Martin Redrado was always an economist of great interest. In his first weeks in office I was lucky enough to see Mr. Redrado give a talk at the LSE on the many economic struggles faced by Argentina and Argentina’s central bank since 2001. A few key points were made at the beginning of his term as the governor of the bank. In good humour, he apologised for the chaos of previous bank policies and made the point that the bank had to claim some responsibility for failed policies of the past in order to be successful in the future. He also made it clear that slow growth and the de-politicisation of the bank is a crucial part of regaining Argentina’s stability and re-entrance into the global economy as a competitive nation. His last major point was that the models and transparency of the bank has to be beyond clear to investors in order to normalize the economy of South America’s second largest economic power.

Despite many years of modest surpluses in Argentina, the default in 2001 still has the effect of limiting access to international capital markets for Argentina. The fact that international investors do not have much faith in Argentina’s investment climate, and bondholders since 2005 refused to accept Argentina’s debt restructuring leaves President Kirchner limited avenues for finding extra revenues. While post 2002 resulted in Nestor and Cristina Kirchner being the only ones who wished to tackle Argentina’s debt crisis after a series of failed presidencies due to the collapse of the Peso. Despite economic gains post 2003 until the 2008 crisis, recent years and pressures have matted out the shine of their positive achievements. Battles with the opposition in Congress have left Kirchner with fewer options, as the opposition gained a majority in Congress last summer and economic troubles to the north have set not only Argentina, but all economies on a voyage to find extra funding. In an unwise and perhaps desperate move, Kirchner chose to challenge the one Che in power who has economic stability in mind, that of Central Bank governor Martin Redrado.

Today, Redrado has survived his ousting as bank governor by President Cristina Kirchner via a legal challenge last Friday. The Executive wished to transfer $6.6 billion of Argentina’s foreign currency reserves to service public debt, but with the Central Bank being legally independent from the Executive branch, Congressional support is needed in order to authorize the transfer of funds. Therefore when Redrado asked to study his legal options in the matter of a transfer issued by President Kirchner, Kirchner sought to remove him from his position. Legal quarrels however forced Kirchner to keep Redrado as governor as a judge in Argentina re-clarified his independent legal position as Central Bank governor where he remains today. Kirchner insists that opposition leaders in Congress seek to block the Presidency from addressing issues of national debt, but with the legal ruling restricting her and Redrado’s staunch statements claiming himself as a professional economist and not a politician, he might be the only one limiting small yet significant run on the Argentine Peso in this current political skirmish since the failures of 2001. A likely conclusion will be a compromise, where Kirchner calls in favours and taxes on other parts of the economy, with whatever is left, and Redrado gives her some reserves, albeit with a measured amount to maintain Argentina’s economic reputation and of course in a polite manner.

While Redrado fights to keep Argentina’s economy out of the negative spotlight, Venezuela’s economy has made world headlines with the devaluation of the Bolivar, Venezuela’s currency. Venezuela and Argentina often lead a fight in the region for Latin America’s highest inflation rate, while being two very different economies. Venezuela’s devaluation comes from several different factors, but the largest rationale for the move is in order to gain added revenues from Venezuela’s lucrative oil exports. Oil in Venezuela has become very much a part of the reserves for Presidential policies, even lending funds to Argentina, mind you at a higher rate now than in the past. The devaluation will likely give Chavez more money and political clout via added spending on his projects and give him a popular boost before legislative elections take place in September. Rates on essential food and medicine imports being set at a lower rate than non-essential goods is also part of the new exchange rate, officially being a two tier rate with a second higher rate being applied to imported good deemed as ‘non-essential’. A third tier rate might arise out of the black market however, as Venezuelan companies who are not favoured by the government’s social reforms will have a harder time getting US Dollars and turn to other means to keep afloat. With Venezuelans running out to buy consumer goods before the new exchange rates take effect, and security forces being ordered to enforce against any retail price hikes on any retailers who overcharge consumers, the image of any Latin American running to the streets to spend their soon to be devalued currency is not often one that gives confidence to many investors. Despite this, the long run impression of devaluations in Venezuela is seen as political, but not wholly unjustified as Venezuela is essentially an oil economy and has to address falling oil prices in many markets. Redrado no doubt wishes to keep Argentina’s reserves out of the political fray of local politics and not turn the Peso into a currency based on one commodity or one person’s political ambitions. While Venezuela’s economic policies are validly criticised for their inherently political motivations, Argentina does not have an oil cushion to soften any economic blows, and must rely on investor confidence in its reserves and creativity by the Kirchners in order to cover their end of the year 13 billion dollar debt payment.

The twilight of 2009 gave cause to celebrate for gay rights activists in Latin America. Same-sex marriage was legalized in Mexico City ten days ago to campaigners’ chants of “yes we can.” In a separate motion the city assembly also sanctioned adoption by gay couples. Then, in Ushuaia, Argentina’s southernmost city, Alex Freyer and José María di Bello exchanged vowels, becoming the first gay couple to marry in Latin America.

Alex and José’s story was poignantly covered on PRI’s The World, and bears repeating. Each man is a noted human rights campaigner, and each is HIV-positive. Their battle to be married was meant not only as “a romantic proposal” but a “political proposal” too, according to Alex. After originally being told “no” when they applied for a marriage license in the Argentine capital, the men sued, claiming violation of their constitutional rights. A judge ruled in their favor. The couple was originally slated for a Buenos Aires wedding on December 1, but a higher-level court nixed the ceremony at the last minute. Their dream was finally realized on December 28.

Should Argentina legalize same-sex marriage, Uruguay, which became the first nation in the region to legalize same-sex civil unions in 2007 and adoption by gay couples in September, would likely follow suit. Chile probably wouldn’t be far behind. Alex thinks Buenos Aires could start it all: “We win this round…Now the rainbow is here. You know when we say ‘Somewhere over the rainbow.’ It’s here! It’s in Buenos Aires.” By the end of 2010 the Southern Cone could form a rainbow row of countries that permit same-sex couples to marry, and possibly adopt.

Activists are hoping that just such a domino effect will transform the region. Editorial pages in Chile asked when that nation would approve gay marriage. Amidst the tumult of Alex and José’s fight, on December 23 ten same-sex couples in Rosario, Argentina, filed legal motions demanding the right to marry. Unfortunately for likeminded same-sex partners in Argentina, the December 28 ceremony does not set legal precedent—the state governor issued the couple a special decree.

Constitutions and the Catholic Church pose significant barriers to a watershed of same-sex marriages in the region. In Mexico, social liberalization in the capital has, so far, engendered sweeping conservative backlash. Take abortion. In 2007, Mexico City moved to allow elective abortion. The past two years have seen a slew of abortion bans, spanning 17 of 32 Mexican states, many of which are more punitive to women than pre-existing prohibitions. Now a nationwide abortion ban is in the offing. That’s because amendments to the Mexican Constitution can be proposed by individual states. If an amendment passes Congress, support by a simple majority of states will make it law. Armando Martínez, head of Mexico’s Catholic Lawyers College, forecasts a similar pushback “because Mexican culture is not ready for these things and they [the city assembly] can release a level homophobia that no one will be able to stop.” Mexico City taking a step forward in ’09 could mean Mexico taking two steps back this year, or next.

Legal options offer more hope in Argentina—civil unions have been permitted in Buenos Aires since 2002—but mores are much the same as in Mexico, and elsewhere.

And the issue of adoption by gay couples remains prickly. While the news of Mexico City’s legalization was met with the predictable array of hysteria and ho-hums, public opinion in Mexico seems decidedly opposed to adoption by gay couples. The comment page of Mexico City’s leading daily, El Universal, registered over 1,000 entries for its story on same-sex marriage and adoption, most vociferously opposed to the adoption measure. Isaac Villa, a 35-year-old taxi driver in the capital told TIME, “If two men want to be together, that is their decision. But adopting children is a different story.” Another resident said, “Children growing up in a gay marriage would be traumatized.”

In my view, activists must hone their political tactics. The headlong charge for marriage, and adoption, is likely to disaffect droves. Latin America is (nominally, at least) the most religious region on earth; most nations are 90% Roman Catholic, and the silent majority remains conservative on social issues. Acceptance of homosexuality is increasing in the region—according to Latinobarómetro, those who would not like to have homosexuals as neighbors has dropped from 59% in 1995 to 29% in 2009—but only from a very high level of homophobia. Despite evidence of increasing social tolerance, the Catholic Church still exerts huge sway.

Civil unions can offer the meat and potatoes of the m-word while treading lightly on the hollowed ground associated with it. Recognizing this, activists should seek to extend the rights of civil unions enjoyed in certain cities nationwide. Doing so would also lay the legal foundation for more progressive legal challenges. This incremental view is bound to annoy, but is an important and meaningful half step.

Latin America is unlikely to host a rainbow row in the near term. Perhaps we are witnessing a chasm emerge between the more progressive capitals—Bogotá, Buenos Aires, Mexico City—and the flinty heartlands. Regardless, one thing seems certain: as empowered activists face off against the vanguard of traditional values, there is sure to be a major row over the rainbow.

Every year at about this time gadflies of the region indulge in the publication of the Latinobarómetro poll. The survey chronicles opinion on a spate of questions among 18 Latin American nations. This year (the survey focus changes a bit every year) views on democracy and the free market formed the basis of pollster’s questions. The 2009 study, published in cooperation with The Economist last week, is especially interesting given the global recession and number of elections held throughout the region over the past year.

There is ample good news in Latinobarómetro’s findings. With the exception of Mexico, Latin America endured only a tangential blow from the global economic crisis, in stark contrast to the region’s setback from recession at the beginning of the decade. Perhaps because of this support for the market economy reached record highs in many countries. Interesting qualifiers to this are Colombia and Venezuela. Despite years of stable growth and a smart avoidance of global headwinds, support for the market economy has waned in Colombia, whereas in Venezuela over 65% of respondent’s expressed support for market economies, up some 20 points over 2007 findings. As The Economist notes, “the poll offers a warning to Mr. Chávez.” Though 45% of Venezuelan’s still back his government, 81% of those polled believe private enterprise is essential for economic development. Region wide, one-third now accept that privatizations were beneficial for their country, up from 22% in 2003.

Views on governance also give cause for celebration. For the first time since the poll began in 1995, governments garnered higher approval ratings than the armed forces, a real coup (no pun intended) for a region with hundreds of military interventions in its past. Satisfaction with democratic performance has reached its highest point in Latinobarómetro’s history; only in Peru is democracy less popular than it was in 1996. In Uruguay, a stunning 80% are satisfied with the way their democracy works. Popular opinion, in Honduras and throughout the region, was also strongly opposed to the coup in Honduras.

A few troubling trends are still at play. Support for democracy is coinciding with the worrying trend of extended presidential terms. Additionally, exceptions to generally positive trends are often found among the larger economies in the region, such as Colombia and Mexico. (Luckily, Brazil is a part of the good vibes.) Views on social issues are far from consistent. Homosexuality is becoming more widely accepted, even if homosexual marriage is still less than popular, but on the other hand, the same proportion of respondents (36%) believe that women should stay at home rather than work as was reported in 1997.

Development is an uneven slog, easily prone to criticism for what remains to be done or what appears to being undone. Two decades ago Latin America was uniformly undemocratic and there were few market economies. Change slowly began in the 1990s and accelerated in the 21^st century. Now the vast majority of states are democracies—though impaired some may be—with market economies—though undiversified some surely are. But as the 2009 Latinobarómetro study attests, people throughout Latin America are becoming more supportive of democracy and free trade, surely because they are realizing a better life for themselves as a result of liberalization. The glass is looking half full.

It came as no surprise to those who knew about the past rights abuses by Iran’s government when many Iranians, especially young Iranians, took to the streets in the last two weeks and were met with brutal retribution affecting every sector of Iran’s vibrant society including intellectuals, the media, youth and diverse cultures. While much of Western media sought to compare the protests in Iran to those of Eastern Europe and China, Iran is unique and is forming what must be regarded as its own unique movement that will produce its own unique results. A comparison of best judgment is one that would compare opposite popular political movements to that of the one in Iran, namely those in many left leaning governments in Latin America.

This week while the protestors in Iran were slowly being arrested and assaulted, Honduras had its own coup with the Judiciary, Legislature and military forcing out the Honduran President Jose Manuel Zelaya. Honduras’ other policy branches sought its own change by placing its own leader in power in order to quell the Executive Branch from leading a populist move to allow the President to stand for election indefinitely. Such a constitutional change for the benefit of the President and the Executive branch was successfully accomplished by Hugo Chavez in Venezuela a few short months ago. This altering of constitutional powers that limit the Executive from seeking election past a designated term in office is a common limit to the power of the President in many nations with a similar political system. While Parliamentary Democracies often have leaders stand for election well past six years (as technically you are electing the party, and not the leader), it is seen as a violation of the democratic system in many nations and allows the tyranny of the majority to rule over all sectors of society in those countries considered a Republic. In those systems, the power of the President is paramount and is only limited by the legislature and judiciary. While Venezuela’s battle over control between the branches took hold in debate and via legal measures, Honduras’ branches of government took the direct route, upsetting many supporters of the President as well as supporters of Zelaya outside of Honduras, including Mr. Obama who often is seen as the culprit of actions against leftist leaders in Latin America.

The irony of these latest popular protests in Iran and Honduras come from the support given by those who ideologically would naturally support “the other” in these conflicts. As mentioned above, Obama, who represents a US that allows for power to be tempered against the Executive by the Judiciary and Legislative branch when the Executive tries to unbalance its influence in the Republic, has openly supported the power of President Zelaya in Honduras and is helping to return the President to his office in the capital. While the support obviously comes from the manner in which Zelaya was removed, the election of Obama and great support no doubt came from the result of accusations of abuse of the Executive branch by Bush and Cheney when in office as claimed by many constitutional experts in the US and abroad. The other twist in this narrative comes from Chavez’s support of Iran’s illegitimately elected president and ruling Religious Council. While Chavez and Ahmedinejad do get a lot of support from rural and urban poor in both their respective countries, popular support for Mosavi and opposition leaders in Iran are coming from the people themselves, who are protesting against unelected leaders via a populist uprising. Hugo Chavez, the poster child for populism in Latin America, won his own support for his government and changes to the constitution via a majority of people who legitimized his power in office, yet seeks to be a populist against populism when supporting the establishment in Iran. While debate continues to whether or not Chavez forcefully silenced his opposition during elections and referendums in Venezuela, support for Iran’s current government by Chavez may have more to do with Venezuela’s geopolitics than the will of the people in Iran. In the end, the fight for power in Iran did not start with hard opposition to Iran’s Ayatollahs, as true reformers were not allowed to run for government in Iran. Iran’s leadership crisis is one of oligarchs in Iran’s leadership pushing to gain more influence and leverage over Iran’s dominant Councils and clerics and to gain support from Iran’s youth that make up more than 70% of Iran’s population as noted by many experts. As a result of violence however, many in Iran wish to move beyond a simple election of Mosavi dominated by the Religious Councils and wish to move towards a free vote and debate in society.

Iran will likely slowly degrade from within, but maintain its same structure in the process. The true measure of change for those outside of Iran is whether or not a new government, in a similar, form will choose to involve itself in the Arab world, continue to divide and conquer diverse political groups, religions and cultures in Iran and decide to promote Iranian culture and economy outside of Iran towards the West or the East. The reposition of the US and the oil market may grow the influence of populists in Latin America and illegitimate governments in the Middle East, but eventually economics and popular movements will create a debate where the people must choose between two unstable alternatives and hope for great leaders to build their nations. At best, Lebanon without political assassinations would be a welcomed outcome for Iran. Lessons from Latin America for Iran may come from those same intellectuals that are currently sitting in Evin prison in Tehran for speaking their views. One academic from Latin America similar to those imprisoned in Iran is Guillermo O’Donnell, a Latin American intellectual who often writes on differing forms of democracy. Many of his theories surround the issues of democratic institutions and voting. Simply voting does not create a democratic society in itself, but the interaction between different ideas, from grassroots movements, journalists, professors, politicians and communities produce institutions which seek to balance power in the hands of the people, and not in that of a religious oligarchy or simply the Executive. Unfortunately in Iran, once violence takes hold of any election, voting becomes not simply the symbol of a healthy democratic society but it transforms and becomes a means of protest when all other democratic institutions become disenfranchised of their legitimate authority. Equality and rights does not come from a simple ballot, as important as the process is, but comes from institution building and seeking of rights in every unique society. This is what many often abuse in Latin America, and seems to not be understood by religious oligarchs in Iran. The original form of ancient Greek democracy has evolved, and will leave those behind who do not understand it beyond its basic elements. Unfortunately as many Latin American oligarchs have known, the end result is always the same, albeit in differing and unique forms of anarchy.

One of the greatest and diverse minds in public policy today is Fareed Zakaria. Once the host of a wonderful public policy show Foreign Exchange on PBS, Fareed Zakaria GPS is now likely CNN’s best and most in depth show on American media today. Zakaria has done much to add colour in the shadows of the current financial crisis debate. In the last two weeks he has written an interesting article on Canada in the financial crisis, and last week interviewed Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper regarding Canada’s relative financial successes during the crisis, speaking about the future of Afghanistan where Canadian soldiers have been fighting, and often with many causalities in the process. The article and interview compliments President Obama’s meeting in Ottawa with Mr. Harper in February and brings Canada into the sphere of the North American policy dialogue.

Zakaria’s Newsweek article has received a great deal of attention from Canadian media and bloggers. While he is correct in many of his conclusions, there are some details which should be taken in a more critical light. An invitation from myself to explore these issues with Fareed is always open. I will address some of my concerns below.

In Zakaria’s Newsweek article “Worthwhile Canadian Initiative” he argues that Canada, while being seen as an generally unexciting, uneventful and thus safe place, has been successful in creating conditions apart of all the banking systems in the developed countries in the world. Canada has not been affected by financial crisis like the US, UK or other similar nations and Canadian banks were indeed ranked number one by the World Economic Forum as the healthiest banking system worldwide. High leverage by Canadian banks have kept many of them afloat due to strict regulations and strict business practices that has kept Canadian banks secure, but that often have left many smaller healthy businesses from obtaining loans from private sector lenders. Canada’s banks traditionally were largely protected from outside investment, resulting in Canada having on average five major banks throughout the country over the last century. While this has kept many banks safe, it has also allowed a lack of competition in the Canadian banking market. Two examples of problems with this sector are very high returns coming from service charges laid on customers for many bank activities and overly restrictive loan conditions for SME’s. Protection from foreign competition and service fees have created excess cash for many Canadian banks, often being sourced directly from lower income customers who cannot invest the amounts of cash to avoid excessive fees to use essentially their own funds. In addition, mergers between Canada’s five main traditional banks have restricted open competition for service fees and banking services for customers in Canada. An opening of the banking sector a few years back did not curb fees, but allowed banks to enter the insurance market and offer those additional services. While foreign banks were able to enter the Canadian market a few short years ago, many had to run their retail banking services through established brick and mortar Canadian retail bank branches, taking further fees for clients who literally have no saving with the Canadian banks in order to use their account with another bank. While there are positives to the secure Canadian banking system, the end result where business takes loans and credit from these banks often are done so the bank assumes no risk whatsoever. Often incorporated company loans are tied to the personal assets of their principal investors, eliminating the tradition of Legal Incorporation and limiting further the ability of Canadian businesses to grow and be successful. With the security of Canada’s banking system is praised, a lack of credit to business is not a proper method to grow commerce in this economy in any nation.

The Canadian government over the last few years have been very sensible for the most part as argued by Fareed. The issue in Canada however is not the success of the Federal Government in Ottawa, but the lack of success of many regional governments and increased responsibilities of municipal governments over the last few years. Housing and the financial systems supporting many transactions have boomed in many Canadian cities, but like in many other places in the world it came from investments losing their popularity in mutual funds, and like in many markets being placed into real estate. While Canadian cities have currently stable housing prices in comparison to the US; where housing began the current decline, loss of employment, even in Canada and highly inflated prices and accompanying taxes have made cities like Toronto, Vancouver and Calgary into municipalities where affordable living no longer exists. With large populations living in the centre of Canadian cities, it has become unaffordable for many who cannot afford starter homes or have had to move to another municipality due to increased taxes during boom times, and even more taxes being promised by cities in this bust time. While Canada has great fundamentals, some provinces and cities have often mismanaged their communities or have yet to feel the effect of a Canadian recession.

Federally, the Canadian Government has done well to shield itself from the worst of the global recession. The governing party of Canada made great commitments in 2007 and 2008 to bring attention to a waning economy and had put in many economic measures that likely kept Canada as a topic of praise for journalists like Zakaria and commercial and policy experts worldwide. The greatest challenge to Canada had received little attention however, where Canada’s Parliamentary Opposition recently attempted to bring down the current government only a few short weeks after an election. While never attempted Constitutionally in any Parliamentary democracy before, the opposition leaders sought to join into a coalition to take control of Parliament and remove the current sitting government after an election had taken place. The controversy to force policy changes on Canada’s current government met with much anger and reduced Canada’s sensible government into a holding pattern during the key months of an economic crisis, producing a new opposition leader, staunch lack of support by smaller opposition parties and has kept a Canadian bailout package in limbo to date despite having support by the two largest parties in Parliament. While Canadians are often seen as uneventful and sensible, many Canadians likely felt a great amount of shame, and party politics to date is still withholding proper policy from being implemented.

Fareed Zakaria also praised Canada’s immigration system, but security and immigration, while for most policymakers would have simple conclusions, looks better on paper for Canada than it exists in reality. While Canada has an unlimited acceptance of skilled workers, many professionals who come to Canada are not hired or given a reasonably acceptable opportunity for re-training to work and use those skills once they arrive in Canada. Canada in immigrant communities is seen by many as a country with the second most doctors driving taxis after Cuba. While a glib comment on the situation, in studies of a food bank in the Toronto area the majority of recipients of food aid were immigrants, and out of those, the majority had studied in universities before coming to Canada, many to Masters level or higher. In a CNN interview with Canadian Prime Minister Harper, Afghanistan was addressed as likely an unsolvable conflict due to the nature and history of the region. While debate in US media and political infighting in Canada followed the interview, a major issue of great future importance to security and immigration will be the current drug war in Mexico. In recent weeks drug violence in Vancouver has reached its limit with likely connections to the drug war abroad. Many in Mexico will likely seek refugee status in the US and Canada, and further security issues have likely started in connection with the transnational drug trade. While Afghanistan and the economy are major issues facing both countries, security and refugees from Mexico will likely absorb many concerns of all three NAFTA neighbors in 2009. Canada is indeed sensible, must be praised for its successes/or lack of losses, but also needs to be addressed in real terms, whether good or bad. The NAFTA partners can learn a lot from each other, but can also realistically focus its goals towards more “exciting” issues of North America. With praise should always come criticism. Thank you again Fareed Zakaria for your work!

Zakaria Speaking with Canadian PM Harper

Hugo Chavez is set to open another referendum on allowing himself to be elected for another term in office beyond constitutional limits, but with the last referendum vote to increase his term in office losing by a small majority and his lack of popularity abroad being adopted by many in Venezuela itself, recent history will likely give him the measure he needs to either win or lose him power beyond Venezuela’s Constitution.

A list of pros and cons would easily draw a deep line on anyone’s page whether or not Chavez is more of a benefit or weakness for Venezuela and its neighbours. Recent diplomacy from Brazil had gained the release of captured Colombian government officials and other kidnap victims from the FARC, an action Chavez accomplished as well last year around the same time. The result was positive in both instances and gave Chavez a lot of clout, but support and documents found by Colombian officials during the two month Cold War between the two countries claimed evidence that Chavez was supporting the FARC in its battle against Colombia as well, illustrated for many Colombians by Chavez’s support for the FARC being recognized as a legitimate governing power after the release of some hostages to Venezuela. Eventually the rift was returned to status quo, and the Colombian government gave the FARC a strong coercive response, weakening the organization and pushing for more assertive diplomacy as video of Ingrid Betancourt and the ability of the Colombian Army made international headlines. Support for the FARC, even in Venezuela could not have helped Chavez, nor had nasty words from the respected democrat of Spain the King Juan Carlos towards Chavez in a public conference, helped Chavez be seen as a democratically elected leader in the process. Despite this, Chavez is still strongly supported in Venezuela. In recent regional elections he gained about half of the vote, and in the past referendum and in recent polls, he could win, albeit by a slight majority due to popular support in the country.

Poverty and rights should be the main focus for elections in Venezuela. Recent moves and disappearances have been brought to light against Venezuela’s opposition leaders, highlighted by the ejecting of officials from Human Rights Watch for a critical report on Chavez’s years in office. In the last month recent anti-Semitic actions in the country that were at least passively supported by the Chavez’s government, came through a policy of advancements towards Iran and comments on the conflict in Gaza. The reduction of oil prices and inflation numbers has brought Chavez closer towards losing financial supports for many of his anti-poverty programs in the last four months. While many of the programs during his term of office supplied much needed anti-poverty measures towards Venezuela and even other private individuals in Latin America, oil revenues may make this more difficult, and may make him lose his popular support to an unknown degree among his supporters in the country and reduce his influence in the region through less aid and loans to other Latin American countries.

Recent changes in the world economy have likely affected Chavez greatly. Some journalists and experts on the region believe this latest referendum is an attempt to gain support before the effects of inflation and the lack of oil revenue hits Venezuela’s poor. Poverty reduction is important for any future leaders of Venezuela, but populism and popular support can be easily lost if the balance of power changes, and funding cannot be provided for political support. With the election of Obama, Chavez has had to appeal in a positive manner towards the US, as did the President of Iran, and try to open dialogue towards the new President as scapegoating Obama would likely hurt Chavez more than help him. With the US regaining some legitimacy post-Bush and Brazil filling in the diplomatic gap with its own non-antagonistic poverty reduction strategies, Chavez might win the referendum, but lost popular support quickly after taking office for a third term beyond his rights in the current Venezuelan Constitution. Moves by Obama might make a world of difference in places like Venezuela and Iran, assertively addressing issues affecting the US, regional peace and minority and opposition rights in Venezuela and similar governments worldwide.

Latin America, while feeling ignored for the better part of eight years was one of President Obama's first international meetings that held the weight of his future power in his discussion with Mexican President Felipe Calderon last week. Mexico has spent the better part of 2008 fighting an intense conflict against internal drug cartels and towards the end of the year Bush and Obama have set to dedicate $400 million to help counter the violence taking hold in Mexico. Called the Merida Initiative, it mirrors aid sent to Colombia that started nearly eight years ago to help quell drug cartels in that country. Success of these initiatives has brought on a great deal of criticism, but the attention from the US is often due in these circumstances. With over 4000 deaths due to Mexico's drug war in the last 12 months, Mexico may become closer to the US as violence spins out of control.

Threats to the US since 9/11 have come mostly from non-state actors. From Al Qaeda to drug cartels, the method to fight them often is unknown as popular movements motivates unknown people to seek fortune, political change, extreme ideals and in almost all cases are fuelled by poverty. With the exception of agreements made with North Korea, George Bush was seen by many as a reflection of overbearing power that the hegemony of the United States used to enter nations despite local and international protests, in order to serve its own interest and punish others indefinitely. This debate rages on, but in those countries that were not directly in conflict with the US, their leaders often invoked Bush as a scapegoat for problems in their own countries, whether it was America's fault or a way to adjust public perception away from local government errors and policies.

President Barak Obama may change the dynamic of the situation by simply presenting the optics that would reduce the ability of leaders in populist states to place blame on the US for local troubles and push for more populist support among their population. Mexico traditionally has felt strongly influenced by the US, whether the US had great influence or not. Recent cooperation on Mexican security and a reopening of trade ties had brought Obama closer to Mexico, pulling anti-American feelings away from those of Cardenas' nationalisations of the 1930s and enabling a new relationship between the US and Mexico to flourish in troubled times. While this may be temporary, Mexico and the US have learned that they gain nothing from being divisive, and Calderon and Obama will likely not change this in the next four years.

Populism of the past has not been better represented in recent years than with Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, Morales in Bolivia and Castro in Cuba. While Morales exists through popular support internally and from Venezuela, and Castro is coming to the end of his days, Chavez has been able to take popular support and high oil prices in the last few years and apply it to not only anti-poverty measures, but pushing his support beyond Venezuela's Constitution to push for indefinite power. Chavez has been known to quell journalistic opposition by increasingly extreme measures and by placing blame for his country's ills on Bush and Uribe. In very recent history however, three factors have cut Chavez down to the role of elected official where he will have to leave office at term due to lack of popular support. Initially the referendum to increase his term of office indefinitely was rejected by Venezuelans, albeit by a slight margin, and a second try at a referendum drags with it accusations that media and opposition has been attacked or shut down. Nothing makes this clearer as when representatives of Human Rights Watch were assaulted and ejected from Venezuela for their analysis of Chavez during his term of office. The second grand effect was the cutting of oil prices by half, in a country where all other industries have been culled for the sake of oil, which is controlled by the government and is used for political reasons. Talk is never cheap when is it bathed in oil revenues, but Chavez will likely lose a lot of support when he realizes that he lost 40% of his savings, like everyone else has in the last two months. The third possible strike against Chavez is the loss of Bush and America as scapegoats for problems faced by Venezuela's people. Obama, which not yet addressing Latin America beyond the meeting with Calderon is not seen as a divisive figure in Latin America, and comes off more as someone who could have easily grew up in the streets of Havana or Caracas as opposed to growing up through the military like Chavez or as inheriting his position as President through channels in the upper class in a region where wealth and poverty is the determining factor of power in society. While this might not eliminate the US or even Obama as being seen as abusing the power of a hegemony, it will simply show the US as a country where any citizen can come to power through their own efforts, a reality that does not exist in Venezuela or few other states.

The greatest challenge to Obama might be that of the Middle East, and he is very aware of this fact. With conflict in Gaza, the government of Lebanon being challenged daily by Hezbollah, Iraq and Afghanistan and Pakistan to boot, Obama will have to challenge issues and popular support in many of these regions, and as a result have to solve issues by coming to terms with populism and policy in Iran which could easily tilt the region to peace or chaos if support in Iran allows for it. While many Middle Eastern experts see anti-American sentiment as justified or simply as political posturing, the reflection of support and opposition in political movements in a country like Iran has never been simple rhetoric. Opposition in Iran goes well beyond simple human rights abuses and has gone to the point of the murder of local and foreign journalists and politicians, the legislation of laws allowing the execution of coverts and the arrest of Baha'I leaders for the second time in a generation, the first being murdered in prison and the most recent being taken without charge in a continual attack on minorities and political opposition in Iran. These incidents are few examples of a long list of abuses ignored by the international community. Populism in Iran could go in either direction, as the country has one of the highest number of people under 35 and also has been greatly affected by the change in oil prices, which could lead to a situation of grave unemployment and populist leaders to gain a great deal of power if a tone of anti-Obama or conflict through Hamas or Hezbollah can place Obama in the same light as Bush when attacks or retaliations are claimed by allies of populists in Iran or nations allied with the US in the region. While poverty, oil and political repression abounds in many countries in the region, Obama will likely lose any support in the region, and has already been attacked by regional media on his first day in office. The strength Obama has in this case is that the silent opposition and those who are at the receiving end of threats by Iran's populists could change their tone when oppression and Barak Hussein Obama challenges, builds and offers and alternative to threats by someone who is a non-traditional leader of the free world. This however will never succeed if an America based on a just tradition will not push for justice of those in the region who are sitting in prison waiting for the day of their possible execution. While Chavez will likely lose his seat in power, Iran's populists sit at the centre of a peace process in the region. Compromise and posturing is common in populists movements, but human rights should be at the forefront of any actions taken in the region for President Obama.

This week the Queen's Representative in Canada must decide whether or not the Opposition's plan to overthrow the sitting Government will pass, creating a precedent in the history of Parliamentary democracy. The fall of Government has come in the midst of a global economic meltdown, and claims for the Coalition of the Opposition comes because of an unacceptance of the Government's economic policies towards the crisis. Below is my legal and personal comments on the issue. Please read the links to articles for background on the crisis in Canada's democratic institutions.

Is this Democratic, well, legally it is, formally it is not.

There is a reason why this has never truly happened with a similar scenario in more than 700 years of Parliamentary democracy in the Commomwealth..how the political system is set up is that in Canada we have a Constitution, but our system is served by Convention, which is common rules and etiquette that are followed so that equity in the function of Parliament exists, Governed by the Queen in times of conflict. So the Governor General is not merely a protector of the Constitution, but also is responsible for mediating Customary laws and Conventions to best benefit the people of the Nation in all Commonwealth states. This is the principle of Parliamentary democracy, which unfortunately is forgotten in exchange for the wishes of the opposition in Canada's Parliament.

What is striking is that the Liberal Party of Canada, one which was always respected in Government and opposition seems to hold power and abuse Convention when it sees fit, but expects the opposition to follow these Conventions when it challenges their right to rule. While PM Stephen Harper may have made an ill decision in this case, the question is not about Harper and the opposition financing, but what is best for Canadians, using not only the Constitution of 1982, but also respecting all Customary laws and Conventions that have existed since the formation of Empire and is the basis of Constitutional laws today. The error Canadians have made is to create a Constitution which failed to represent Customary laws properly, and allowed misguided officials to abuse the Democractic system which we have inherited and has been tested over 700 years.

Customary laws must be considered to a great degree by Governor General Madam Jean. Canada would be alot more democratic if when scandals in the PM's office are discovered such as with the past Opposition's government, that elections take place, but also that the Minister of the office which did the offence resigns as has always been the case in Parliamentary democracy. Ironically, the Liberals lost their hold on power because they broke this norm and the confidence of the Canadian people. Entitlement is a road to dictatorship and failed democracies, and usurping Canadians decisions and votes for the benefit of those who defy Consitiutional norms for their own political benefits is not Constitutionally illegal in the Canadian Constitutional document, but it is against the spirit and traditional of Parliament and the Democratic nature of Canada's political system.

Canadians have and always should have the right to choose who represents them, and if the parties cannot agree and break our traditions of Democracy, then Canadians should be given their right to choose who represents them, with no other excuse in the middle of an Economic crisis. An Election is the only answer to this problem, as Canada belongs to its citzens and not political parties who choose power over Customary norms and laws which are as important to Parliamentary democracy as the Constitution itself.