached the Olympic final, but came last; so is classed a lead medal. It is therefore flawed in that you are one of the better athletes, just not in the top three. If this was a real thing, it would be therefore bad to get into a final, rather than a highlight of your career.

Secondly, Britain entered teams in all events – in ones where they had no chance or were new too, such as volleyball, water polo (no international experience in 50 years) and handball as examples, just in order to have home representation. Whats wrong with that? It means more exposure for this sports and more likelihood that supporters will be able to root for their home nation. I think the WSJ missed the point of the Olympics really – home support is key as well especially for London to ‘inspire a generation’

Overall, it just shows a typical snobby American view. It also ignores the fact that for the developed nations, population is a key factor as to why countries do well; aka, US as more populous fully-developed country does well because it has so many potential athletes)

Oh Dear…

So the Daily Express came out with this front page yesterday. Spot the mistake?

Well yes, it does claim the Daily Express is the “World’s Greatest Newspaper”; a bizarrely optimistic claim that it decides to make at every printing. That is probably the most glaring error. (Why, I might add, being 5p achieve than the other rag, the Daily Mail, is an achievement; who knows?

The other is that while the British Equestrian Team did win the dressage team gold; the photo on the cover is not them. Oh dear…

No, it is, in fact, the Dutch Team. I mean, its a normal mistake to make. It’s not like they are wearing completely different – extremely Dutch – colours or anything. Oh wait, they are; even a cursory glance could see the Orange beaming out from all the red, white and blue.

Also, it’s pretty obvious their medals aren’t gold either.

It’s incredible that a national newspaper could make sure a high-profile blundering mistake.

That’s standout journalism for you.

4 years ago, the British media (& no doubt the public behind) mocked Beijing’s Olympics; “Ha! They might of had a great opening ceremony, but look at all those empty seats. Shocking; you won’t see that here”. Okay, so that wasn’t exactly the words used, but it was by-and-large the sentiment expressed.

The British were right to be so optimistic though. After all, despite the fact we are somewhat perennial mediocre and have a fairly low participation rate. Britain is one of the most sport-loving nations in the world – IOC chief, Jacques Rogge, even named us the birthplace of modern sport.

And, as the first ticket window closed last spring, it appeared that empty venues would not be an issue of London 2012 with an unprecedented 1.8million people attempting to get tickets for the games. Overall, there were applications for over 20 million tickets; 3 times the 6.6 million available.

Thousands were thus left disappointed, either failing to get the tickets they really wanted or any at all. Even some of the athlete’s families were let empty-handed; current golden-boy Bradley Wiggins was one such star with London Mayor Boris Johnson also claiming he had failed to attain any for his family.

Fast-forward a year, and as the Olympic came about, we all expected chocker-full stadiums. This has been far from the case as huge swathes of seats are left vacant – including for big finals in events such as the equestrian, swimming and gymnastics.

It is puzzling and frustrating sight for the British public, especially for the thousands who toiled for hours in various different ballots to try and get tickets for the games and failed. The sight of empty venues must be both infuriating and disillusioning. After all, the huge crowds at both the cycling road race and time trial showed the extent of how people want to see some sporting action.

On a personal level, for example, I applied for multiple tennis tickets unsuccessfully; switching on the tv, I see big names stars of Sharapova, Federer, Murray all playing in front of half-empty crowds (Yes, thats half-empty; not half-full). It is a baffling sight.

And we aren’t talking about a few empty seats, dotted-around, here-and-there; but huge chunks and blocks of left unoccupied. Indeed, there seems to be some confusion over the true amount of free seats, with different figures of average 60,000 up to 120,000.

To read the rest of the article, check here.

So, anyhow, to keep some content going before I begin the blog again tomorrow, here is the last entry of my political satirical column which is still going strong. In fact, I have been doing it alone in recent weeks; and it has thrived I personally think. But to check out for yourself, click here.

Here is is anyway:

Rogues States dominate this week’s polifix with Kim III fighting a coup, Assad potentially on his last legs and Iran and Israel having a little war of their own. A naked man and some ice cream also get in with part of the action.

Kim Junior Junior Flexes His Muscles

So not only does Kim Jong-un have a new girlfriend; it seems he has a new title and army to boot in what has been a busy old week for the Supreme Leader.

On Tuesday, news emerged that Kim had stripped General Ri Yong Ho, head of the North Korean military, of all his duties (despite over 53 years of service in the regime). In a brief statement released, the causation for this dismissal was cited as an undefined ‘illness’.

Of course, such a story seemed pretty unlikely – and many experts were unsurprisingly doubtful over the reasoning – with most viewing it as Kim Jong III attempting to assert and consolidate control in what has been the highest-profile leadership change in his 8 months of power. Illness probably wasn’t the best excuse, considering that many people have seen the general looking “healthy” in recent weeks.

The possible purge was then made even more obvious when North Korean state media announced that General Hyon Yong Chio would be promoted to Vice Marshal. Who then would become Marshal? You guessed it, Kim himself has been given the title, giving himself command of the 1.2 million strong North Korean army (a whooping 5% of the entire population and on the receiving end of 25% of the country’s GDP)

Reports have now emerged that a fire-fight broke out between North Korean soldiers and a cluster of guards loyal to Ri Young Ho when they attempted to detain the General. In fact, it is possible the general died in the event, though there has been no official confirmation of this.

An attempted coup? Maybe, but it is North Korea..so well, who really knows?

Bulgarian Bus Bombing

The town of Burgas, Bulgaria, was in shock this week after a suicide attack against a coach carrying Israeli tourists. The bombing – which killed 5 tourists, a Bulgarian bus driver and injured another 30 people – comes only 5 months after similar attacks on Israeli embassies in India and Georgia.

Israel were quick to blame Iran and the Lebanese Shia militia group Hezbollah (which it sponsors) for the blast (as they did so in February as well); neither party have claimed responsibility, but it is looking increasingly likely that both are to blame.

It is worrying sign as it continues the tit-for-tat relationship between the opposing Middle Eastern powers, with many looking at the bombing as a retaliation for the assassinations against Iranian nuclear scientists earlier this year.

The only silver lining is that the two nations are clearly taking out their distrust (and hatred?) out on each other through covert means, rather than all out (possibly nuclear) war.

 Syria Hysteria

I’ve lost track of how many times Syria has been in the polifix, but once again it has to feature considering the continuous magnitude of the conflict.

Indeed, last week, the International Committee of the Red Cross officially declared that Syria is in full-blown civil war; a title that now allows “appropriate force” by parties to achieve their goals (diplomatic mumbo jumbo) as well as create a potential benchmark for future war crime prosecutions.

Other mundane diplomacy stagnated continued with the UN agreeing to extend the observer mission (as it has clearly proved to be so vital); whilst China and Russian vetoed an agreement that would have imposed harsher sanctions on the regime.

On the ground, however, progress has been made as fighting has reached the Syrian capital of Damacus with rebel leaders claiming that the real battle for the capital lies ahead. This comes only days after a opposition bomb killed Assad’s defense minister, his brother-in-law as well as the national security chief; a significant blow to the regime, due to these individual’s essential role in stopping the uprising.

There have been significant gains outside of the city as well, with rebel forces taking over key border crossing with Turkey, as well as much of the Iraqi border; this allows a far easier importation of arms for the rebels. Aleppo looks set to be the latest conquest.

News has also broke that defections are not only continuing, but accelerating as the Syrian government continues to sink. The end of Assad may be only weeks away.

The Unaccountable Police

It might seem a while ago now, but three years ago it was not riots that were taking over the summer headlines, but the G20 protests as thousands marched through London with police and protestors clashing.

One of those caught up in the action was newspaper seller Ian Tomlinson, who was struck and pushed to the ground – and who later died – which became a national story after footage emerged of the incident.

Pc Simon Harwood, the policemen who pushed Tomlinson, was found not guilty of manslaughter this week. This was despite an inquest last year declaring the killing as “unlawful”.

It has now further emerged that Harwood has a history of disproportionate violence, with many (unproven) allegations of unlawful arrests, as well as that he punched, throttled, threatened and kneed people in the line of duty.

Nonetheless, it continues a trend where those police officers’ whose actions, in the line of duty, has contributed to a death has never been convicted of either manslaughter or murder. Justice?

A Racist Ice Cream

Who knew that the 50p rectangular vanilla (with chocolate coating) ice cream could be so controversial? Well, clearly not Rio Ferdinand who this week tweeted a response to a twitter user who referred to Ashely Cole as a ‘Choc Ice’

Firstly, lets be clear; the term ‘choc ice’ is not political correctness gone mad. The term is, in fact, extremely dangerous.

‘Choc Ice’ is essentially the idea that a person can be black, but on the inside they have a white mentality. It is extremely derogatory as it creates the idea that ‘being black’ is somewhere distinct from being white; the idea that if you don’t wear certain clothes or like certain music or culture, you are not truly black.

In fact, John Amaechi, former MBA basketballer-come-psychologist, believes that many black student don’t do well at school as they believe that by doing so, they are acting white. The fact it has come from Rio Ferdinand, a black football player, makes it even more damaging; though he has since claimed he meant it as ‘sell-out’ rather than anything racial.

The irony is, of course, that the whole thing is over a race trial itself. Rio is hoping the whole story just melts away like a choc ice on a sunny day.

*Warning* Nudity Below

But probably not the kind you are looking for. This is the news that the so-called ‘naked rambler’ (full name: Stephen Gough) has been allowed to leave prison in the nude.

After 6 years of solitary confinement, Gough walked free after 17 convictions of breach of the peace in the last 10 years. Previous attempts to leave have been thwarted, as he stripped as soon as he stepped out of the prison gates and thus  was re-arrested.

Police have taken a different approach this time, allowing Gough – originally from Eastleigh – to walk out nude. He now plans to head south to visit his children; though he could be rearrested at any moment. A starkers story.

In Other News…

The African Union (that’s basically the African version of the EU, but without the flawed shared currency idea) elected Nkosazana Diamini-Zuma; the first female leader of the institution.

In what has been heralded as a significant step forward for gender equality; Marissa Mayer has become CEO for Yahoo. Despite an impressive resume – which includes developing the iconic white Google search page – it is her stomach (note: not quite scientifically correct) which has been getting all the headlines as she enters the job whilst 6-months pregnant.

A recent poll by CBS News & the New York Times shows Obama may have a bigger fight on his hands than first thought with the results showing that its even stevens in the US presidential race.

And lastly, Nelson Mandela celebrated his 94th birthday on the 18th. The date has been designated International Nelson Mandela Day where people around the world are asked to dedicate 67 minutes to helping others. (Maybe try for a bit longer than that if possible?)

The hit counter has reflected this content deficiency with views of 1 or 2 people the last few days. Oh dear, oh dear. Somehow I was pulling in 50+ hits a day last week, with the Balotelli King Kong Story pulling in the punters like a Kelis Milkshake. A big surprise it was and rather than following it up with lots of other great content, I let the milk run dry.

Oh well, still learning. Not sure I truly get this old blogging business yet anyway. I mean 90 hits for the Balotelli piece is pretty good for a month-old random blog (it even got on the 2nd page of google), but it shows that the key is to blog about the issues while still hot (or the issues go ogg and die, with my view uninteresting to anyone)

It’s unsurprising really. With news now on continuous cycle of 24 hour news stories and the internet, issues and news disappear as quick as a flash. When for example was the last time you heard anything about Iraq? A news story that dominated Western media for so long; now confided to the dustbin of history with barely a whisper of whats going on there anymore.

Milk & The News – The Same Going Off Period

The Jimmy Carr tax story was similar…a story that dominated for a week, then vanished in a puff of smoke. (Sorry getting a bit metaphor/simile crazy now – and yes, I do know the difference). The attention span of people is too small I guess; “old news”. I’m actually considering writing a piece on the lack of upkeep on stories in the media.

But then again, I have lots to write about; many many ideas. The big news this House of Lords Reform. I covered it for half of last year, so I’m pretty down with that, but its such a complex issue. So complex. I might take a bash it though.

It’s not like I don’t have the time; watching the Shawshank Redemption (trying to get motivated) eating cold pizza as my depressing summer unemployment continues. The effort, however, is not always there.

P.S. Please excuse for the continuing milk metaphor