Well it sounds like you're trying to use someone else's arguments against me rather than your own.
Venezualan election 2024
- Thread starter Agema
- Start date
When you say things like "nobody said X" or "nobody said it was fine"-- particularly directed towards a response to someone else-- then you're not just speaking for yourself, and it appears you're defending the argument to which I was responding. If that wasn't the intention then fine.
That's a hell of an assumption, and in any case it just makes this whole line of argument a whataboutism, an actual whataboutism.
Whataboutism is suggesting a situation is less objectionable or worthy of attention because something else bad happened elsewhere.
I am suggesting that when we have established a standard, we should apply it consistently to the situation under discussion. That's not whataboutism. And I only even have to make that point because people have been deflecting from Venezuela by endlessly talking about other countries being bad.
Honestly I'm not really sure why this argument is ongoing at this point. You acknowledged barring parties was worthy of criticism. You presumably agree the barriers to voting were prohibitive. If you just want me to also say the US is shite, then absolutely, with pleasure, the US is shite. I've already condemned their political system a lot more than any other country on earth over my time here.
You certainly have not. You've tried to distract with other people's arguments for sure, but this is the last thing you've done in this thread.
In the thread as a whole? I was very obviously talking about inconsistent standards before you interjected. You can make a case that that argument is inapplicable to you, but not that I wasn't making it-- and in fact you've distanced yourself from one such inconsistency. I think at this point you're just arguing to argue.
And arguing from a position of inconsistency. The whole premise of these arguments is that you (and others) think perfectly normal and understandable political actions are authoritarian when someone the Guardian says is bad does them. Hell, that whole crock about "context" is laughable when one of your first posts in this thread was arguing that the context for Venezuelan politics was not relevant to this election.
Saying I condemn them "when someone the Guardian says is bad does them" is some utter bollocks, considering I've long said similar things were unacceptable in the UK and US. And so have you. The difference is that I've maintained that principle here, whereas you've apparently dropped it like a ton of bricks.
You're disputing the outcome of this election while outright ignoring the context for Venezuelan politics. (not) Ironically, so is the wider press.
So, which bit of context makes it OK for Maduro to do the things that both of us agree are unacceptable in Western countries? What bit of context excuses (for example) a $200 ID requirement for over 6 million voters in this election, when we both agree that costly ID requirements weren't OK in the US elections?
There are some important differences, the most important being that Ukraine has been governed since 2014 by the larger fifth-columnist parties. But they want to join NATO, so they're our fifth column, the good kind.
Ukraine's government had just been overthrown by groups that included a bunch of neo-Nazis (who were not subsequently banned from politics unlike the various insufficiently anti-Russian parties) in concert with United States and European backing. Numerous television stations have been taken off the air by government decree, and Ukraine prosecuted a civil war against people who wanted wanted nothing to do with the new government. And now Ukraine has canceled its elections: Zelensky is 'serving' beyond his term. But it's all OK; Yanukovych was out of the country, so that means it's appropriate to just declare him not the president without the constitutionally required quorum, much like how whenever the President of the United States travels to any foreign country, the United States enters constitutional crisis mode. (Incidentally, we can see a similar model of the United States partially capturing the legislative and judicial branches which then oust the executive leadership more recently in Pakistan regarding Imran Khan.)
Venezuela, on the other hand, has had numerous attempts by the United States in concert with the fascist opposition to overthrow its government in the last few decades, including support of a sham government in exile, theft of its assets, a military coup that was thwarted by an uprising by the people to return Chavez to office, and ongoing sanctions with the explicit intent of causing 'regime change'; blatant, straightforward, inarguable election interference. So far, those efforts have failed to produce a change in government: liberty imposed from abroad does not yet ring free, very unlike the successful project in Ukraine.
Evil, corrupt Venezuela bans candidates that are repeatedly involved in murderous street violence: a terrible assault on the liberties of violent fascists.
The new, revitalized Ukraine, finally rid of their imperial Russian oppressors who prior to the glorious bloodshed at Maidan square had dastardly been winning elections, incorporates the militants of such parties (credibly accused of being the ones who shot protestors and police alike at Maidan square) into the armed forces and police: a practical solution that not only respects the inalienable rights but also suits the skillset of violent fascists.
It seems pretty important that one issue is about the voice of the people of a country who actually live in the place and the other is about a smaller number of people who want to participate in its governance from elsewhere. The former is much more obviously a priority than the latter.
I think it's not particularly reasonable nor unreasonable. It's an administrative hassle that probably corresponds to an increased administrative difficulty with respect to verifying that votes cast are legitimate.
Over 6 million voters who are not in Venezuela. Where they are is actually relevant.
That Venezuela is under economic siege by malicious foreign actors and who are explicitly using local personalities to attack democracy within the country. That is an exceptionally strong piece of context that changes the meaning of a lot of complaints.
...And also candidates that aren't, like the MAS. But by all means, just keep skimming over that inconvenient detail and mischaracterising this as purely a move against the violent right.
If you believe it's well and good to place an enormous financial barrier to overseas voters, such that only the wealthy can contribute and the poor are effectively disenfranchised, just say that. Don't bother to couch it in this nebulous rhetoric about how the opinions of those abroad aren't equal.
The rest is more of the same reheated imperialist apologia and hysterical revisionism over Ukraine that we got enough of in the other thread.
I guess you and I have different standards for when democratic backsliding becomes acceptable. I don't see how financial barriers to voting, or moderate socialists being banned, serves to address those contextual issues.
Then I look forward to you questioning the legitimacy of the British election and calling for the ouster of Keir Starmer.
Fewer than 200,000 Britons living abroad apply to vote in UK election
Lack of awareness and obstacles such as last-known UK address requests cited as reasons for low participation
www.theguardian.com
I'm noting some serious barriers for overseas voting.
only the wealthy... overseas. How is this supposed to help Maduro, exactly? Chavistas are not the wealthy.
Anyway, it's not so obvious that the opinions of those abroad are or should be equal. The stakes for them are less for obvious reasons. I no longer have a say in Texas elections since I've moved to Washington state; a terrible infringement on my voting rights. Or is it? In the case of my movement between states, it's perfectly obvious that I should gain WA voting rights and lose TX voting rights. I now live in the one place and not the other. Residency is paramount. Unless I go outside the United States entirely, in which case it isn't anymore. Surely you're starting to see that there's some arbitrariness involved, yes?
Participation from abroad is important for an imperial power with pretensions of democracy who needs to make sure its citizen soldiers stationed in foreign lands can vote; such an empire is explicitly about the privilege of citizens; it is perfectly obvious if looked at through the lens of an examination of Roman citizenship: of course the citizen soldiers on the frontier need to have their say! The whole definition of the state is basically a military occupation, of foreign lands and domestic alike. And of course the English duke residing in India needs to have his say in the government of England. And the American soldier in Germany. But the principle is not so obvious when viewed through the lens of arguments for democratic legitimacy that are not based on imperial traditions of citizenship in which citizens are members of a ruling and middle class set beside a large underclass that doesn't get representation, but rather the rights of the people who have a stake in the outcome: those who are governed.
The rights of citizens living abroad is not a question that people usually think much about. I haven't thought much about it. But the justification of their political participation is certainly on much shakier ground than that of resident citizens, maybe even resident non-citizens. At first glance, it seems like it may be a legacy of imperialism.
If you believe US imperialism is good when it's aimed at manipulating countries to be against Russia, just say that. Needn't bother pretending to have consistent principles.
Yep, those are clearly unreasonable barriers. Not nearly as financially prohibitive as Venezuela, of course. Now let's look at some proportions: that's 3m out of a voterbase of ~48m experiencing unreasonable barriers. Just over 6%-- pretty egregious, you're right.Then I look forward to you questioning the legitimacy of the British election and calling for the ouster of Keir Starmer.
Fewer than 200,000 Britons living abroad apply to vote in UK election
Lack of awareness and obstacles such as last-known UK address requests cited as reasons for low participation
I'm noting some serious barriers for overseas voting.
In Venezuela, it's 6m out of a voterbase of (IIRC) ~22m. So, uhrm, more than 25%. And their barrier was based on who has enough money.
Put in more than a minute's thought. If they've left the country, as ~a quarter of the population has since 2024 (most with refugee status), then they're more likely to be dissatisfied with the situation at home. At that point, any measure that drastically suppresses that vote is likely to assist the gov.
Interestingly, the country with the most Venezuelan refugees is Colombia, another South American country with a socialist gov, but one with transparent and fairer elections. What's interesting is that Colombia's observers were also barred from Venezuela's 2024 election.
Went from 'respect for democracy' to 'votes shouldn't be equal' real fast.
A major difference between the UK and Venezuela is that how Venezuela manages overseas voting is none of of your business.
Sure, sure. Everyone should have an equal say in every election. I should be able to vote in Bangladesh because I'm a person too. One man, one vote!
Or maybe when it's not so clear that someone is a member of the community, the community can decide that they don't have a vote. As in the case of Bangladesh and the unforgivable infringement on my voting rights there. All this to say: these are not questions with obvious answers that you have any right to impose on or demand from another country.
"You can't criticise countries that aren't your own"? Fuck that noise. You've been griping about other countries' voting management for far too long to try this now.
Do you have refugee status from Bangladesh, and family still there? Are you a Bangladeshi citizen just working abroad? I didn't know that!
Last edited:
When someone's arguments are transparently hypocritical and inconsistent, either they're too stupid to realise or they don't genuinely believe in any of the arguments they are putting forward.