society
VENEZUELA

IMPOSSIBLE WITHOUT THE OTHER
One year after Chávez’s death, the country is in chaos–deaths among the barricades, barren supermarkets, and the consequences of a credo that distorted the religiosity of the people. Here, where the principle is, “If they hate me, then I hate, too,” the possibility for peace lies entirely with the person.

by Fernando de Haro

Repression, famine, political and institutionalized violence, and empty shelves in the supermarkets. One year after the death of Hugo Chávez, his successor, Nicolás Maduro, has pulled off what seemed like an impossible feat: to worsen the situation that he inherited from the populist leader, which brought an end to freedom, destroyed the economy of one of the richest Latin American countries in terms of resources, and drugged the people with subsidies and a rancorous ideology.
The opposition and the students have been protesting violently for several weeks. Their demonstrations and marches were followed by roadblocks with barricades (guarimbas). The response was blood and fire. At the time this article was written, there were already 37 dead, more than 546 wounded, and more than 2,000 arrested. “For a couple of years now, social protests in different parts of the country have been a daily occurrence,” explains political analyst Colette Capriles. “Doctors, public employees, university students, teachers, transportation workers… It’s clear that the relationship between the master state–‘benefactor’–and the populace has gone awry.”
According to Tulio Álvarez, Professor of Constitutional Law at the Universidad Central de Venezuela, this situation has deep roots: “For years, the principle ‘If they hate me, then I hate, too’ was applied. The friend-enemy relationship was transferred to politics. Venezuelans’ favorite phrase recently is, ‘If it’s true, I’d rather not know.’” Rafael Luciani, Professor of Theology at the Universidad Andrés Bello–one of Venezuela’s most culturally relevant institutions–agrees with the observation that it all began much earlier. “What we are living today is the consequence of many years of a political practice that made use of language aimed at defamation and the generation of hatred toward people.” To the political violence is added that of delinquency: in 2013, there were 25,000 homicides. “It is an organized delinquency, tolerated by the system,” Capriles emphasizes.
After the first victory in 1999, Chavismo went about changing the institutions, finally arriving at a de facto dictatorship under the guise of a democracy. This revolution reached its peak in 2007, when Chávez launched a reform of the constitution that originally failed. From that moment, a parallel state was created, which governed by decrees, limiting every kind of freedom. “The objective factors that define a political regime as democratic are absent in Venezuela,” states Professor Álvarez. “There are elections, but they are not transparent. There is a frightening concentration of power, and the government agencies, including the judiciary ones, are subject to the president. Pluralism is nonexistent. Dissidence is repressed by judicial power. The most serious part is that we are dealing with a military regime. This is an authoritarian regime that is moving toward total control of society.” Real democracy was supplanted by “a model of popular democracy, like the ones that existed in Eastern Europe at the time of the Iron Curtain, inspired by Cuban political organization,” adds Capriles. In order to institute this semi-totalitarian system, Chávez resorted to bureaucracy and the “red shirts” or “collectives”–bands of delinquents allied with the government, which control the poor neighborhoods of the cities. Some have compared them to the Haitian tonton macoutes.

Manipulated words. All of this took place with great popular support. Chávez experienced a defeat in the first referendum to reform the constitution, but he won all of the elections. Maduro, though he lost part of his support, obtained a percentage of more than 50% in the April 2013 elections. “It should not be forgotten that dictatorships in general have great popular support,” explains Capriles. “The Chavismo idea of democracy is totally illiberal, and there is no doubt that it obtained so much favor because it translates into a system of subsidies that proved efficacious for as long as it lasted. Furthermore, another very important element is the Chavist identity, the political identity that is based on the stereotype of the poor person who redeems himself.” The relationship between the state and society was founded on the use of other revenue from the nationalized exportation of petroleum ($800 million since 1999) to buy the backing of large sectors of the population. This money also bought international support. Despite evident repression, the statement approved by the Organization of American States at the beginning of March is scandalously benevolent toward Maduro. “This is fundamentally due to economic motives. The political left and its governments in Latin America, especially Cuba, subsist on the aid that they receive from Venezuela,” explains Álvarez.
But it’s not only a question of money–the regime’s strength is the “Chavist ideology,” an incoherent but effective system that feeds on centuries of injustice and constitutes a clear example of “political theology,” which profits from a transfer of sacredness. Latin American caudillismo (autocratic government), described by Enrique Krauze in his 2011 essay Redentores, took on a new form that appropriates religious feeling in the name of necessary equality. This ideology corrupted the principal agent of social construction and unity: desire, which is always desire for the infinite.
One expression of this is what the writer Mario Vargas Llosa defined “the prostitution of language.” “We are subjected to the euphemistic language proper to capitalism, together with the language of hate that is typical of fascism and communism,” stresses Capriles. “The use of words with a particular humanistic accent was fundamental for many Chavist leaders, in order to win popular favor. They use terms like heart, peace, love, solidarity, justice, living well, humanization, and many others. And with these, they refer only to their own people or their followers,” adds Luciani. Maduro has accelerated the process, leaning on the Castro regime in particular. Venezuela has been “colonized” by the Cubans: “The Cubans are present in the healthcare system, as well as in the military environment, where they provide intelligence advising for the Armed Forces. What is more, you find them in civil registry offices, where the records of Venezuelan citizens and foreigners are kept.”   

Reactivity or encounter? How to begin rebuilding in this situation? A flyer by Communion and Liberation that was recently made public states that “our society needs a compassionate, attentive gaze that listens, that is capable of recognizing the other even if he is different, that values the other for what he is and not for what he thinks, possesses, or does.” Along the same lines, Capriles indicates that the recognition of the other is decisive as a political criterion, as well: “It is necessary for the government to recognize the existence of the political ‘other,’ the opposition. Many public authorities are at the end, or almost at the end, of their mandates, and a qualified majority at the National Assembly is needed in order to be able to nominate their successors. The government does not have this majority, and it has not wanted to negotiate these nominations with the opposition.” But Luciani believes that this recognition will require external pressure. “A change in the government’s position looks very difficult. So far, it has been radicalizing its own politics and actions more and more. At a certain point, a mediator will be necessary in order to be able to start a process of national reconciliation.”
In this extremely difficult situation, the Church has broadened its mission to a work of reconciliation, insisting on the necessity that the democratic system be reinforced, a sustainable economy be created, and an education based on the centrality of the person be developed. Are these only principles? “The Episcopal Conference continues to call for dialogue in its recent press release,” explains Luciani. “It demonstrates that the possibility for peace does not lie with rhetoric, but with showing concrete facts that generate credibility and allow results that are useful for everyone, not just for those who are allied with the government and its ideology.” It is the same thing that the CL flyer points to, in a different form: everything depends on the fact that “there be an original presence in society that is born of the encounter with Christ and His Church, and not of the myopic violence that is the fruit of reactivity.” The oppression that came from a mangling of the religious fact can be defeated by an experience that frees and educates the people to true religiosity.