Laureano Márquez received fifteen minutes before the scheduled time for their participation in the main event. IESA had been invited to give motivational talk to new students of the Master of Business Administration. While sipping coffee and chatting, a high school teacher walked to our table to share their views on a newspaper editorial signed by the comedian, about the installation of the new national assembly. As often happens in the Venezuela of our time, the gathering of background on the usefulness and importance of a pluralist parliament was set aside for the comment and pressing light of the recent outrages perpetrated by the power that seeks revolutionary perfectly embodied arbitrary in the unusual statements made in the daily Ultimas Noticias , by the head of the Strategic Operational Command of the Armed Forces. In this interview, Gen. Henry Rangel Silva says, shamelessly, to the Bolivarian Armed Force will rise in arms against this government of opposition who dare to dismantle the social and economic policies implemented (?) By President Hugo Chávez.
At this point in the conversation, the teacher was encouraged to raise two questions: Do you not think that in Venezuela we are living in a dictatorship? And if you believe, how can one explain the fact that the leaders and most popular leaders do not dare to proclaim this fact to his countrymen and the world? After a brief silence, Laureano Marquez said, "Not being able to pronounce without fear of the word" dictatorship "is what clearly shows that we as a society, we have already lost their freedom."
For several years, the technical definition of the Chavez regime monopolizes The debate illustrated. Historians and political scientists have been located, and op-eds in the newspapers and news programs in audiovisual media, in their convoluted taxonomic criteria and methodology to finally give the exact name of the political phenomenon known colloquially as the Bolivarian revolution. Although not yet reached any consensus, we can infer a trend in intellectual discussion: the desire of the majority of partners to rescue the existence, albeit very weak, of a democratic system. Democracy itself, they say, but always in the air by threats of a different sign. When
analyze the dynamics of this debate illustrated, I have to wonder what those who know know. Most of these experts agree on reducing the complexity of the democratic system to a sum of votes, a voting mechanism (often, in fact, remember that President Chavez is the champion of the election). Amazed that, however, say nothing of the context of civic and citizens that feed the so-called people's government, ie, the set of normative and axiological characteristics that historically have allowed the idea of \u200b\u200bdemocracy has been able to reconcile much better than other classic forms of government (monarchy, tyranny, aristocracy, oligarchy and mob rule), with the concept of a republic. To these illustrious pundits are trivial things the separation of powers, the finiteness of the magistrates, the alternation of governments, freedom of expression, the clear separation of the private and the public sphere, free association of individuals and subject to the fund rules.
funny thing is that these experts who demonstrate a conceptual laxity as flashy as improper, they become severe and inflexible master when crimping the Bolivarian revolution within other political categories. For most of them are not relevant whether it violates Chavez national constitution, denatured and adulterate the division of powers, prosecute political opponents that can contest a presidential election, limit freedom of expression at will reform electoral law and install a network of community councils submissive to mortally wound the level local government. In his opinion, Hugo Chavez is a dictator ever since, from the point of view of political tradition, a dictator is one special judge appointed by two Roman consuls (patrician home) to rule the empire for six months without the right to choose a successor, plus the fact that since the point of view of Venezuelan history, a dictator is a general population born in the year Michelena in 1914, a graduate student at the Military School of Chorrillos in Peru, involved in a civilian-military junta pursues scooter girls on the island of La Orchila, ignores the will a popular referendum in December 1957 and travels in a plane called the Sacred Cow .
Similarly, it does not matter that Chavez use military forces as the party of government, promote the cult of personality, handled in his favor founding history and the main figure of the hero of the nation, promote the direct relationship between the people and the leader, forming paramilitary shock brigades, prioritizes the propaganda up information, base its policy approach in the binomial friend-enemy, sow fear to induce social unrest and create a permanent Newspeak derogatory epithets rich and euphemisms. Chavez is not a fascist because, from the standpoint of political tradition, a chemically pure fascist president must be born in Predappio (Italy) and modest taught at schools, in addition, of course, must have been the founder of fasci di combattimento and marched on Rome to head the funeral of a dissolved Congress. Otherwise, not worth it.
Nor is it relevant that Chavez should set up a single party, expropriate big business, end to the private sector of the economy, the labor movement abducts, conducive purges within the PSUV, invade traditional areas of private life, education ideologice, rewrite history at will, cultivate the figure of capitalist imperialism and external enemy , stoke the bugbear of the counter, segregate opponents, choking the cultural manifestations of civil society and install a system of espionage and betrayal. Chavez will never be a communist, because, from the standpoint of political tradition, a president's totalitarian left has nicknamed Koba (in this case not enough to say them) and being born in Georgia in the year 1879, has also being in Berlin and his government attached to the eastern part of Europe. Otherwise, we're sorry, this man has not a communist.
No one can understand how, while viruses that afflict the human body are able to mutate and produce more complex and aggressive strains, viruses that tormented the social body remain, however, with its DNA intact for ever and ever. Hard to understand how the animal as "human" past experiences processes to minimize errors and enhance the positive returns from their upcoming performances, the animal 'political' is, however, genetically crippled to capture the historical processes and draw lessons that will allow implementation of a model mestizo, Janissary, political and social control based on best practices of regimes that, despite having failed, met in times of splendor. Intolerable, in the case of Venezuela, is to see how assumptions historians and academic scholars are calling Chavez democracy to chaos, fear, or perhaps worse, by their intellectual disability to identify the presence, as it did in its time-Polybius a new mixed model of social domination, cultural, military, political and economic, which bases its overwhelming to walk in the use of teratology left and right.
This process of hiding the fact of not calling things by their name, they also contribute less feathers. Such is the case of journalist and former Chavez make good Vladimir Villegas, who emblazoned passes of a supposedly objective reporting and political tolerance. In his column on Tuesday 15 February, published in El Nacional and entitled The mysterious disease Aguilarte Gámez, the leader of the PPT that crosses the tolerance limit, as the philosopher Edmund Burke, ceases to be virtue. The lines that we have to gloss over their roots in concern and suspicion that the abrupt removal and replacement of the governor of Apure state produced in Villegas. In his own words: "The events that have surrounded the departure of Aguilarte leave a bad taste. Chavez criticized the internal and scolds little war publicly. The game asks for the resignation, he registered as government secretary to former Vice President Carrizalez, and finally, there are health problems, like someone pulls a rabbit from a hat. Someone should answer if Aguilarte screwed or stuck his hands. If you did something that constitutes a crime or involving administrative responsibilities. If you are in intensive care or if their disease is contagious, prevents him from speaking and appearing in public or unfit to hold office. In these cases, silence, mystery, secrecy and the belief that citizens swallow any story on the way are remedies worse than the disease. " Villegas
suspect the honesty of Aguilarte Gámez, but does not dare call him a thief. See more convenient and less dangerous afford some sarcasm with the former governor, as a form of political corpse. Kick the dog died, I would say the people in its simplicity. Thus each burlita about the risks of infection in intensive care or custody serve the journalist to put the round upset of a people that refuses to be deceived by the villain of this mediocre movie Third World, namely: the shameful Aguilarte Pancho Gamez . However, this modern moralist, the Cato of the Fifth Republic, says nothing about the tiny and rather anecdotal view, a fact that President Chávez commits a legal hit, yet another, when it violates the constitutional provisions, federal and state govern regional and municipal levels of government Venezuela. Chavez can not dismiss the governor of Apure nor any other federal agency, much less is able to appoint as new regional president of one of the regional secretaries of the PSUV, the single party, consisting of leaders seals. Cañizález acting immorally by accepting a bogus appointment, and Chavez is a dictator coup by putting their will on the constitutional powers Assemblyman de Apure. This is true for everyone, except for Villegas, who understands that the rub of the matter is if Aguilarte had dengue, measles, mumps or purple. Finally, another subject that it supports the thesis pilgrim historian Margarita Lopez Maya that we still have democracy in Venezuela, but with some worrying signs of alarm.
In his immortal treatise Discourse of Voluntary Servitude Étienne young Boétie unravels the psychological mechanisms that allow a mere mortal tyrannize a population. In one part of his letter stated: "Whoever dominates both you only have two eyes, only two hand, has only one body, and has nothing more than has the smallest man of the great and infinite number of your cities, unless the facilities that you give it to destroy you. "Where did you get so many eyes that espiaros if the dais is not you? How many hands have to strike you if you do not take you? The feet that trample your cities, where did brought them out if they are not yours? How is it that has any power over you except through you? How dare attack you if you were his accomplices? What would you do if you covering up for the thief who plunders, if you were not accomplices of the murderer who kills them and traitors yourselves?
Villegas, in rendering his pen, his office and his platform to the dictator, betray the democratic ideal and, worse, he betrays himself as a person of birth and entitled to live in freedom. Although
guabina and opportunists always disturbed, Chavez is a dictator, an obsession with total control and life. And the Venezuelan people would do well to remember the words of French writer Albert Camus: "Do not call things by their name to aggravate the evil in the world."
0 comments:
Post a Comment