The Chavez Reforms Cont.

As I admitted in a recent post, I have reservations about some of the latest constitutional reforms that are to be voted on on Dec. 2 in Venezuela (though I support most of them). But a recent article by Mark Weisbrot of London's the New Statesman raises a point that I was not aware of and ought to be considered.

I wrote:

As my friend Steve Maher has told me, some of the proposed reforms, such as giving the office of the president power to abolish due process in the case of an emergency, are not only unsettling, but a violation of international law. (FYI: if someone could direct me to the wording of the controversial provisions please shoot me an e-mail)
However, Weisbrot notes that Chavez is not really the source of this reform as well as some other controversial reforms.

There are other amendments that are more controversial, most of them added not by Chavez but by the National Assembly (Chavez cannot veto amendments added by the Assembly; these have to go to the voters).

For example, one amendment would allow the government to suspend the "right to information" (but not due process, as reported in the international media) during a state of national emergency. Another would allow the President and the National Assembly to create new federal districts and provinces.

Some of these provisions have drawn opposition even among Chavez's supporters. If they are approved, it will likely be because the majority of voters trust Chavez and the government not to abuse their powers.

This is certainly important, relevant information that the media in the US (and me) have failed to note so far.