Si algo quiere decir la libertad
es el derecho de decirle a
la gente la gente lo que no quiere oír.
George Orwell
omething quite singular happens with oil in Venezuela: it is the
great villain and it is, at the same time, the great dispenser of favors. Let us see history: its
exploitation started in the twenties, i.e. right in the middle of the Juan Vicente Gómez dictatorship.
It was always diagnosed that the great resources it provided to the dictators had allowed
to arm himself, to establish an iron-clad interest network and, ultimately, to play a decisive role in
the dictatorship's foreign relations in view of the fact, for instance, that the United States, with
Wilson or after him, was quite discreet with the dictatorship.
The all powerful Juan Vicente Gómez was quite pleasing with the big oil corporations and
nothing was worth more for the great emerging power than the cheap and safe oil guaranteed by
the dictator, without unions and other encumbrances of social life. Thus oil, as scholars
diagnose, was guilty of Gómez' permanence in power since the twenties until half way in the
thirties when, finally, he grew tired of so much "peace" and so much "work" and decided to leave
this world and to enter, perhaps without resignation, the pages of a history that is
beginning to be less drastic with him than he expected, if he ever thought he was going to
die.
At the end of a story beginning with that death, and of the most recent one commenced
late in the fifties with democratic regimes, oil returns to the driver's seat: it has been
responsible for subsidized society which is saying that we have all lived of oil, well or badly, some
better than others, but all of us, ultimately, remained quiet and trusting, and we rejected any
bad thought whenever someone expressed voices of alert. There were those who expressed
them but none of them were listened to. It was almost legitimate that this should occur, because
no one wants to have his party spoiled.
Some ten years ago, two economists published a book that many saw with curiosity but
few took seriously. The book had a signifying title; "El caso Venezuela / Una ilusión de armonía"
[The Venezuelan Case / An illusion of Harmony], its editors were Mosies Naím and
Ramón Piñango, two IESA professors. It could have been the starting point for some thought, for
a gathering of conscience, and, last, for a deep historical rectification in politics, in the economy
and the society. It was asking too much from a society that, besides being subsidized, was also
anaesthetized by oil.
The truth is that societies never try what we ingeniously call "historical rectification". Plato's
Republic existed only in the Greek philosopher's mind, and philosophers are not precisely those
who lead societies. The leaders are the politicians the union leaders or businessmen who try to get
the most immediate benefit, disregarding the intruders' diagnoses or the nightmares of those
who are capable of crying wolf!
Whatever the consequences of scarcely responsible policies, if the benefit is immediate
and if it satisfies our small ambitions or needs or simple boasts.
The wolf, it seems, is at the sheep fold's doors that we now call Venezuela. In now have in
my hands another paper with similar characteristics as those of "An illusion of
harmony". The thing is this time that there is proof that "harmony" no longer exists. The paper's title
is "Democratic Culture in Venezuela" [Cultura democrática en Venezuela] (Analytical report
on the results of a public opinion poll), concluded in January 1996, published by the "Pensamiento
y Acción" foundation under the direction of Eduardo Fernández, carried under the patronage
of the International Republican Institute of the United States. The paper has four substantial
parts:
1. Venezuelans and Democracy;
2. Construction of spaces for democracy
;
3. Attitudes towards economic processes; and
4. The challenges of democracy
We will not focus on the theoretical issue, so acutely presented by those who were in charge
of the opinion poll, "Consultores 21". We shall go directly to the thoughts of Venezuelans on
democracy and their allegiance to the regime. According to the research, the Venezuelans
citizens of today in a 60% express the "democracy is, without doubt, a system of government to
be preferred over any other one". But 39% are inclined to a conditional adhesion. In other
words, "under certain circumstances, a non democratic government may be preferable than a
democratic one". The study's conclusion is that "democracy is not an absolute value for all
Venezuelans".
When asking "what kind of democracy do Venezuelans want", the answer may be
summarized in these words: "Justice and equality: equal Justice for all / Authority. respect:
personal and property security / Employment, well being: economic development". There is a
ratio of satisfaction / unsatisfaction that must be borne in mind. The study says: "The level of
satisfaction is frankly scarce: only one out of four persons polled says he is satisfied ("very" or
"somehow" satisfied) with democracy, as the country stands; but 3 out of 4, on the contrary, are
unsatisfied ("somehow" or "very" unsatisfied").
There is contrast between the extremes: a big difference between "very satisfied"
(4%) and "very unsatisfied" (30%). The same happens with the difference
between those "somehow satisfied" (20%) and those "somehow
unsatisfied" (41%)."
The Venezuelans' essential recognizance of democracy is linked to the word "Freedom". But
such freedom has "prices" and "costs". "Corruption is democracy's great sin.
References to the political status and to negative social effects (no rule of law, low quality of life)that
is a consequence of the two former, could be used by us as big categories to group all the
spontaneous answers that were given"
The country's fundamental problems are characterized in the report as a) economic
problems (51%) and, political problems (18%). Corruption is the cause of economic problems;
the common denominator thinks that "Venezuelans will again have a rich country
when corruption ends", and "if the economic situation improves that will
automatically improve the political situation".
It is obvious that there is a wide spectrum of people who do not recognize the country's
economic conditions. the "end of harmony", and they persist with the notion of an all powerful State
and a subsidized society. The political discourse allows nothing more, it navigates between
mediocrity and demagoguery or conformist. People advocate for a "more participative"
democracy. This is the summary of "The building of spaces for democracy", which is
in contrast with indolence when it comes to voting, for example. Although it may be true that
people want to "participate" they apparently do not find ways to do it or they mistrust those they are
offered. Somewhere in this report there is a brief and terrible phrase that expresses or summarizes
the Venezuelan citizen's opinion: "Voting is worthless".
The report leads us to a review of the role played by twelve "institutions", in the following
order: the Catholic Church, the Police, Congress, the media, the Judiciary, the Armed Forces, the
unions, private business, political parties, universities, mayors and governors, the
neighbors' movements and organizations. To the question "Most necessary institutions for the
existence of democracy / their Ranking", the results were as follows: 1. Media; 2. Armed
Forces; 3. Universities; 4. Catholic Church; 5. the Judiciary; 6. Congress; 7. Neighbors' movements
and organizations; 8. Political parties; 9. Mayors and governors; 10. Private business; 11. Police;
12. Unions. Lets think on this paragraph of the report: "The democracy we have lived and
many of its actors and institutions are called corrupt: church seems to represent the moral
reserve. Freedom, indisputable recognizance of the system we live in, seem to rest on the role
played by the media. Finally, order and security are transferred to the Armed Forces".
There is no doubt about it: this criterion of Venezuelans reflects innumerable phenomena
and it is --or perhaps we should deem it so-- some sort of an invitation to more weighed self criticism
by the "institutions" occupying more space in society. Let us at least cover ourselves with one of
the survey's conclusions, in the special paragraph titled: "A democracy without ground?", reading as
follows: "It would seem that there is not any "collective ideal" and, as a consequence, that the
social field, the relationship with others, the individual's actions on collectivity loose their
value. Every one remains alone with himself, as if in the desert. Undoubtedly, the lack of interest for
political life is often motivated by the "professional" politicians' loss of credibility; but above all it is
proof of a feeling of impotence in the face of complex situations and of a system that fails to
guide and to offer results". It is a pertinent remark and, once more, it invites to think with a
wider scope, mostly when dealing, as it is the case, with a system that offer no guidance nor
results, that does not educate nor forms the citizen for democracy. People want "changes"
and they want the "even if they produce conflicts". But those changes could mean going back to the
past: nostalgia is invincible.
The Venezuelans' attitudes towards economic processes is another slope of the
survey and it offers results being more or less consistent with the Venezuelan's general idea on
society and the political system where he lives and its oil myth. The Venezuelan citizen is statist,
and it is understandable that he should be so. Results are summed up as follows: 1, The
State will ensure the Venezuelans' well being as soon as the economy becomes operative; 2. The
economy must be spread with sincerity and our riches must be well used; 3. The size of State
must be reduced, but it may not waive controls; 4. Fairness, yes, equalitarian trends no; 4. The
country's development needs private business. There is a predominant agreement on these
issues; as to the two others, not as much; 5. Well being depends on government; and 6. Oil is for
the benefit of all Venezuelans.
"There is no lasting love with hunger", is the enigmatic conclusion of the
"Consultores 21" diagnose. It then invites the reader to answer the three following questions:
1. What values and beliefs are positive and tend to promote, defend and consolidate
democracy?
2. What others are not?
3. In the share of responsibility we all have to promote, defend and consolidate democracy who
are those required to act and how should they do it?
Among those "institutions" that --according to the fragile Venezuelan public opinion-- are tumbling
but still standing, we find the media, our saint mother the Church, Universities, the Armed
Forces. The political parties --constitutionally the system's dorsal spine-- have kept their mouths
shut, they have faded in the midst of great confusion and have lost their profiles. They will
surely corroborate the popular perception when failing to consider it. As in the song of frustrated
lovers and cuckold "disdain is paid with disdain".
Crying wolf!
Very few think that this is true and, if they do, they lack the required will to face the risk.
One may not properly speak of resignation; perhaps the issue is more complex. A conclusion
is obvious: the democratic system's great fragility in a country where people love and enjoy
"freedom", but begin to ask: freedom? --for what? Society is frail and so is public opinion, grounded
on mirages of the past --the all too powerful and magnanimous State, oil flowing continuously, as
good manna drops from heaven. That public opinion has not yet received the message
of "An illusion of harmony", although more than ten years have gone by. An observer --more
committed to democracy, and with a more fresh remembrance of the dictatorship than most
Venezuelans, in view of the fact that the old phenomenon has been wiped out from history for
almost four decades-- could suspect that the wolf is here already and eating the sheep. Corollary:
a country without illusion and harmony, between
resignation --provisional-- and hazard.
Translation by Carlos Armando Figueredo>/a>
URL: http://www.internet.ve/analitica
Messages to the Author: saconsal@link7.lat.net
