well i think frankly each other the legacy is twofold domestically speaking the first is the vast improvement in the social welfare of everyday venezuelans the massive decline in poverty the near eradication of extreme poverty and the provision of free health care free education to the poorest of venezuelans for the first time on the political side which i actually think is more important the legacy is one of increased popular participation in direct and participatory democracy in the every day runnings of the state in this was something that is far from complete in venezuela and it remains the task of the forthcoming government but it's really this element of the child his legacy which is which has allowed venezuelans to participate in engage in political life in that country that is really going to outlive himself in london you want to jump in that's the point of the program go ahead yeah yeah i would i would i would love to i think george has made it quite interesting remark when he says the charge is for the first time provided health and education for the poor people when in fact our constitution

mandates the provision of health and education for everybody since at least eighteen seventy one so perhaps george would like to explain to our view is why does he say the child is for the first time provided such services to the poor. george go ahead. well you know perfectly well i believe they're going well so that there are no there isn't is one thing and the actual concrete provision yes of course i do in the concrete provision of things in reality is very different from what's written in the constitution and so you know perfectly well that sixty percent of venezuelans were in poverty up to very extraordinarily extreme poverty even in the nine hundred seventy s. one nine hundred eighty s. that new liberal reform was a devastating devastating impact on the health and education of the poorest venezuelans and so it's slightly ridiculous to say that there was free healthcare and universal access to health care since one thousand seventy one has always been there's always been free on health care and education in venezuela is not a right to travis ok i want to jump in ok we have to hear from him go ahead alex.

yeah i mean i can just complement what georgia said which is absolutely you have constitutional provisions which are one thing and then you have the reality which is another and the reality is that when chavez came into power you had a great number of poor people millions of poor people in the country who were essentially disenfranchised second rate citizens really so not only were they not receiving health care or access to higher education but also many of them didn't vote they didn't participate in the political system they weren't true i would like to jump in there. gentlemen because you're there i met i think you're there i don't think i had i don't i don't think yeah i don't think that's born in the facts actually chavez did do a great deal for the poor but to state that for the first time he allowed the poor to deceive health and education is totally inaccurate and that's the point

that i'm trying to make he did carry out a great deal of poverty alleviation measures with barrier they enter he did spread a hell of a lot of money because of the fact of the great is income that the country received since he got to power in one thousand nine hundred nine but to actually state that because of him the poor for the first time in our history have access to education or health you know what accounts for the you know what would what accounts for it then george i mean other than chavez. well i mean the point is not that it's only each of us that has done this and actually i would i would want to i would hope to drive that point home it's not that chavez is sort of the savior of the venezuelan people no the venezuelan people have saved themselves for decades they've been organizing and beginning with the guerrilla struggle and generating a whole series of social movements the one hundred seventy s. and eighty's it was actually these movements that then drove chavez the power to

this is really not about chavez himself coming into power and you know and saving the people because this constitution the one thousand nine hundred nine constitution was not was not written by chavez himself was not the sole creation of chavez well it was sent to madiba a hundred or two in mangalore of one hundred twenty nine of their representatives in the constituent in the. yet constituent assembly would representatives of challenge or aligned with chavis so he was largely basically written they were elected by the sea portis. i feel that they were elected by the people they were in popular election by the people alex jump in yes no well well absolutely that's right i mean whether they were aligned with chavez or not i don't think is the point these were democratic elections that elected all of the assembly members the constituent assembly. you know and they had a mandate of the people they reported back to the people and there was

a period of consultation of all sorts of sectors of society when that constitution was being drafted and then something quite unprecedented in the region probably in the world in terms of drafting constitutions and that constitution was submitted to a popular referendum something that's also very rare in the history of the world history in constitutional history and so i think you know often you read in the media that you know costs chad has created this constitution that he forced this constitution on the venezuelan people and nothing could be further further from the truth. i was like it was a democrat and i think it worked well well. there's there's there's a few there's a few issues here no one can deny the charges one democratic elections in one thousand nine hundred eight on the back of huge discontent in our country about the duopoly of the on the more kartika and could pay for the previous forty years who have basically squandered a hell of a lot of money but then chavis came on one thousand nine hundred ninety eight with

the process with the promise of reforming re founding the state that was not. established in any of our legislation in any of our constitutional precepts so he said basically or he or he came to with the promise that in order for him to carry out the changes that he needed he had to change the constitution which effectively ended up with a national constituent assembly and a further referendum that alex was referring to so that first election of his in one thousand nine hundred ninety eight was indeed democratic and it was indeed approved by the people on the back of the huge support that he'd had that he had at one time but the changes that came afterwards are far from democratic in my opinion george does it really work. but it's got what only one thing it says that you disagree while going to go ahead. well i mean

i don't really know what alec is talking about in terms of the decline of democracy following those elections in the one nine hundred ninety eight and then the following elections in which the constitution was approved. in one thousand nine hundred nine when you've had all the other fourteen elections that have been judged free and fair internationally transparent. the last of course was last night in syria in november and i started a little known central regional elections ok please explain his nonsense they have been they have been judged free and fair by whom by jimmy carter by chavis his friends by the current law last time that does not matter machines but understand that all this multinational because humans were independently audited when was the last time that our nationality if you had first seen was a hard or is it a new head if you have you ever have you ever seen the carter center's project for

fresh and elizabeth in terms of. neutrality yes so i have i have seen him on i have seen tested i have as you have there ever sections of the serial killers and it's as a matter of fact i remember very clearly perhaps i'm going as well as after the referendum in two thousand and four when jimmy carter was sitting next to secretary-general of the oil sister got varia assuring all of us in venezuela that they had witnessed the count in the top of lies nation room at the sea any when as a matter of fact no one was allowed into the totalization room of the sienese so jimmy carter was always a little lying that day and he subsequent reports were obviously useless and so that i see in the organization of american the same thing as it was the manager of the time we got to say what i provided what they were although i read all the international record and you know when your child gets rejected you are in she's in venice you aren't go ahead george go ahead. i was just going to say we're

what we're witnessing here is a profoundly conspiratorial fringe of the venezuelan right wing that does not even actually pertain to much oh yeah business with an opposition officially the venezuelan but the other hand we have two thousand and six and recognize that has it wasn't the real emotional going to let a member of the academics chavis in america is that what you're trying to say george that my view is not not valid because i think that you're irish but we have good security theories i'm saying your view is not valid because i want to agree with your view or not valid because it's ridiculous and i'm one with god of course you will agree alex of course you will agree you are a fool not just of the venezuelan government of course you will agree. so will george well then but not only would i do really but your use the real with venezuelan opposition also agrees they've been participating in the last few elections encouraging everyone to participate and discounting claims of fraud that's come from the caprio campaign itself how do you explain that. ok but i don't

have to explain this if it really really is you can definitely contents a lot of confusion on like you alex i am completely independent so i don't have to talk anyone's line i am a venice well and blogger and i am independent and i don't derive my salary either from the venezuelan government as you once did or from seed p.r. which is closely aligned with the venezuelan government so i am the master of my opinions and i don't have to toe the line of them to be kicked up really as whatever he said with regard to fraud being there in venezuela or not i don't i don't have to agree with actually i disagree. but it's wrong to hear a lot you'll have to go to a break and after that short break we'll continue our discussion a good challenge stage without. reason.

victims multiply here each day. it's very profitable to invest in colombia which. is a very high return on investment. is a good poem he said but i've been working in this area for thirty years and i've always had to play the armed groups in a meeting that is not a manager's or changed their name and strategy but just till the same budrus. high ranking suspects you know coming. pretty upset about that mr president. to president putin. but that. i won't give an interview

i'm sorry but no. investigation is a dead. end up and says i'm sick and stop your bullshit and keep quiet or else you'll suffer the consequences. even if they're your bodyguards to watch themselves because the same goes for them. regards from since i've never heard of such a case as ours were so much money and gold has stolen so many gifts. for all the gold in colombia.

welcome back across the uk where all things are considered i'm peter lavelle to remind you we're discussing the legacy of chop. insurance why did the united states so demonize chavez i mean we'll explain and he was a funny guy it was a lot of antics there but he didn't threaten the united states that's actually an

interesting phenomenon both domestically within venezuela and also internationally namely the fact that before chavez had actually even done anything to powerfully antagonize the venezuelan elites before he had taken away the economic power for example there was a fierce counter revolution without a revolution as it's been called in this happened as well internationally namely the fact that chavez had not cut off oil to the united states he had not threatened u.s. interests in a particularly sharp way actually we can mark the deterioration of relations which of is especially from september eleventh and the beginning of the afghan war afterwards charges was critical of the initial u.s. intervention and innocent innocent children who were being killed and it was really from that moment on that you saw an increasing aggression from the united states towards travis culminating of course with his overthrow with the cooperation of the united states in april two thousand and two i once when you come out on this because again he didn't threaten the united states is not a fact united states imports a lot of oil. no that's right well he didn't directly threaten the united states

but i think he was seen as very threatening to the agenda of the united states in latin america and george was pointing out earlier new liberalism has spread throughout the region the liberalism being of course the reduction of the state to its most minimum and you know privatization of all sorts of social services. the lowering of trade tariffs so on and so forth just to profit really international corporations international financial entities and so on this had a devastating effect on latin america the rate of poverty went up the rate of inequality when up throughout the region particularly in venezuela and then as well there was a big anti in the old rule. protest really that resulted in the end in a massacre of thousands of people perpetrated by the venezuelan government so

a resistance was beginning to emerge but it was really just in the streets and chavez when he came into power he gave voice to this resistance and he actively actually fought the neo liberal agenda he started to roll back these reforms and to bring the state back into the picture in terms of bringing basic social services health care and education and so on to the people and so this was an example of course that the u.s. was very much opposed to they didn't want to see it spread so they were very intent in getting rid of this government they supported a coup in april of two thousand and two against chavez and. fortunately that coup unraveled quickly there were divisions within the military and also many of the venezuelan people came into the street and called for chavis returned he came back within forty eight hours and then following that. other left

leaning governments governments you know very much against the neo liberal agenda also emerged throughout latin america and today the map of latin america is very different politically it's a very different place georgy think that's because of chavez in many ways. i mean it's it's undeniable that chavez has played a powerful role in this but in reality electoral first of his morning expression of these revolutionary movements and sort of a point of coalescence and condensation of these popular demands because the reality is as i said they preceded chavez and one of the primary aspects of this was as alex has mentioned opposition to new liberalism but even before that in venezuela there was a struggle over what democracy meant since one hundred fifty eight the you know venezuela was under what had been understood as a very exceptional and stable form of democracy and yet what this was was a very buffered form of representative democracy in which the people really had

very little say it was a two party system that institutionalized all popular dissent and so what you had was a gradual increase of of dissent and the inability to express that within a political system so one of the fundamental aspects of what exploded in the late one nine hundred eighty s. and early one nine hundred ninety s. and what led to charges coming to power was the demand for a different kind of democracy and i think this is where you get into some of the you know some of the difficulties that our previous guest had been discussing with the new constitution because what you have is really a contradiction in a conflict between two forms of democracy and occasionally you takes it takes some kind of bully pulpit in the figure of chavez to break down the barriers of an old existing form and to allow the new sort of more participatory form to break through and that's that's really what has led to this sort of almost paradoxical relationship between each of is in the social movements in which he seems like an authoritarian to many outside of venezuela and yet what he's doing is to it in

facilitate for the most part profoundly democratic developments within the country alex you think the revolution will continue with this passage he said if solid enough foundation so. undeniably there's a very solid foundation now it's certain for the next the next guy's going to get a rascal i want washington the next guy i'll get the wrath of washington as well. well most likely but you know washington does have to come to terms with the new reality in latin america it's no longer the reality of the late ninety's when you know going as well was an outlier it's now a region that's changed completely i mean south america most of the governments there were very close to the venezuelan government even the right wing governments were it's very interesting to see the sort of ohmage is the eulogies of chavis is legacy that are coming from all over the place in latin america i mean today of

course there was a beautiful op ed in the new york times written by the silver the former president of brazil but you also have eulogies that are coming from the right wing governments of chile and the columbia they recognize this is legacy not only at home in venezuela but in terms of transforming the region in terms of being a leader who has fought effectively for regional integration and and so now it's a much more independent place than it was some ten years ago george he think the u.s. will try to turn back the clock i mean chavez may has made an impact. certainly it would be very difficult for them to turn back the clock but at the same time the u.s. government has not done much to change relationships with venezuela you know you could have said in two thousand and eight when obama into power that you could have expected some kind of improvement in relations and certainly that didn't happen because the continuing orientation especially with someone like hillary clinton as

secretary of state the orientation was toward getting rid of chavez as quickly as possible and any strategy really was was open and the reality was only that the strategy had failed in the past and so the strategy now under obama has been to fund actually with increasingly large amounts of money the venezuelan opposition to fund them openly and to hope that they would defeat this in an election which they still could not manage to do despite the money flowing in from washington and so no i'm sure that that's the obama administration's continuing orientation is that now with child is gone we can we can deal with this question electorally but until as well is that until the u.s. government recognizes the ability of the venezuelan people to govern themselves and to decide on their own leaders to develop their own form of democracy into practice it and to not you know to not impose a specific form of democracy and certainly not to impose economic you know economic demands on venice with and that are unjust until that happens is really no way for

these relations to improve you know alex in the world love chavez ok is it because he stood up to the united states. yeah and i'm glad you mentioned that because yes the world loves chavez but you get the impression in the us and certainly looking at the us media. venezuela that he was a very isolated crazy ranting sort of befooled like figure and and of course he's been reduced to this caricature in the media here but i think throughout the world the messages got through he defied the u.s. very openly he defied them their foreign policy he after nine eleven said you cannot fight terrorism with terrorism when afghanistan was bombed that i was a very courageous and extremely isolated thing but he's created a political space for people to. you know fearlessly contest

us the u.s. had germany throughout the world and you know u.s. foreign policy goals in particular u.s. intervention and the fact that he's stood up a bit of a david to a goliath yeah and survives whether all this time despite so many temps from from the u.s. to destabilize that government it's really quite heroic well georgian alex you have a very diverse opinions from the mainstream and what is the mainstream telling americans about chavez and his passage a good thing george. i mean that the response in the mainstream media i admit to possibly being naive and maybe expecting something a little more balance than what was received but the response from the mainstream media has been astounding it has been revolt thing in many ways it ranges from outright celebrations of death not only from the media but also from members of

congress in the united states to do the sort of liberal line which is essentially chavez was crazy and here's you know here's here's some here some crying venezuelans in we're going to interpret this as something that we want to you know as we want to see it for example i thought that rory carroll who wrote some astoundingly ridiculous things in the guardian was tweeting today about how about how venezuelans at the procession today in caracas were professing professing a faith in religious resurrection when they were saying chavez lives forever one of the only that would benefit one of the things that the struggle will go on without him and that they are all chavez but it's this is this is the sort of willful misinterpretation that is prevalent in the mainstream media these days alex is it was it was just as a revolutionary last thirty seconds. oh undeniably yes in the tradition of the great revolutionaries of latin america simone will leave our marty che guevara he's going to be greatly missed but his

example is really stronger than ever i think he really lives in the hearts of many latin americans that seek much more profound change throughout the region thank you very much chairman of run out of time many thanks to my guests today in philadelphia london and in washington and thanks to our viewers for watching us here darkie see you next time and remember cross talk will. receive.

much juggling just. do hack work and get caught when lobbyists money and lawmakers are combined together that's where the problem of corruption comes from. i don't know the document's. keep up a smart look. there is also. another well behind that which is how to influence these situations steer clear of provocations don't answer any question. came into the office and found man is hanging around the office and lots of strange faces around him and said what's. what's happening will somebody please tell me what's going on and they said oh we've come to occupy you believe. possibly they wanted

a confrontation possibly they wanted to me to ring up the police have the police come in through the mild. didn't seem to be a good idea to learn the european way with brussels business. kristie it's one person one fold in brussels business it's one euro one fault wealthy british style. markets why not scandal. find out what's really happening to the global economy in the kinds of reports. that. goal is. to clear.

the speech. which i. think it's good. to. see. a little.

these are the.