Immediately searched for "moving to Uruguay" after reading this. The thought of a sane politician is so refreshing.
The overall vision is that the coming of democracy, after a history filled colonization, monarchies and military dictatorships in most countries, has been a net win; but at the same time, the presidential figure gets a disproportionate amount of worshiping in all of those, which is a sign that the democracy has not fully matured.
As positive as the bills passed by Mujica may be, the notion that the president has to be some sort of Robin Hood, Batman of the poor, is problematic, as it inflates the State, turns the legislative power useless, and has a tendency to pass popular policies, as opposed to good policies.
EDIT: Brazil is falling prey to that ideology, as many other countries around here, where the approval of the president is at an all time high, despite the government's failure in addressing all the systemic issues (education, crime, public health, infra-structure, foreign investment). There's an awful cognitive dissonance between what the population perceives and what results are, mainly because the poor are misinformed and cannot judge (the government will always blame an external force: the opposition, capitalism, USA, whatever), and the middle-class prefers to ignore reality (for them, it's better to have an incompetent, but left-wing government than to forfeit their ideologies).
Isn't that the point of a democracy?
What do you think how many wars, regime changes and dictatorships (all sponsored by the US) South America would have seen in the last 50 years if every single one of those aggressions had to pass a popular democratic vote in the first place?
I do not think that there ever has been a majority in any country (where the basic needs of everyone is met) that would consistently vote pro war.
I my view the real problem is that we only get those "good policies" and never the chance to choose or at least vote for policies we actually like.
No, the point of democracy is reaching compromises.
AMURICA?
More like A Mujica? Am I right?
>1972 Imprisoned again. Remains in jail for more than a decade, including two years' solitary confinement at the bottom of a well, where he speaks to frogs and insects to maintain his sanity.
There's something amazing about politicians who spend decades in prison but still have the drive to go into politics afterwards (e.g. Mandela).
"The president is a former member of the Tupamaros guerrilla group, which was notorious in the early 1970s for bank robberies, kidnappings and distributing stolen food and money among the poor. He was shot by police six times and spent 14 years in a military prison, much of it in dungeon-like conditions."
Is t-word applicable here ? :)
Superficial lists aside, I lived in Uruguay for some months and I loved it. Uruguay and the uruguayans are great!
I spent over 2 years in Central and South America, many months in a few countries. I didn't get to spend very long in Uruguay, but it seemed great to me.
For my first-hand experience, and why I left, read my comments here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6886261 , especially my second one.