America And Venezuela: Constitutional Worlds Apart

By Stephen Lendman

22 August, 2007
Countercurrents.org

Although imperfect, no country anywhere is closer to a model democracy than Venezuela under President Hugo Rafael Chavez Frias. In contrast, none is a more shameless failure than America, but it was true long before the age of George W. Bush. The difference under his regime is that the mask is off revealing a repressive state masquerading as a democratic republic. This article compares the constitutional laws of each country and how they're implemented. The result shows world's apart differences between these two nominally democratic states - one that's real, impressive and improving and the other that's mostly pretense and under George Bush lawless, corrupted, in tatters, and morally depraved.

US Constitutional Law from the Beginning

Before they're old enough to understand its meaning, young US children are taught to "pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands," and, by inference, its bedrock supreme constitutional law of the land. At that early age, they likely haven't yet heard of it, but soon will with plenty of misinformation about a document far less glorious than it's made out to be.

This article draws on Ferdinand Lundberg's powerfully important 1980 book, "Cracks in the Constitution," that's every bit as relevant today as then. In it, he deconstructs the nation's foundational legal document, separating myth from reality about what he called "the great totempole of American society." He analyzed it, piece by piece, revealing its intentionally crafted flaws. It's not at all the "Rock of Ages" it's cracked up to be, but students at all levels don't learn that in classrooms from teachers going along with the deception or who simply don't know the truth about their subject matter.

The Constitution falls far short of a "masterpiece of political architecture," but it's even worse than that. It was the product of very ordinary scheming politicians (not the Mt. Rushmore types they're portrayed as in history books) and their friends crafting the law of the land to serve themselves while leaving out the greater public that was nowhere in sight in 1787 Philadelphia. Unlike the Venezuelan Constitution, discussed below, "The People" were never consulted or even considered, and nothing in the end was put to a vote beyond the state legislative bodies that had to ratify it. In contrast to popular myth, the framers crafted a Constitution that didn't constrain or fetter the federal government nor did they create a government of limited powers.

They devised a government of men, not laws, that was composed of self-serving devious officials who lied, connived, used or abused the law at their whim, and pretty much operated ad libitum to discharge their duties as they wished. In that respect, things weren't much different then from now except the times were simpler, the nation smaller, and the ambitions of those in charge much less far-reaching than today.

The Constitution can easily be read in 30 minutes or less and just as easily be misunderstood. The opening Preamble contains its sole myth referring to "We the people of the United States of America." The only people who mattered were white male property owners. All others nowhere entered the picture, then or mostly since, proving democracy operatively is little more than a fantasy. But try explaining that to people today thinking otherwise because that's all they were taught from the beginning to believe.

They were never told the American revolution was nothing more than a minority of the colonists seceding from the British empire planning essentially the same type government repackaged under new management. Using high-minded language in Article I, Section 8 of the supreme law of the land, the founders and their successors ignored the minimum objective all governments are, or should be, entrusted to do - "provide for....(the) general welfare" of their people under a system of constitutional law serving everyone. But that's not its only flaw build in by design.

Our revered document is called "The Living Constitution," and Article VI, Section 2 defines it as the supreme law of the land. In fact, it's loosely structured for governments to do as they wish or not wish with the notion of a "government of the people, by the people, for the people" a nonstarter. "The People" don't govern either directly or through representatives, in spite of commonly held myths. "The People" are governed, like it or not, the way sitting governments choose to do it. As a consequence, "The Living Constitution" was a "huge flop" and still is.

Setting the Record Straight on the Framers

Popular myth aside, the 55 delegates who met in Philadelphia from May to September, 1787 were very ordinary self-serving, privileged, property-owning white men. They weren't extraordinarily learned, profound in their thinking or in any way special. Only 25 attended college (that was pretty rudimentary at the time), and Washington never got beyond the fifth grade.

Lundberg described them as a devious bunch of wheeler-dealers likely meeting in smoke-filled rooms (literally or figuratively) cutting deals the way things work today. He called them no "all-star political team" (except for George Washington) compared to more distinguished figures who weren't there like Jefferson, Adams (the most noted constitutional theorist of his day), John Jay (the first Supreme Court Chief Justice), Thomas Paine, Patrick Henry and others. Madison and Alexander Hamilton, who did attend, were virtual unknowns at the time, yet ever since Madison has been mischaracterized as the Constitution's father. In fact, he only played a modest role.

The delegates came to Philadelphia in May, 1887, assembled, did their work, sent it to the states, and left in a despondent mood. They disliked the final product, some could barely tolerate it, yet 39 of the 55 attendees knowingly signed a document they believed flawed while we today extoll it like it came down from Mt. Sinai. The whole process we call a first-class historical event was, in fact, an entirely routine uninspiring political caucus producing no "prodigies of statecraft, no wonders of political (judgment), no vaulting philosophies, no Promethean vistas." Contradicting everything we've been "indoctrinated from ears to toes" to believe, the notion that the Constitution is "a document of salvation....a magic talisman," or a gift to the common man is pure fantasy.

The central achievement of the convention, and a big one (until the Civil War changed things), was the cobbling together of disparate and squabbling states into a union. It held together, tenuously at best, for over seven decades but not actually until Appomattox "at bayonet point." The convention succeeded in gaining formal approval for what the leading power figures wanted and then got it rammed through the state ratification process to become the law of the land.

After much wheeling and dealing, they achieved mightily but not without considerable effort. Enough states balked to thwart the whole process and had to be won over with concessions like legitimizing slavery for southern interests and more. Then consider the Bill of Rights, why they were added, for whom, and why adopting them made the difference. It came down to no Bill of Rights, no Constitution, but they weren't for "The People" who were out of sight and mind.

These "glorified" first 10 Amendments were first rejected twice, then only added to assure enough state delegates voted to ratify the final document with them included. Many in smaller states were displeased enough to want a second convention that might have derailed the whole process had it happened. To prevent it, concessions were made including adding the Bill of Rights because they addressed key state delegate concerns like the following:

-- prohibitions against quartering troops in their property,

-- unreasonable searches and seizures there as well,

-- the right to have state militias,

-- the right of people to bear arms, but not as the 2nd Amendment today is interpreted,

-- the rights of free speech, the press, religion, assembly and petition, all to serve monied and propertied interests alone - not "The People,"

-- due process of law with speedy public trials for the privileged, and

-- various other provisions worked out through compromise to become our acclaimed Bill of Rights. Two additional amendments were proposed but rejected by the majority. They would have banned monopolies and standing armies, matters of great future import that might have made a huge difference thereafter. We'll never know for sure.

In the end and in spite of its defects, the framers felt it was the best they could do at the time and kept their fingers crossed it would work to their advantage. None of them suggested or wanted "a sheltered haven....for the innumerable heavily laden, bedraggled, scrofulous and oppressed of the earth." On the contrary, they intended to keep them that way meaning things weren't much different then than now, and the founders weren't the noble characters they're made out to be.

There were no populists or civil libertarians among them with men like Washington and Jefferson (who was abroad and didn't attend) being slave-owners. In fact, they were little more than crass opportunists who willfully acted against the will of "The People" they ignored and disdained. In spite of it, they're practically deified and ranked with the Apostles, and one of them (Washington) sits in the most prominent spot atop Mt. Rushmore.

The constitutional convention ended September 17, 1787 "in an atmosphere verging on glumness." Of the 55 attending delegates, 39 signed as a pro forma exercise before sending it to the states with power to accept or reject it. Again, "The People" were nowhere in sight in Philadelphia or at the state level where the real tussle began before the founders could declare victory.

What Was Achieved and What Wasn't

Contrary to popular myth, the new government wasn't constrained by constitutional checks and balances of the three branches created within it. In fact, then and since, sitting governments have acted expediently, with or without popular approval, and within or outside the law. In this respect, our system functions no differently than most others operating as we do. It's accomplished through "the narrowest possible interpretations of the Constitution," but it's free to go "further afield under broader or fanciful official interpretations." History records many examples under noted Presidents like Lincoln, T. and F. Roosevelt and Wilson along with less distinguished ones like Reagan, Clinton, Nixon, GHW Bush and his bad seed son, the worst ever of a bad lot.

Key to understanding the American system is that "government is completely autonomous, detached, (and) in a realm of its own" with its "main interest (being) economic (for the privileged) at all times." Constitutional shackles and constraining barriers are pure fantasy. Regardless of law, custom or anything else, sitting US governments have always been freelancing and able to operate as they please. They've also consistently been unresponsive to the public interest, uncaring and disinterested in the will and needs of the majority, and generally able to get around or remake the law to suit their purpose. George W. Bush is only the latest and most extreme example of a tradition begun under Washington, who when elected unanimously (by virtual coronation) was one of the two richest men in the country.

The Legislative Branch

The Constitution then and since confers unlimited powers on the government constituted under its three branches of the Congress, Executive and Judiciary. Article I (with seven in all plus 27 Amendments) deals with the legislative branch. Section 8, Sub-section 18 states Congress has power "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution....or in any department or officer thereof." It's for government then to decide what's "necessary" and "proper" meaning the sky's the limit under the concept of sovereignty.

The Executive and Judiciary branches are dealt with below with the three branches comprising a labyrinthine system the framers devised under the Roman notion of "divide and rule" as follows:

-- a powerful (and at times omnipotent) chief executive at the top,

-- a bicameral legislature with a single member in the upper chamber able to subvert all others in it through the power of the filibuster (meaning pirate in Spanish),

-- a committee system controlled mostly by seniority or a political powerbroker,

-- delay and circumlocution deliberately built into the system,

-- a separate judiciary able to overrule the Congress and Executive, but too often is a partner, not an adversary,

-- staggered elections to assure continuity by preventing too many officials being voted out together,

-- a two-party system with multiple constituencies, especially vulnerable to corruption and the influence of big (corporate) money that runs everything today making the whole system farcical, dishonest and a democracy only in the minds of the deceived and delusional.

The Judiciary

Article III of the Constitution establishes the Supreme Court saying only: "The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." Congress is explicitly empowered to regulate the Court, but, in fact, the opposite often happens or, at times, it cuts both ways. The function of Congress is to make laws with the Court in place to interpret them and decide their constitutionality if challenged and it decides to adjudicate.

As for the common notion of "judicial review," it's nowhere mentioned in the Constitution nor did the framers authorize it. Nonetheless, courts use it to judge the constitutionality of laws in place and public sector body actions. They derive their power to do it by deduction from two separate parts of the Constitution: Article VI, Section 2 saying the Constitution, laws and treaties are the supreme law of the land and judges are bound by them; then in Article III, Section 1 saying judicial power applies to all cases, implying judicial review is allowed. Under this interpretation of the law, appointed judges, in theory, "have a power unprecedented in history - to annul acts of the Congress and President."

With or without this power, Lundberg makes a powerful case overall that the constitutional story comes down to a question of money and money arrangement - who gets it, how, why, when, where, what for, and under what conditions. Also addressed is who the law leaves out. The story has nothing whatever to do with guaranteeing life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (Jefferson's Orwellian language meaning property); establishing justice; upholding the rule of law equitably for everyone; promoting the general welfare; or securing the blessings of freedom for "The People" unconsidered, unimportant and ignored by the three branches of government serving monied and property interests only, of which they are a part.

The Executive Branch

Lundberg's theme is clear and unequivocal. Under US constitutional law, the President is the most powerful political official on earth, bar none under any other system of government. "The office he holds is inherently imperial," regardless of the occupant or how he governs, and the Constitution confers this on him. Unlike the British model, with the executive as a collectivity, the US system "is absolutely unique, and dangerously vulnerable" with one man in charge fully able to exploit his position. "The American President (stands) midway between a collective executive and an absolute dictator (and in times of war like now) becomes, in fact, quite constitutionally, a full-fledged dictator." Disturbingly, the public hasn't a clue about what's going on.

A single sentence, easily passed over or misunderstood, constitutes the essence of presidential power. It effectively grants the Executive a near-limitless source, only constrained to the degree he chooses. It's from Article II, Section 1 reading: "The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. Article II, Section 3 then almost nonchalantly adds: "The President shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed" without saying Presidents are virtually empowered to make laws as well as execute them even though nothing in the Constitution specifically permits this practice. More on that below.

To understand how the US government works, it's essential to know what executive power is, in fact, knowing it's concentrated in the hands of one man for good or ill. Also crucial is how Presidents are elected - "literally (by) electoral (unelected by the public) dummies" in an Electoral College. The scheme is a long-acknowledged constitutional anomaly as these state bodies are able to subvert the popular vote, never meet or consult like the College of Cardinals electing a Pope, and, in effect, reduce and corrupt the process into a shameless farce.

Once elected, it only gets worse because the power of the presidency is awesome and frightening. The nation's chief executive:

-- is commander-in-chief of the military functioning as a virtual dictator in times of war; although Article I, Section 8 grants only Congress that right, the President, in fact, can do it any time he wishes "without consulting anyone" and, of course, has done it many times;

-- can grant commutations or pardons except in cases of impeachment;

-- can make treaties that become the law of the land, with the advice and consent of two-thirds of the Senate (not ratification as commonly believed); can also terminate treaties with a mere announcement as George Bush did renouncing the important ABM Treaty with the former Soviet Union; in addition, and with no constitutional sanction, he can rule by decree through executive agreements with foreign governments that in some cases are momentous ones like those made at Yalta and Potsdam near the end of WW II. While short of treaties, they then become the law of the land.

-- can appoint administration officials, diplomats, federal judges with Senate approval, that's usually routine, or can fill any vacancy through (Senate) recess appointments; can also discharge any appointed executive official other than judges and statutory administrative officials;

-- can veto congressional legislation, and history shows through the book's publication they're sustained 96% of the time;

-- while Congress alone has appropriating authority, only the President has the power to release funds for spending by the executive branch or not release them;

-- Presidents also have a huge bureaucracy at their disposal, including powerful officials like the Secretaries of Defense, State, Treasury, and Homeland Security and the Attorney General in charge of the Justice Department;

-- Presidents also command center stage any time they wish. They can request and get national prime time television for any purpose with guaranteed extensive post-appearance coverage promoting his message with nary a disagreement with it on any issue;

-- throughout history, going back to George Washington, Presidents have issued Executive Orders (EOs) although the Constitution "nowhere implicitly or explicitly gives a President (the) power (to make) new law" by issuing "one-man, often far-reaching" EOs. However, Presidents have so much power they can do as they wish, only constrained by their own discretion.

-- George Bush also usurped "Unitary Executive" power to brazenly and openly declare what this section highlights - that the law is what he says it is. He proved it in six and a half years of subverting congressional legislation through a record-breaking number of unconstitutional "signing statements." - They rewrote over 1132 law provisions through 147 separate "statements," more than all previous Presidents combined. Through this practice, George Bush expanded presidential power well beyond the usual practices recounted above.

-- Presidents are, in fact, empowered to do almost anything not expressively forbidden in the Constitution, and very little is; more importantly, with a little ingenuity and lots of creative chutzpah, the President "can make almost any (constitutional) text mean whatever (he) wants it to mean" so, in fact, his authority is practically absolute or plenary. And the Supreme Court supports this notion as an "inherent power of sovereignty." If the US has sovereignty, it has all powers therein, and the President, as the sole executive, can exercise them freely without constitutional authorization or restraint.

In effect, "the President....is virtually a sovereign in his own person." Compared to the power of the President, Congress is mostly "a paper tiger, easily soothed or repulsed." The courts, as well, can be gotten around with a little creative exercise of presidential power, and in the case of George Bush, at times just ignoring their decisions when they disagree with his. As Lundberg put it: "One should never under-estimate the power of the President....nor over-estimate that of the Supreme Court. The supposed system of equitable checks and balances does not exist, in fact, (because Congress and the courts don't effectively use their constitutional authority)....the separation in the Constitution between legislative and the executive is wholly artificial."

Further, it's pure myth that the government is constrained by limited powers. Quite the opposite is true "which at the point of execution (resides in) one man," the President. In addition, "Until the American electorate creates effective political parties (which it never has done), Congress....will always be pretty much under (Presidents') thumb(s)." Under the "American constitutional system (the President) is very much a de facto king," and under George Bush a corrupted, devious, criminal and dangerous one.

As for impeaching and convicting a President for malfeasance, Article II, Section 4 states it can only be for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." Based on the historical record, it's near-impossible to do with no President ever having been removed from office this way, and only two were impeached, both unjustly. John Adams, the most distinguished constitutional theorist of his day, said it would take a national convulsion to remove a President by impeachment, which is not to say it won't ever happen and very likely one day will with no time better than the present to prove it.

In sum from the above, the US system of constitutional law is full of flaws and faults. "The People" were deliberately and willfully left out of the process proving the Constitution doesn't recognize democracy in America in spite of the commonly held view it does. In addition, the President, at his own discretion, can usurp dictatorial powers and end republican government by a stroke of his pen. That should awaken everyone to the clear and present danger that any time, for any reason, the President of the United States can declare a state of emergency, suspend the law of the land and rule by decree.

Constitutional Government in Venezuela

How does America's system of government contrast with rule under the 1999 Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela? Hugo Chavez was first elected president in December, 1998 and took office in February, 1999. He then held a national referendum so his people could decide whether to convene a National Constituent Assembly to draft a new constitution to embody his visionary agenda. It passed overwhelmingly followed three months later by elections to the National Assembly to which members of Chavez's MVR party and those allied with it won 95% of the seats. They then drafted the revolutionary Constitucion de la Republica Bolivariana de Venezuela. It was put to a nationwide vote in December, 1999 and overwhelmingly approved changing everything for the Venezuelan people.

It established a model humanistic participatory social democracy, unimaginable in the US, providing real (not imagined) checks and balances in the nation's five branches of government. They comprise the executive, legislative and judicial ones plus two others. One is the independent national electoral council that regulates and handles state and civil society organization electoral procedures to assure they conform to the law requiring free, fair and open elections. The other is a citizen or public power branch functioning as a unique institution. It lets ordinary people serve as ombudsmen to assure the other government branches comply with constitutionally-mandated requirements. This branch includes the attorney general, the defender of the people, and the comptroller general.

The Legislative Branch

Venezuela is governed under a unicameral legislative system called the National Assembly. It's composed of 167 members (compared to 535 in the two US Houses) elected to serve for five years and allowed to run two more times. It differs from the bicameral system in the US but is broadly similar to governments like in the UK. Although it's bicameral, it's governed solely by publicly elected members of the House of Commons that includes the Prime Minister and his cabinet as members of Parliament. The upper House of Lords is merely token and advisory, there by tradition like the Queen, with no power to overrule the lower House that runs everything.

The Office of the President

The President is elected with a plurality of universally guaranteed suffrage. Article 56 of the Bolivarian Constitution states: "All persons have the right to be registered free of charge with the Civil Registry Office after birth, and to obtain public documents constituting evidence of the biological identity, in accordance with law." In addition, all Venezuelans are enfranchised to vote under one national standard and are encouraged to do it under a model democratic system with the vast majority in it actively participating.

In contrast, the US system is quite different. Precise voting rights qualifications are for the states to decide with no constitutionally mandated suffrage standard applying across the board for everyone. The result is many US citizens are denied their franchise right. They're unable to participate in the electoral process for a variety of reasons no democratic state should tolerate, but America built it into the system by design.

The Judicial System

Under Article 2 in The Bolivarian Constitution, the judicial system shares equal importance to the law of the land. But it wasn't always that way earlier when the Venezuelan judiciary had an odious reputation before Chavez was elected. It had a long history of corruption, a disturbing record of being beholden to political benefactors, and a tradition of failing to provide an adequate system of justice for most Venezuelans. Chavez vowed to change things and undertook a major restructuring effort after taking office. He put this government branch under the Supreme Tribunal of Justice and made it independent of the others. The law now requires those serving be elected by a two-thirds legislative majority (not the previous simple one), and tighter requirements are in place regarding eligible candidates along with public hearings to vet them.

In addition, to root out long-standing corrupt practices, Chavez created a Judicial Restructuring Commission to review existing judgeships and replace those not fit to serve. Henceforth, all sitting judges with eight or more corruption charges pending are disqualified. It effectively eliminated 80% of those on the bench in short order and showed the extent of malfeasance in the national judicial culture. It also suggested the huge amount throughout the government from generations of institutionalized privilege. Those in power were licensed to steal the country blind and enrich themselves and foreign investors at the expense of the vast majority.

Reform in all areas of government is still a work in progress, including in the judiciary needing much of it. The process hasn't been perfect because of the enormity of the task. By the end of 2000, about 70% of sitting judges in the so-called capital region of Caracas, Miranda and Vargas states were replaced by provisional ones with charges of old judges removed for equally beholden new ones. It may be true and points to how hard the going is to change the long-standing culture of privilege and institute real democratic reforms throughout the government.

Nonetheless, the Constitution established Chavez's vision for a foundation and legal framework for revolutionary structural change. He's been working since to transform the nation incrementally into a model participatory social democracy serving all Venezuelans instead of for the privileged few alone the way it traditionally was in the past and how US framers designed American constitutional law. The differences between the two nations couldn't be more stark.

The spirit of the Venezuelan Bolivarian Constitution is stated straightaway in its Preamble:...."to establish a democratic, participatory and self-reliant, multiethnic and multicultural society in a just, federal and decentralized State that embodies the values of freedom, independence, peace, solidarity, the common good, the nation's territorial integrity, comity and the rule of law for this and future generations;"

It further "guarantees the right to life, work, learning, education, social justice and equality, without discrimination or subordination of any kind; promotes peaceful cooperation among nations and further strengthens Latin American integration in accordance with the principle of nonintervention and national self-determination of the people, the universal and indivisible guarantee of human rights, the democratization of imitational society, nuclear disarmament, ecological balance and environmental resources as the common and inalienable heritage of humanity;......"

This language would be unimaginable in the US Constitution, and, unlike our federal law, they're more than words. This is Hugo Chavez's commitment to all Venezuelans ordained under nine Title headings, 350 Articles, and 18 Temporary Provisions. It's a first class democratic document, little known in the West, that greatly outclasses and shames what US framers' enacted for themselves and privileged friends alone. Democracy was nowhere in sight then nor has it shown up since. In Venezuela under Hugo Chavez, it's resplendent, glorious, still imperfect and a work in progress, but heading in the right direction with newly proposed changes discussed below.

The contrast with America today couldn't be greater. The nation under George Bush is ruled by Patriot and Military Commissions Act justice under an institutionalized imperial system of militarized savage capitalism empowering the rich to exploit all others. A state of permanent war exists; civil liberties are disappearing and human rights are a nonstarter; dissent is a crime; social decay is growing; a culture of secrecy and growing fear prevail; torture is practically sanctified; injustice is tolerated; the dominant media function as virtual national thought-control police gatekeepers; and the law is what a boy-emperor president says it is. Aside from the privileged it serves, democracy in America is only in the minds of the bewildered and last of the true-believers who sooner or later will discover the truth.

Consider Venezuela's Bolivarian spirit in contrast. The people freely and openly choose their leaders in honest, independently monitored elections. They're unemcumbered by a farcical electoral college voting scheme (for Presidents) and a system of rigged electronic voting machine and other electoral engineered fraud corrupting the entire process sub rosa. They also have unimaginable benefits like free quality health and dental care (mandated in Articles 83 - 85) as a "fundamental social right and....responsibility of the state....to guarantee....to improve the quality of life and common welfare." It's administered through a national public health system proscribed from being privatized. That's how health delivery in America gets corrupted for profit. The result is 47 million and counting are uninsured, many millions more have too little coverage, and the cost of care is unaffordable for all but the well-off or those on Medicare, Medicaid (if qualify) or under disappearing company-paid plans.

The Constitution also enacted the principle of participatory democracy from the grassroots for everyone. It's mandated in Articles 166 and 192 establishing citizen assemblies as a constitutional right for ordinary people to be empowered to participate in governing along with their elected officials. Constitutionally guaranteed rights also ban discrimination; promote gender equity; and insure free speech; a free press; free, fair, and open elections; equal rights for indigenous people (assured a minimum three National Assembly legislative seats); and mandates government make quality free education available for all to the highest levels, as well as housing and an improved social security pension system for seniors, and much more.

Hugo Chavez brought permanent change, and most Venezuelans won't tolerate returning to the ugly past. Why should they? They never got these essential social services before. Under a leader who cares, they do now, and their lives improved enormously.

Other Venezuelan Constitutionally Guaranteed Rights

The Bolivarian Constitution is a glorious document, fundamentally different in spirit and letter from its US counterpart it shames by comparison. Before Chavez took office in February, 1999, Venezuela only paid lip service to civil liberties, human rights and needs. They're now mandated by law. It encompasses an impressive array of basic rights and essential services like government-paid health care, education, housing, employment and human dignity enforced and funded by a caring government as the law requires.

Article 58 in the Constitution also guarantees the right to "timely, true, and impartial" information "without censorship, in accordance with the principles of this constitution." The opposite is true in America where major media are state propaganda instruments for the privileged.

Articles 71 - 74 establish four types of popular national referenda never imagined or held in America outside the local or state level where they're often non-binding. The US is one of only five major democracies never to have permitted this type citizen participation. In Venezuela under Hugo Chavez, the practice is mandated by law and institutionalized to give people at the grass roots a say in running their government. Four types of referenda are allowed:

--consultative - for a popular, non-binding vote on "national transcendent" issues like trade agreements;

-- recall - applied to all elected officials up to the President;

-- approving - a binding vote to approve laws, constitutional amendments, and treaties relating to national sovereignty; and

-- rescinding - to rescind or change existing laws.

Referenda can be initiated by the National Assembly, the President, or by petition from 10 - 20% of registered voters, with different procedural requirements applying for each.

Social, family, cultural, educational and economic rights are guaranteed under Chapters V - VII with the government backing them financially.

Indigenous Native Peoples' rights are covered in Chapter VIII. Even environmental rights are addressed with Article 127 stating "It is the right and duty of each generation to protect and maintain the environment for its own benefit and that of the world of the future....The State shall protect the environment, biological and genetic diversity, ecological processes....and other areas of ecological importance." Try imagining any US federal law with teeth containing this type language let alone the Constitution that includes nothing in its Articles or Amendments.

Citizen Power gets considerable attention under Articles 273 - 291. It's exercised by "the Republican Ethics Council, consisting of the People Defender, the General Prosecutor and the General Comptroller of the Republic....Citizen Power is independent and its organs enjoy operating, financial and administrative autonomy." Citizen Power organs are legally charged with "preventing, investigating and punishing actions that undermine public ethics and administrative morals, to assure lawful sound management of public property....(to help) create citizenship, together with solidarity, freedom, democracy, social responsibility, work" and more.

Venezuela's Constitution covers much more as well under each of its nine Titles from:

-- stating its fundamental Bolivarian principles in Title I, to

-- National Security in Title VII,

-- Protection of the Constitution in Title VIII to assure its continuity in the event of "acts of force" or unlawful repeal with each citizen having a duty to reinstate it if that need arises; and finally

-- Constitutional Reforms in Title IX in the form of amendments, other reforms to revise or replace any of its provisions, and the National Constituent Assembly with power "resting with the people of Venezuela." They're empowered to call an Assembly to transform the State, create a new "juridical order" and draft a new Constitution to be submitted to a national referendum for the people to accept or reject. That's how democracy is supposed to work. In Venezuela it does. In the US, it doesn't, never did, and was never conceived or intended to from the nation's founding to the present.

This happens because Americans know painfully little about their law of the land hidden from them in plain view. They're taught misinformation about it and the framers who drafted it. Few ever read it beyond a quoted line or two and even fewer ever think about it. In contrast, in Venezuela, the Bolivarian Constitution is sold in pocket-sized form almost everywhere. People buy, read and study it. Why? Because it's a vital unifying part of their lives codifying core democratic values and principles Venezuelan people cherish and wish to keep.

Prospective Venezuelan Constitutional Reforms

In July, President Chavez announced he'd be sending the National Assembly a proposal of suggested constitutional reforms to debate and consider. He stressed Venezuelans would then get to vote on them in a national referendum so that "the majority will decide if they approve....constitutional reform."

Chavez submitted his proposal in an August 15 address to the National Assembly that will debate and rule on them in three extraordinary sessions over the next 60 to 90 days. Included are amendments to 33 of the Constitution's 350 articles to "complete the death of the old, hegemonic oligarchy and the old, exploitative capitalist system, and complete the birth of the new state." Chavez stressed the need to update the 1999 Constitution because it's "ambiguous (and) a product of that moment. The world (today) is very different from (then). (Reforms now are) essential for continuing the process of revolutionary transition." They include:

-- extending presidential terms from six to seven years;

-- unlimited reelections (that countries like England, France, Germany and others now allow); Chavez wants the reelection option to be "the sovereign decision of the constituent people of Venezuela;"

-- guaranteeing the right to work and establishing policies to develop and generate productive employment;

-- creation of a Social Stability Fund for "non-dependent" or self-employed workers so they have the same rights as other workers including pensions, paid vacations and prenatal and postnatal leave entitlements;

-- reducing the workday to six hours so businesses would have to employ more workers and hold unemployment down;

-- ending the autonomy of Venezuela's Central Bank;

-- recognition of different kinds of property defined as social, collective, mixed and private;

-- redefining the role of the military so henceforth "The Bolivarian Armed Forces (will) constitute an essential patriotic, popular and anti-imperialist body organized by the state to guarantee the independence and sovereignty of the nation...;" and

-- guaranteeing state control over the nation's oil industry to prevent any future privatization of this vital resource;

Chavez also wants other changes to strengthen the nation's participatory democracy at the grassroots. He stresses "one of the central ideas is my proposal to open, at the constitutional level, the roads to accelerate the transfer of power to the people" in an "Explosion of Communal (or popular) Power." It's already there in more than 26,000 democratically functioning grassroots communal councils. They're government-sanctioned, funded, operating throughout the country, and may double in number and be strengthened further under proposed constitutional changes.

Chavez wants "Popular (people) Power" to be a "State Power" along with the Legislature, Executive, Judicial, Citizen and Electoral ones and considers this constitutional change the most important one of all. If it happens, various sovereign powers and duties now handled at the federal, state and municipal levels will be transfered to local communal, worker, campesino, student and other councils. This will strengthen Venezuela's bedrock participatory democracy making it even more unique and impressive than it already is.

In America, it's unimaginable a President or other government officials would recommend "People Power" become our fourth government branch, co-equal with the others, with citizens empowered to vote in national referenda on crucial proposed changes in law.

Chavez also proposed a "new geometry of power" by amending article 16 that now states "the territory of the nation is divided into those of the States, the Capital District, federal dependencies and federal territories. The territory is organized into Municipalities." Chavez wants this amended so popular referenda can create "federal districts" in specific areas to serve as states. He called this idea "profoundly revolutionary (and needed) to remove the old oligarchic, exploiter hegemony, the old society, and (quoting Gramsci weaken the former) historic block. If we don't change the (old) superstructure (it) will defeat us."

Chavez also stressed this new structure is needed to be in place when "Venezuela (grows to) 40 - 50 million people." His plan includes "restructur(ing) Caracas" into a Federal District with more local autonomy, as it was at an earlier time.

These proposals and other initiatives are part of his overall socialism for the 21st century plan that's also very business-friendly. Chavez opposes savage capitalism, not private enterprise, and under his stewardship domestic and foreign businesses have thrived. They're a dominant force powering the economy to accelerated growth since 2003 with latest Central Bank 2nd quarter, 2007 figures coming in at 8.9%. With oil prices high and world economies prospering, this trend is likely to continue. That's good news for business and households sharing in the benefits through greater purchasing power.

Chavez wants his new United Socialist Party (PSUV) to drive the revolutionary process and continue his agenda of reform for all Venezuelans. He wants everyone to enjoy the benefits, not just a privileged few like in the past and in the US today. Under his leadership, their future is bright while in America poverty is growing, the middle class is dying, and the darkness of tyranny threatens everyone under George Bush with his agenda likely continuing under a new president in 2009.

Governance differences exist between these two nations because their constitutional laws are mirror opposite, and America has no one like Hugo Chavez. He's a rare leader who cares and backs his rhetoric with progressive people-friendly policies. In the US, there's George Bush, and that pretty much explains the problem. Knowing that, which leader would you choose and under which system of government would you prefer to live?

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Steve Lendman News and Information Hour on TheMicroEffect.com Saturdays at noon US central time.

Lessons for business!

 

Why Rorty's search for what works has lessons for business

---

19 June 2007 Financial Times
What mattered to Richard Rorty was not the search for what is true, but the search for what works. And that is what economists can learn from him. The test of a model, a way of thinking, or a theory, is not truth, but usefulness.
When a student of business and economics wants to ponder the conceptual foundations of these subjects, Richard Rorty, who died on June 8, is the modern philosopher I recommend. This suggestion would have surprised Rorty. He was the archetypal American liberal, with no time or regard for the world of business and finance. His most important work, published 30 years ago, was Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature, which debunked the notion that scientists could succeed in a search for the mirror of nature, the truth about "The Way the World Is".

Rorty was not a relativist who believed that all opinions were equally valid. He called the leftwing postmodernists of American humanities departments, who parroted phrases from the continental European philosophers he admired, creeps. Rorty was a modern representative of the American pragmatic tradition, associated with John Dewey and William James. By claiming that philosophical distinctions mattered only if they made a difference to practice, Rorty distanced himself from recent analytic philosophy. What mattered to him was not the search for what is true, but the search for what works. The test of a model, a way of thinking or a theory is not truth but usefulness.

Many of Rorty's philosophical critics claimed he was attacking a straw man, arguing that no one really believes they know, or might know "The Way the World Is". But I have met people who believe they know "The Way the World Is", in executive suites, on trading floors and in investment banks. I know consultants who are employed to report on "The Way the World Is". To be sure, there is an element of pragmatism in their approach. What better demonstration of their insight into "The Way the World Is" than their exalted positions and extravagant bonuses?

The academic search for truth, for scientific rather than commercial knowledge of "The Way the World Is", has different motives. The modern economist is driven by physics-envy. Physicists have the best claim to hold a mirror to nature: their models have proved so useful that no one would think about heat, pressure or motion in any other way. Many people claim this is because these theories are true.

The pragmatic Rorty argued that to say the theories are true adds nothing to the observation that the models are useful. This claim, applied to hard science, is a subject of continuing disagreement. But Rorty's perspective is surely right for complex and fluid situations whose outcome depends on human interaction. The soldier's war stories give insight into "The Way the World Is", but in a very different way from the models of quantum physics. No individual soldier – no general – ever sees the whole picture; no one can ever, in this sense, hold a mirror to nature. The best accounts will eventually come from the military historian or the novelist who pieces together – and manufactures – a narrative from fragments of information and experience. There can be many such accounts, some better than others, none representing a unique correspondence with the truth.

And so it is with business and finance. I have often given an account of an event in business history and been confronted by a participant who offers an account of "The Way It Was". But all he offers is an account of the way it was for him. Even an aggregation of such accounts can provide only a partial and controversial description of the whole. Economists often assert that economic theory says this or predicts that. But economic theory will never hold a mirror to nature. Good economic arguments are specific to their context. There are no universal economic laws, only trends and tendencies.

Yet business journalists continue to believe that chief executives can tell them "The Way the World Is" at their companies. Professional modellers imagine that by adding ever more realism and complexity to their black boxes, they come closer to describing "The Way the World Is". Visionary leaders imagine they can reconstruct industries through rationalist knowledge of "The Way the World Is".

Rorty's pragmatism can save us from these errors. His philosophy meets his own test: an understanding of it should change how we behave.

---

The future of MSN Messenger! Windows Live Messenger

Sixty Years Of Latitude

No doubt, we deserve the self-congratulation. But how about some reflection too? Can 'inclusive India' be less an abuse, more a priority?

VINOD MEHTA
Sixty is a confusing age. You are obviously too old to be described as young, you are well past customary middle age, but you are not yet ready to knock at the Pearly Gates. It is a nebulous, in-between moment, something similar to the feeling, "the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak." Since we live in times where numbers are worshipped, there is much hoopla and hyperbole, orchestrated perhaps by the publishing and media industry, regarding India's 60th birthday. While one may be understandably eager to wish the Republic many happy returns, I wonder why 60 is seen as such a sexy landmark—considering that just 10 years ago we went through an identical uplifting exercise.

Nevertheless, for a relatively young and still fresh democracy, any number is welcome if the looking back and looking ahead involves something more than sentimentality and nostalgia. The advance publicity to the run-up to Wednesday, August 15, unfortunately, relies too heavily on self-congratulation and self-promotion. I would have preferred to see a little breast-beating and honest reassessment.

The backslapping, let me quickly add, is not entirely unwarranted. In the past 10 years, India's tentative steps into the brave, new world of economic reform and globalisation have yielded handsome results. All the talk of attaining "economic superpower" status may be premature and pompous but the boost to the country's self-confidence and self-esteem (best summed up in that awful phrase: "India can do it") means the middle-class native can roam the world head held up high, even though it may still be necessary to line up like the shivering Boat People at international airports. Happily, we have crossed the glass half-full or half-empty stage, our march forward is no longer a matter of perspective or a matter of individual perception. Optimism is justified. The deniers are few and far between.

However, self-congratulation needs a dose of realism. Before my critics say, there he goes again, let us remind ourselves that in Superpower India, 75 per cent of 1.1 billion citizens live on less than Rs 80 a day, out of which 30 per cent live on less than Rs 40 a day. The NGO Child Relief and You tells us that 50 per cent of India's children get no school education; 25 per cent of victims of commercial sexual exploitation are below 18; 1.2 million children under the age of 5 die of malnutrition every year; 90 per cent of working children live in rural India....

To enumerate these dismal figures, to emphasise that substantial chunks of our shining republic live in conditions of sub-Saharan poverty, is not designed to dampen the celebrations or put out the lamps. It is merely to jog the collective memory of the firecracker enthusiasts that we still have a long way to go. If "inclusive India", instead of being a term of abuse, name-calling and contention, henceforth becomes the top priority of all political parties, the 60th birthday celebrations would have more than achieved their purpose.

As I write, hundreds of scholars all over the planet are busy writing, debating, discussing and analysing the "miracle of Indian democracy". How does this fragile and fickle creature prosper on Indian soil? Since 1947, there has been no shortage of prophets of doom, both local and foreign, who prophesied that in five or ten years India would become either a tinpot banana republic or descend into bloody chaos. Yet, in 2007, the miracle is clearly visible for all to behold!

That the cards were stacked heavily against "a land of Babel with no common voice" is a commonplace. How a multi-ethnic, multi-lingual, multi-religious, argumentative, bulky piece of real estate, encircled by juntas and tyrants, managed to hold its 14th free and fair general election in 2004 (in which the incumbent was unceremoniously thrown out) makes even sage heads sit up in bewilderment.

Nevertheless, I believe too much is made of the aforementioned secular miracle. After all, the United States is as, if not more, heterogeneous than India, and few people repeatedly remark on the survival of American democracy.

Many years ago, I asked a cerebral infantry brigadier why a military coup had never taken place in India. Why had it never even been attempted? Size, he replied, the country is just too big! "Which TV station does the army capture?" he asked. In 1999, Pervez Musharraf's soldiers concluded a coup in less than four hours simply because the number of strategic points the army had to seize were few. And all in one city. Besides, there were just two generals whose support Musharraf needed in order to execute the operation. An army takeover in India has been conspicuous by its absence not because no ambitious chief has ever thought of it, or because our troops are extra patriotic, it has been absent because the logistics of a coup d'etat were always impossible. Let us thank Lord Rama for gifting us a continental-sized landmass!

One other fact to remember: we remain a functioning democracy not despite the multiplicity of gods, tongues, regions, temperatures, colours, cuisines, but because of them. As Indira Gandhi discovered in 1975-77, there is no way you can rule the whole of India from Delhi. Again, size and diversity ensure that in 60 years we have faced only one civilian dictatorship—and that too for merely 18 months.

I am not discounting the wise historian Ramachandra Guha's British bequests—the army, the railways, the English language, the game of cricket—plus our own Bollywood songs, which have helped keep this country at once democratic and united. I am just adding a caveat that the putative civilian or military despot was probably put off his anti-national designs when he examined the social, political and regional map of the country.

Even my critics would concede that I am not given to jingoism. However, as I contemplate India and the world on our republic's 60th birthday, I feel privileged, even blessed, to claim citizenship of our loud, messy, sometimes infuriating but unfailingly robust, resilient and free democracy. I realise we have no choice in these cosmic matters, but I am keeping my fingers crossed that if I am reborn as a human thanks to my good karma (printing your rude letters must be worth a few brownie karmas), I hope it is close to Nizamuddin East in New Delhi.

Why do I feel privileged and blessed? Because I dwell in a land where two make-or-break, defining battles of the 21st century are being staged. First, can a country long cursed with the flush maharajas vs starving peasants image create a society through market capitalism which is approximately fair, just and equitable? Can we, say in seven years, eliminate the shaming poverty of the aam aadmi courtesy an economic system perceived to be loaded against the poor while favouring the rich? The world is watching with breathless fascination whether a developing country like India, with no option but to embrace the global free market consensus, can deliver to 400 million people the basic amenities of life.

Second, the "clash of civilisations" champions will either triumph or perish on our soil. If India can demonstrate that 160 million Muslims can be absorbed into the national mainstream, rejecting

Mr bin Laden's suicidal radicalism, to emerge as devout but non-militant citizens in an overwhelming Hindu majority state, we would have delivered a terminal blow to the Samuel Huntingtons of our time—intellectual bigots who insist that Islam cannot peacefully coexist with other religions. No other country on our estranged globe is better placed to wage this crucial clash.

It may be the heady 60th anniversary brew, but I feel India will win both the battles.

Focus On Carbon 'Missing The Point'

 

By Eamon O'Hara
10 August, 2007
BBC

Focusing on the need to reduce CO2 emissions has reduced the problem to one of carbon dioxide rather than on the unsustainable ways we live. Is it not time to recognise that climate change is yet another symptom of our unsustainable lifestyles, which must now become the focus our efforts?
Yet governments, and those organisations who have now assumed the role of combating climate change, subscribe to the notion that climate change is our central problem and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions is the cause of this problem.
Undeniably, climate change is a serious problem but it is only one of a growing list of problems that arise from a fundamental global issue.
For many decades, the symptoms of unsustainable human exploitation of the natural environment have been mounting: species extinction, the loss of biodiversity, air and water pollution, soil erosion, acid rain, destruction of rainforests, ozone depletion - the list goes on.
Common cause
These problems all clearly have a common origin, yet the search for solutions has invariably focused on targeted treatments rather than addressing the root cause.
Success has, at best, been patchy. In general, none of these problems have completely disappeared and many have continued to worsen.

Renewable resources might provide a safer alternative to oil and gas and other finite resources, but it will not remove our energy and resource dependency

Global warming - the latest in this list of environmental woes - is a particularly worrying development, not only because it is potentially catastrophic, but because it is going to be incredibly difficult to control.
The solutions currently being put forward, such as those being championed by the European Union, focus almost exclusively on reducing carbon emissions.
However, by focusing on the need to reduce CO2 emissions has reduced the problem to one of carbon dioxide rather than on the unsustainable ways we live our lives.
This oversight has led to the assumption that if we reduce emissions then our problems are solved, hence the focus on carbon sequestration, renewable energies and environmental technologies.
This approach to curing our problems is a bit like relying on methadone to cure an addiction to heroin.
The large-scale transition to renewable resources might provide a safer alternative to oil and gas and other finite resources, but it will not remove our energy and resource dependency, which will continue to expand in line with economic growth.
Before long, we will discover that even renewables have their limits. We are already being warned about the dangers of excessive demand for biofuels, which is reportedly leading to the clearing of rainforests and increasing competition for land between food and energy production.

The world simply does not have the resources, renewable or otherwise, to sustain Western lifestyles across the globe

Ultimately, our problem is consumption, and the environment is not the only casualty.
The modern Western lifestyle also has an inbuilt dependency on the cheap resources and the low carbon footprint of developing countries, which has compounded global injustice.
Worse still, maintaining our relatively wealthy, comfortable and unsustainable lifestyles is now dependant on maintaining this imbalance.
Seventy-five percent of the world's population - more than 4.5bn people - live on just 15% of the world's resources, while we in the West gorge on the remaining 85%.
The world simply does not have the resources, renewable or otherwise, to sustain Western lifestyles across the globe.
Change of direction
So, what can we do? Obviously, the first thing we need to do is act, and act fast.
Every day we wait, another 30,000 children needlessly die; between 100-150 plant and animal species become extinct; 70,000 hectares of rainforest is destroyed and another 150m tonnes of CO2 is released into the atmosphere.
Meanwhile, another $3.0bn (£1.5bn) is spent on arms and weapons of mass destruction.
We urgently need to think about the more fundamental concept of sustainability and how our lifestyles are threatening not only the environment, but developing countries and global peace and stability.
In my view, we need to embrace this as an opportunity and not see it as a responsibility. Living a more sustainable lifestyle does not have to be a burden, as some people fear.
It could be a liberating and rewarding experience to participate in creating a better world. After all, how good do we really have it at the moment?
How many people are tired and weary of modern living? The endless cycle of earning and consumption can be exhausting and does not necessarily bring happiness and fulfillment. Can we do things differently, and better?
If we don't, then we are heading for certain disaster, regardless of whether or not we manage to reduce our emissions.

Eamon O'Hara is a Brussels-based policy adviser for the Irish Regions Office, which represents Irish interests in the European Union

---

Are you the Quizmaster? Play BrainBattle with a friend now!

 

Sixty Years Of Fake Freedom: The South Asian Story

By Partha Banerjee
09 August, 2007
Countercurrents.org

As an Indian-American who's been involved with political movements in both countries, I'm deeply disturbed.
There's now a lot of government-sponsored patriotism, hype and euphoria to celebrate the 60th anniversary of independence both in India and Pakistan. At midnight of August 14, 1947, then British rulers finally gave up on their two centuries of unconstitutional, immoral and brutally repressive colonization, and transferred power after partitioning India in three pieces, causing massive bloodshed and human misery. Today in India and Pakistan, the ruling-class politicians and corporate media including the Bollywood film and entertainment industry are busy singing praises for the "prosperity" of these two "mighty" nations. Military dictator Musharraf of Pakistan and the Indira Gandhi-Sonia Gandhi dynasty in India are making wise moves to exploit the time's sentiments. Still, there's perceptible lack of enthusiasm among the common "Desi" folks, who unlike the golden jubilee celebration in 1997, are not coming out in full force to observe this "historic" occasion.
We shall however pay attention to the Indian and Pakistani governments' hollow prosperity drumbeats, and take a hard, "unpopular" look at the grim reality.
If the 1947 British-penned independence and blood-soaked partition have created any prosperity, it's been for the region's rich and powerful elite who inherited and perpetuated a feudal, pyramidal and colonial status quo where in half a century, a political colonization has given way to a social, economic and intellectual subjugation. The new "free" system makes the subcontinent's younger generation blindly follow a U.S.-style, market capitalist model, where equal rights, education, employment and healthcare for all, and other such egalitarian concepts have been pushed into near-oblivion, or else, ignominy. Rampant privatization without any attention to human values and safeguard for the havenots has taken over the subcontinent's body and soul. Of course, mega-rich business magnets, big land owners, cricket players, movie stars, and yes, corrupt politicians and their pet mafia have prospered.
Reality is, the entire South Asia is reeling under massive corruption, explosive population growth, out-of-control environmental pollution and recurring natural calamities, and a gingoist-chauvinist war climate is in vogue. Hindu and Muslim middle class do not trust each other, a fact unthinkable even during the British Raj. Nuclear proliferation has brought South Asians on the brink of mass extinction a number of times, and the threat is ever-present. Indian, Pakistani and the relatively new Bangladeshi governments have all thrived on mass-production of lies about the state of the state, and their mouthpiece media have stirred up ultrapatriotic fervors and a semi-fascistic leader-cult-worshipping, especially at the times of war. India, Pakistan and Bangladesh have all seen scores of savage wars, resulting thousands of innocent being killed, and millions permanently displaced and impoverished. Refugees and war-traumatized families have lived for generations in makeshift, filthy "shelters" and "jhopris" along the railway tracks and highways.
In South Asia, demands for rights and justice for women, religious minorities and the massive underclass tribals and lower castes have actively been rejected as concepts of "yesterday's failed communist doctrines." Communal riots have surged and claimed numerous lives and women's honor. Prisoners and protesters, including women and children, have been brutalized by the Indian military, paramilitary and police; due process and other basic legalities have almost always failed for the poor. Political dissent in particular has been silenced by the ruling-party mafia. The so-called democratic elections have seen the worst forms of money- and muscle-power, with help from officials and bureaucrats. Many key elections have proved to be pure travesty. People in power endorsed massive booth-capturing, false voting, media muzzling, thuggery and religion-or caste-based divisive politics. The ruling Congress Party and former ruler Hindu fundamentalist BJP have proved equally efficient at this power-grabbing game. India's regional parties in particular and establishment left to a lesser degree have not been far behind.
In Pakistan, for most of the time since 1947, coup-generated military regimes have ruled with support from the U.S., and an elected prime minister (one of the very few elected leaders) has been hanged. Bangladesh, in its post-1971 history as a sovereign nation, has gone through a number of dictatorships and martial laws; military and police tortured and killed some of its best-known intellectuals and noble men, the slaughters allegedly sponsored by the U.S. and CIA.
South Asia now has more than one-fifth of the world's population. Eighty percent of the one-billion-plus mass still live in places where there's little or no electricity, drinkable water, paved roads or public schools. In many places, farmers and day laborers die of starvation; many farmers have killed themselves out of despair. The disparity between the rich and poor in South Asia is one of the extremes in the world. Basic literacy and primary education are still out of reach for most poor. Brutality against women and children is sky-high in numerous places. A conservative, superstitious patriarchal society has re-emerged where families are encouraging female infanticide, with help from corrupt doctors and medical practitioners. India now is one of the top AIDS-affected nations.
The 1947 partition was cooked up by the British and Western powerbrokers, at the behest of Gandhi and Jinnah's feudal policy followers who overnight became the new rulers. Most of these new kings (and queens) neither made any personal sacrifices during the 100-year-long, glorious independence struggle nor did they have any knowledge, connection or compassion for the reality on ground. The hundreds of thousands of young men and women who gave their lives to bring about the "azadi" were excluded from the post-partition power structure, and later the struggle itself was undermined. The new feudal rulers were chosen by the British after their two hundred years of repression and pauperization of a truly prosperous India, to retain a class-divided system where the real power would never transfer to the masses, and the "free" nations would forever remain subservient to the West. They've succeeded in their mission.
Moreover, in sixty years of a fake freedom, we South Asians ourselves have been successful to raise an apolitical, apathetic generation wilfully ignorant of our own history and way of life -- political, economic and cultural.
Thanks to the freedom 60 years ago, we are now completely colonized.
Partha Banerjee is a human rights activist, writer and teacher based in New York City. He can be reached at banerjee2000@hotmail.com

---

Are you the Quizmaster? Play BrainBattle with a friend now!

Sreesanth, the beamer and the refusal to give an inch.

Sreesanth has been pilloried in all quarters for his beamer to Pietersen and his slight shoulder brushing of Vaughan.

But in my view, Sresanth represents the metamorphoses in the Indian attitudes to white opponents. Indians will pay back in kind and with interest for all the non cricketing aggro directed at them on the cricket pitch.

It is the near decapitating of Pietersen that hastened his departure and the rest of the English batting order and paved the way for an Indian win.

I will not encourage Sreesanth - but he is a necessary evil to all the white bullies who get aay lightly on the cricket pitch.

Scrabble

  
FLORENCE NIGHTINGALE
When you rearrange the letters:
FLIT ON CHEERING ANGEL

DILIP VENGSARKAR
When you rearrange the letters:
SPARKLING DRIVE

BARA THEDA
When you rearrange the letters:
ARAB DEATH

PRINCESS DIANA
When you rearrange the letters:
END IS A CAR SPIN

MONICA LEWINSKY
When you rearrange the letters:
NICE SILKY WOMAN

DORMITORY:
When you rearrange the letters:
DIRTY ROOM


PRESBYTERIAN:
When you rearrange the letters:
BEST IN PRAYER


ASTRONOMER:
When you rearrange the letters:
MOON STARER


DESPERATION: When you rearrange the letters:
A ROPE ENDS IT


THE EYES:
When you rearrange the letters:
THEY SEE


GEORGE BUSH:
When you rearrange the letters:
HE BUGS GORE



THE MORSE CODE :
When you rearrange the letters:
HERE COME DOTS


SLOT MACHINES:
When you rearrange the letters:
CASH LOST IN ME



ANIMOSITY:
When you rearrange the letters:
IS NO AMITY



ELECTION RESULTS:
When you rearrange the letters:
LIES - LET'S RECOUNT



SNOOZE ALARMS:
When you rearrange the letters:
ALAS! NO MORE Z 'S



A DECIMAL POINT:
When you rearrange the letters:
IM A DOT IN PLACE



THE EARTHQUAKES:
When you rearrange the letters:
THAT QUEER SHAKE


ELEVEN PLUS TWO:
When you rearrange the letters:
TWELVE PLUS ONE

AND FOR THE GRAND FINALE:

MOTHER-IN-LAW:
When you rearrange the letters:
WOMAN HITLER

Bet your friends haven't seen this one!!!
DON'T FORGET TO SHARE

---

Are you the Quizmaster? Play BrainBattle with a friend now!