Héctor Díaz-Polanco
* Rebellion
March 18, 2009
"In Latin America outlines a peculiar neosocialdemocracia , Creole version of European social democracy, founded here in liberalism (extremely conservative) with viscous cactus. Two features set it apart: his desire to make compatible-no joke-liberalism with socialism, and the fact that all batteries have targeted the left, so that the substance of his speeches (and often his open diatribes) are directed not against the right trends and governments that sign, but precisely against the radical left and even projects that propose progressive social reforms against neoliberalism. "
a work often reveals more about the author than about the object of his analysis. Enrique Krauze's book power and delirium (1) is an attempt to demystify the figure of Hugo Chávez and criticism of government policy, which, as it practically does not save anything. The criticism is flawed and demystification is bogged down in endless insults. But the work is an illustrative summary of the prejudices of the author. Also instructs us about the efforts of the company he heads, Letras Libres, and, incidentally, the group "social" which of late is trying to influence not only in the course of national politics, but also in other countries and Venezuela.
Third Way to
neosocialdemocracia
Krauze prominently represents a group that, in the name of liberalism, wants to intervene in political processes to support an extremely conservative positions, but apparently wrapped in a flag and even democratic the label of "left." There is, of course, the first such attempt. Immediately we are reminded of the current a few decades ago was assimilated to the purposes of the "Third Way." In the late nineties, this approach gained momentum in Britain and the United States, under the administrations of Tony Blair and Bill Clinton. It was a "New" policy line aimed equally distinguished tradition of liberalism, socialism and consecrated. Critical of both and raised a called third option, which actually put the emphasis on liberal principles "renewed." The democratic veneer was based on the guidance of Anthony Giddens, the British professor laureate London School of Economics, whose ideas were summarized in a book held (2). This sociologist provided the theoretical and academic platform to project the then British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who became the flagship policy of the Third Way. This approach, in short, was to recover the best of liberalism and add other elements that resulted from the challenges of globalization in progress. As has happened with other "renewals" of liberalism, the creature was totally liberal . It was not renovated building a socialist vision, but to propose a new-style liberalism. The innovations were on the road, and practically everything that was, more than a break, continuation of the neoliberal policies of Margaret Thatcher (3). This became clear during the Clinton administration, with whom Blair agreed and collaborated in the worst adventures (including aggression Navy and the destruction of Yugoslavia) and purchased trim grotesque with the arrival of President George W. Bush, who is subordinated around champion the Third Way (comprising the invasion of Iraq, openly violating international law).
However, Mexican political groups (even within the PRD) and intellectuals eager to establish distance from the left "revolutionary" or "socialist", clung to the topics of the Third Way. The record was comfortable, since it could renounce the left and change projects, and continue to use at least part of this prestigious label. In the rest of Latin America, current neoliberales se adhirieron también con entusiasmo. Surgió así una peculiar neosocialdemocracia , versión criolla de la socialdemocracia europea, fundada aquí en un liberalismo (extremadamente conservador) con la consistencia viscosa del nopal. Dos características la destacan: su afán de hacer compatible —no es broma— el liberalismo con el socialismo, y el hecho de que todas sus baterías tienen como blanco a la izquierda, de tal modo que curiosamente lo fundamental de sus discursos (y a menudo de sus abiertas diatribas) están dirigidos no contra las tendencias de derecha y los gobiernos de ese signo, sino precisamente contra la izquierda radical y aún los proyectos progresistas que proponen social reform to neoliberalism.
This phenomenon is noteworthy, since it only involves Letras Libres but other monthly magazines (such as Nexus , under the direction of Hector Aguilar Camin et al.) In fact, with some exceptions, such publications are devoted to the task of fighting left. Sermons to be devised for the left, telling him not to be and what should become. The leitmotiv is that the left must be "modern" must abandon its historic core objectives (for example, insist on the pursuit of social equality and new forms of democratic participation). If this is justice, it should be, say, seasoned with other approaches from the approach constructed by John Rawls and other liberals, who argue that a society can cherish and inequalities, however, can be fair. The fundamental idea is that the Left, their organizations and intellectuals of course, must abandon any radicalism, healthy moderated by liberal principles. Must be "institutional", while these institutions conspire against equality, justice and even against their own laws and principles that give life. Believe that policy should be resolved between parties without the intervention of the masses, as it always has a negative intrusion, inadequate and even dangerous. Should not be promoted social mobilization, almost without exception. That is, the policy should be made between political professionals. It is pernicious open participation of society (especially its most impoverished and marginalized sectors) on important public issues (economic or political). Democracy must be representative, strictly speaking. It must reject any form of popular participation, except for casting a vote every few years. Of course, you must put aside the itching on the left who flirts with the claims of certain popular sectors, as people peoples and their rights, regarded as outdated and harmful.
The "liberal left" in Mexico
In the case of Mexico, we found some of these ideological patterns that guide the behavior of current when the country faced one of the most untidy and fraudulent elections that has memory. The position adopted by the compact group (neo) Social Democrat and his supporters during the presidential election of 2006 was memorable. They argued the idea that there was no evidence of electoral fraud. You could claim "irregularities", but not fraud. Therefore, resistance was a manifestation of political irresponsibility, typical of a non-modern left, bewildered and resentful. It was monstrous go out (this is considered a major political sin) to protest against fraud. Of course they were against the encampment made in the Zocalo and Reforma Avenue in Mexico City, seeking only what any liberal who would be consistent with upholding the right to vote should be required: clarity about the meaning of the will popular (including the recount, if necessary) or, if appropriate, annulment of the election. They insisted that there was no evidence of serious irregularities and, therefore, did not hold the required demand cleaning the electoral process, but none did any consistent effort to collect evidence themselves otherwise (for which, as intellectuals and academics recognized were supposed gifted).
Theirs was not to seek testing or to address the evidence that were emerging, but defend the "institutions" (IFE, in particular) against all odds. When after José Antonio Crespo, an intellectual who took seriously their responsibility, showed that available information from the records not allowed to know who won election in 2006 (which could not be declared the winner of any of the pointers) and at least he had committed fraud against the law (in the decision of the Electoral Tribunal of the Judiciary of the Federation) (4), all the "undersigned" statements affirming the cleanliness of the election simply kept quiet and turned the other way. Could be conjectured that if those had done the same, each from his specialty, the result could be another? It is impossible to know, but at least have made a contribution to the truth, which is not bad.
is interesting to note that the current referred to includes former members of the Mexican left, radical mood once strong, now hold liberal principles with marked enthusiasm but under the new method to search a certain blend with socialist ideas. Being pure is not prestigious liberal, even though the elites and the power circles have adopted this approach as their world view, or at least in recent times does not guarantee good policy outcomes in the context of countries like ours. In contrast, a controlled dose of socialist ideas can set the tone appropriate; could almost guarantee it is politically correct .
A good example is the group met for Free free to discuss the topic on the left in April 2008: Roger Bartra, Ugo Pipitone, Jesus Silva-Herzog Márquez and José Woldenberg. The result of the roundtable, along with other texts, was published as symptomatic of "Ideas for left" (5). There are several common points in the positions of the cast. First, adherence to the social democratic vision, in some cases after having confessed to a life story with moments of radicalism, culminating in the epiphany of a total abandonment of the past. Interventions are punctuated by wailing at the fact that the path is not rooted in social democratic country (anxiety, as will be shared by Krauze), and especially since the left most prevalent in Mexico have failed to understand the great qualities of this political current. In this sense, Bartra said that the social outlet that he has adopted for years "has very little tradition in Mexico" and "is a tradition largely frustrated." Secondly, it is common to scathing criticism and even rude to any outside left Social Democrats of the parameters they have set. The left is seen as "desperate" (a kind of Freudian projection), "populist", "authoritarian" and "evaporation process" (Bartra). However, at the same time supports the vitality of the left, as Pipitone, from decades at least "dominates the cultural scene", and "has ceased to be a marginal political choice" (Silva-Herzog Márquez).
The sin of the left dominant in the country, according to these authors, does not decide to take the necessary complement clearly liberal. And this is the third point that crosses the views of analysts, it is imperative that the left assimilate the basic values \u200b\u200bof liberalism. The left requires "the pavement of liberal democracy" (Silva-Herzog Márquez) and is required to "turn their eyes to the currents of liberal thought" (Woldenberg). In fact, placed in this effort, several agree that Mexico needs to also take the liberal right: "we are in danger of the liberal tradition also embodied in the right" (Bartra), as the country-full-Silva-Herzog Márquez "needs both a liberal and a right liberal left. " Apparently, then, liberal thought has the peculiar quality to enhance any political position. Universalism dams untenable for so reason, liberalism is not itself a political position (in addition to socioeconomic and cultural) particular, but a truly universal ingredient that blends well with everything.
Liberalism in its maze
historian Krauze, a text in the same issue of the Journal ("Russia to palm"), agrees with the authors mentioned in the negative assessment of the Radical Left (or " revolutionary. ") Its emphasis is on the idea that the only way out for Latin America is liberalism. His obsession is that Latin American countries to adopt the principles and values \u200b\u200bof liberalism. And the perplexity is that despite all efforts, the peoples of the continent (and Mexico in particular) seem immune to this influence . For him, apparently, the current revival on the left in our region is something inexplicable and exasperating. Krauze part of a question: "Why, throughout history, not enough liberalism has taken root among us?" In response, it uses two "explanations" that takes one of their favorite liberal writers: Isaiah Berlin. The first says that is because "our liberal [...] have been reluctant to resort to violence to impose their ideas." Accepting that this is the case (and leaving aside the Liberals, over and over again in history, have used violence every time they have been able to impose their projects), is Krauze adhering to the view that violence is a critical factor in political success, something like "the midwife of history"? Anyway, the fact is that this "explanation" has the problem of explaining little. The second reason is that "Latin Americans, and Russians tend to adopt the revolutionary ideologies, including Marxism and its variants, with theological fervor." These explanations, which is more psychological than historical, sociological or anthropological (and therefore odd in a historian), have the problem of configuring a begging , subtract it explain why "our liberal", the Russians and Ibero peculiar behave that way. Perhaps the explanation lies elsewhere, primarily on the socioeconomic character of our societies, our historical and structural matrix, where liberal thought can only be an elite project, the synthesis of the interests of a minority. But this path of analysis is completely alien to the thinking of our historian.
Later, the author adds two additional explanations. The Gabriel Zaid (used by it in the eighties to explain what was happening in countries like Nicaragua): Marxism has been rooting for her "academic standing" which, according He began with the "blessing of Sartre", which resulted in "academic affiliation of Marxism." But since most liberals are also academics and disputed with advantage, against Marxism, preeminence in academia, the explanation also falls short and turning in a circle. (Why does Marxism longest established university and academic standing?). The other is of Octavio Paz. What explains the "dogged persistence" of the revolutionary ideologies in the " American intelligentsia? The "lack of criticism and self-criticism", responds Paz. So that, accordingly, a defect or epistemological epistemological elucidates the issue: unable to realize what is happening around them (for example, the fall of the Berlin Wall, the neoliberal entrenchment from the nineties, etc.), the Left continues its revolutionary course as if nothing had happened. Here not even explore what specific keystrokes and persistent socio-political and economic, could decipher the stubborn persistence of the left (which is fully aware of what happens). Sold
explanations, Krauze concluded with regret: "In Mexico, the Left is hegemonic not the runs of their books or newspapers, but by the expansionary influence have their ideas, which spread as concentric circles to the centers of higher education, the press and the parties ... "While it is doubtful that today's left is" hegemonic "in the strict sense of the term (eg , in Gramscian terms), we must admit that the author takes a step forward to warn the strength of leftist ideas and their influence in society, although it might be expected to try to understand where such ideas arise (remember : "It is not consciousness that determines life, but life that determines consciousness") and why its influence. But the latter is asking too much.
The prophet of the dawn
Returning to the book at issue. Appropriate to consider briefly its origins and motivations. The work is more than a biography of Hugo Chavez and his government's political analysis. It is aimed not work with a thirst for knowledge about one of the most interesting socio-political movements of recent times, but for the purpose of favoring the Venezuelan right and, in general, to fight the Latin American left. He is entitled to do, but it is useful to notice it right away. It all began on December 2, 2007, when Venezuela was conducted in a referendum to decide by vote whether or not to approve amendments to the constitution proposed by the Chavez government. For the first time, the right opposition won a victory (though narrow: about 1% advantage) to win the no option. Excited, Krauze immediately take a flight to Caracas. Arrives on 4 December. Interviews with various sectors of the radical Venezuelan opposition (the church, students, etc.). Back to Mexico, he says, with his "Venezuelan shipment of books, full of optimism about opportunities for the right and convinced that he had come" when trying to answer seriously the obvious question: Who, where came, how they built the character named Hugo Chávez? "(6). Krauze found your answer to the question, but not serious.
There is evidence to believe that things were not a mere impulse to know who was Chavez. There were other motivations. The Venezuelan Antonio Sánchez García, in a letter published in late 2008 (7), tells a group of notorious characters of the liberal right, including himself, met for breakfast with Krauze a year earlier. When the meeting occurs, he says, "not 48 hours passed since the historic victory of the NO on 2 December and encouragement [opposition] were jubilant." Apparently Krauze was equally ecstatic. To the extent that she decided to take the role of organizer. Excited, Sánchez García reflects that not imagine that "this meeting would be born two very important initiatives: a wonderful book about Hugo Chavez [...] and civil movement [...]: December 2nd Movement Democracy and Freedom. As recalled [Krauze] in his book, and we had already forgotten was he who had the happy idea of \u200b\u200bpointing to that date had MRI and could be a name to a great movement of opinion. His proposal fell on deaf ears . " Sánchez Krauze confirms that he returned to Mexico full of delight, with its cargo "books" but not only that: also, he says, "for advice, insights into past, present and future of our troubled country." That is, imbued with the perspective of local right. That was important raw material Chavez Krauze book published months later and helps to understand its delirious mood analytical. No wonder the book seems written by a Venezuelan opposition politician (his same topics, its unbridled aggressiveness, etc.). And not a historian.
Before leaving, Krauze adopted a prophetic tone: "They you can live an awakening and that dawn walk them hovering very close, "recalls Sanchez Garcia said. He added:" what happens here will determine the fate of Central America, Mexico and Latin America. "Krauze was admired by "the awakening of a truly democratic and liberal sentiment in Venezuela, so he promised to meet immediately with anti-Chavez student leaders," for a student movement ideologically situated at the antipodes of guevarismo Castro "and university" fighting for democracy and practice a liberal creed ", seemed extraordinary phenomena. Truth is that Sanchez Garcia was also delighted with Krauze, "an Anglo-Saxon intellectual aspect." Like this, the Venezuelan regretted that liberalism does not tell "good news in our region", when what was needed in Latin America "A large dose of liberalism." It happened that, by "chance" and Mario Vargas Llosa Krauze (another radical liberalism crossed) agreed in Caracas. And then our writer no longer contains: "The presence of Enrique Krauze and Mario Vargas Llosa among us is no coincidence" the fact is "symptom anunciatorio the heartbeat of the times: the opening of new historical horizons. " In a final outburst, Sánchez García thinks he sees that "the dawn that predicted Enrique Krauze [one year before] seems to lean out over the tops of Ávila [...]. The good times are announced. The visit of our dear friends are true under the best wishes. "
What was all this fuss about "Alborada", "targets" and "historical horizons? Visitors and guests are referred to the prospect of sweeping victories of the right "liberal" were to be next after the said referendum of December 2, first victory against Chavez after ten attempts. Thought that in the midterm elections of November 23, 2008 would rise to a victory that would be the prelude to the eviction of Chavez and his glorious return to power. Since Chavez was unable to re-election, it seemed close at hand. But much was at stake because of what actually happened in Venezuela largely depended on the political future of Latin America. Had to step on the throttle and use all available weapons. Krauze's book was an effort, however modest it was aimed at strengthening the designs of the opposition, presenting a negative image of the Bolivarian government, and Chavez as an evil character, "Regressive", "messianic" and especially "dangerous" (sound familiar?) Not only for Venezuela but for all Latin America. Hence, published the book, multiply the presentations (in Venezuela, Spain) and the agencies and newspaper interviews the author, to give the political resonance in the Venezuelan process to come.
However, things did not go as planned. The Chavez won the lead in the state and municipal elections of November 2008 (staying with most of the governors and mayors), although the opposition maintained its presence in important areas (especially for its density urban). So the "two initiatives" Krauze to achieve the "dawn" and open the new "historical horizons" remained, as it were, very short. And would immediately Chávez initiative that would overturn the political landscape: the referendum, called for February 15, 2009, in order to define the issue of indefinite or unrestricted application (not the "term limits" according to the language right), in which the other reached the victory with about 10 points ahead of not. The opposition "awakened" as predicted Krauze, but a nightmare. The horizon and vanished auspiciousness. These are facts like these that allow us to understand the above projection behind the references to the new liberals when they speak of "desperation", attributing it to the left. They are shocked and feel helpless before the advances of the left in a growing number of Latin American countries in the span of the last decade. They have failed to overthrow by force the Bolivarian project, and domestic and international context, it becomes increasingly difficult, as so far shown chavismo electorally strong.
The mandate of Octavio Paz
As is his custom, power and delirium , Krauze sailing under the flag of the work and figure of Octavio Paz, who considered almost like his personal heritage, "to come to the case cited or not. Therefore, it is not uncommon to find truly amazing passages in a book that seeks to unravel a contemporary process (the path and the government of Hugo Chavez). Peace Krauze makes return after death to carry out a political analysis, ideological and psychological figure of Chavez. It is common practice that an author is based in another to perform their analysis. But beyond that, the passages quoted Peace Krauze serve not only to build his criticism of Chavez but to make a general view of political trends and progressive governments in the current Latin America, apart from other excesses. The purpose behind all this is, however, political-ideological Krauze wants to remind his peers (the intellectuals of the "liberal left") that Paz left a clear political mandate and strict. If peace was the prophet of the mission, Krauze is the apostle who can fulfill it.
Chapter VIII, where their judgments are nouns, Krauze begins in a low tone: "I would never say for sure what Paz would have thought it simply is not here. " It's just searching for "key." Peace thought that until the mid-twentieth century, democracy was accepted as the foundation of political legitimacy. But in 1959 came a cataclysm with the Cuban revolution, imposed a new legitimacy "revolutionary" in Latin America, according to Krauze gloss, no longer required "of electoral processes and civil liberties and republican institutions." This conspiracy of a deeper way to democracy, plays Krauze, that these military dictatorships. So Peace is devoted to unraveling "dogmatic roots" of the new revolutionary legitimacy. This operation can be summarized in the coupling of several generalizations about the Hispanic tradition, according to the author, can understand the political tendencies that opened the Cuban revolution. Although key elements of this tradition is found in societies of other roots, we construct a pattern that can explain the revolutionary explosion particular stimulated by the Cuban feat. These generalities, little attentive to the historical, are not uncommon in the work of peace. The fact is that the poet who, according to Krauze, had sympathized with true spirit of the left and even the Cuban revolutionaries, became an impassioned critic of the revolution as the cold war was at its peak and was nearing its end. In short, the path of peace was a movement from the "left" to his conversion, Krauze says, "a leading liberal intellectual dissent and social revolutionary Marxism," which warned since 1982 about the risks of a " revolution "was a return to the old Iberian absolutism. The journey of peace seems especially important to Krauze, it is a warning for young people "have embraced the new [...] the old dream of the revolution, now embodied in the commander There Chavez ..." That's what question.
Peace tone was that of gloomy prophet who preached about a threat: the revolution and the socialist dreams. But by 1989, the winds had changed, Paz was full of optimism and was able, Krauze says, prophesying "the end of the revolution", as they attended a series of changes that enabled the poet to announce "the decline of revolutionary myth "in Western Europe and" the return of democracy in Latin America. " Everything under the auspices of what Paz called the "democratic liberalism." How envisaged by the poet? In a way that by now is familiar: "We must rethink," wrote Paz our tradition, renew and seek reconciliation two great political traditions of modernity, the liberalism and socialism . I dare say this is 'the issue of our time' "(8). This search is the task that inherits Peace Krauze and, apparently, by some intellectuals he mentioned above. Therefore
Krauze, in its role as a privileged interpreter, immediately goes into a fun experiment, guessing what Paz would have thought of Hugo Chávez. Krauze says he never spoke to Peace on Chavez, but is "confident" that it would not have seen "reconciliation" of the traditions that had been recommended by the teacher. Moreover, speculation about the sarcasm that would have voted for Chavez Paz, citing Marx. It is a delusional phase, in which Krauze not talk about what Paz thought at the time, but what the historian predicts that say Peace on Chavez. A curious exercise of retrospective prophecy.
Unfortunately, Krauze not continue with this innovative method, because it might have to prophesy (in retrospect) that would have regretted Paz character failed his prophecy about "the decline of the revolutionary myth." Well the main reason is that Krauze is embarked on burning criticism against Chavez is that, despite the announcements about the triumph of social democracy (liberal) in Latin America and the decline of socialism, resurfaced more strongly in the region that put popular projects in their core cares neoliberal model changes and even the goal of a "socialism of the century", all accompanied by the spread of revolutionary projects (the "Bolivarian revolution" in Venezuela, the "cultural and democratic revolution" in Bolivia, the "revolution citizen "in Ecuador). The same year the Peace announced the change of address, the new process of rebellion had an initial flicker in the Caracazo , which would lead to the Bolivarian government. A second highlight was the Zapatista uprising of 1994, Peace still managed to look and examine. Printing, of course, was that the neozapatismo had renewed the "cult of violence" that the uprising was "unrealistic" and was "doomed to fail" and that the military outcome would be "quick."
Bolivarian project embodies this new cycle of rebellions prominently, and that's why you tuck your batteries Krauze first to the leader of that movement. Since then, the objective is broader: to contain the new air anti-neoliberal and anti-capitalist gradually swirling in the region. This is seen by the group that is part Krauze as a calamity. Hence the onslaught and, in addition, the arrogance of assuming the role of director of that left that insists on ignoring the new course charted by his teacher in 1989. This results in a strange fact: from conservative positions is shown at left what suits her, and he preaches when it is ignored.
The small liberal international
Krauze is not alone in his crusade against the return of revolutionary dreams. It articulates with other characters and groups. Thus, we might speak of a "small liberal international, whose most notable feature is its pronounced conservative profile. It is strange Krauze proximity to positions such as the English Popular Party and its leader José María Aznar (who honored that in 2003, amid mutual praise dithyrambic) and that both participate in seminars and joint political project. One of those jobs, "the lemon" was the one held in Mexico in the middle of the 2006 presidential campaign. Without a blush, appeared together to support the rightist Felipe Calderon, candidate of PAN, one of the more conservative parties and retardant on the continent. So when Krauze is presented as a social liberal, while supporting more ultramontane right, you do not know what to think or do not understand a word about the political leanings of the speaker (and that says to join) or no no respect for the intelligence of others. Also include other intellectuals dedicated to the letters, such as Mario Vargas Llosa. There is indeed no coincidence that Krauze has coincided with Vargas Llosa in Venezuela at the time indicated.
Judging by the results, the adventures of Venezuela group have not been very successful. You may even have strengthened the positions of the local left. Rather than drive, their activism is an expression of the weaknesses of the conservative Venezuelan. The opposition in Venezuela lacks intellectuals themselves, with sufficient preparation and public impact to promote their political positions and, above all, to promote unity between his clenched components, feuding among themselves. Therefore relies on foreign intellectuals who form a sort of "task force" (or "quick action group"), who came rushing to support their peers on the right.
Krauze deformations
Enrique Krauze's book is mostly a string of Disqualifications against Chavez, but I missed the author's arguments. Things are so because they are so Krauze says: Chavez is an authoritarian, a dictator who wants to stay in power indefinitely. No matter that Chavez has met again and again with the requirements of the "legitimacy" stated Peace democratic (remember: elections, civil liberties and republican institutions.) It is irrelevant that the politician has undergone Bolivarian popular will through free elections. Chavez has done in twelve occasions. Apparently, this is an essential and sufficient when it comes to politicians who behave differently to Chavez (for example, as blind supporters of neoliberal policies), but is irrelevant when it comes to a leader who defies the tenets of "free market", the "deregulation" irresponsible and does not practice total indolence meet the needs of the majority, impoverished and disabled to exercise fundamental rights. In this case, there is no democracy, it is an "absolute monarch" and a messianic (one of the favorite groundless Krauze, used to infamy against López Obrador in 2006). Moreover, the democratic cleaning requirement is a requirement strictly to the left, but it can be exempted from the right. As noted, Krauze did not hesitate to support right-wing candidate Felipe Calderón, dedicated to the dirty war against its principal adversary, and when Calderon is declared the winner " haiga been like haiga been"-in his own words, the liberal historian shows no distress or engaged in combat with democratic passion.
Nor is it enough that during the administration of Chavez has respected the fundamental freedoms, even against opposition sectors that do not rest a moment in their task of undermining the institutions and promote the violation of the laws (including incitement to assassination). The opposition to the liberal Krauze supports is one that got to the point of assaulting the republican institutions praised both Octavio Paz, through a coup, and immediately took power with a procedure as "democratic" to remove spent freely elected representatives, to pursue defunct authorities, detention and abuse of opponents. Were not even compassionate. Possessed by the fury democratic institutions dissolved. Fascism poked her face with horror. It's a long story. It was an episode full of vile and ruthless violence. However, they did all this and more, they do not have a shred of liberal (in its pristine) or democratic, and respected liberties and republican institutions (as the Master Peace), seem now to Krauze people "fighting for democracy and liberal practice a religion." In contrast, a government which is not recorded arbitrary imprisonment, extrajudicial killings, torture and other dirty tricks so common in other countries, it only deserves contempt and sentencing Krauze, and the leader that, once restored to power by insurrection of his countrymen, not revenge on their tormentors or affect its properties or Media closed the coup promoters, etc., it seems a corrupt and a violator of human rights. Krauze be more careful if it would realize that by obviating the vileness of their clients, they are transferred to it, that being so unfair and biased in its assessment, the iniquity and dogmatism become distinctive features.
Provided denigrate Chavez Krauze reaches to invent a "Decalogue" which, he says, the Venezuelan leader has "established" with "the people." It insults have how are you: the people "has no individual rights" can only resort to "clustering" to be heard, is only free to engage in protests, is owned by the leader ... Indeed, the author had used the resource Decalogue invented to apply it to Lopez Obrador and all Latin American ruling departs from the neoliberal script, accusing them of engaging in "populist" (9). The method is unworthy of an intellectual. And, in this case, rather than an attack on Chavez, is a cruel insult to the people of Venezuela.
is impossible in this limited space to cover the complete catalog of abuse, deceit and lies that accumulates the author in his work. Only a few examples:
1) "Chavez is one of the richest men in the world." Accordingly, Chavez should be Forbes list of billionaires the world. Takes a similar attempt to vilify Fidel Castro (attributing the treasury as personal wealth). The detractors of this dare say he had secret bank accounts abroad, which was a childish slander. Krauze did not risk much.
2) When you eject the clique that ran at will on the oil company (PDVSA), Chavez made the largest privatization in history, "Krauze says," because "it is now their property." A blatant reversal of history: those who made the public company PDVSA private loot of a small oligarchy, are now victims: the ultimate privatization become privatized, and when he returned his character publicly the company was its privatization.
3) The accused Chavez of "propensity to monopolize education." So to free public education, is to monopolize? Here reverberate the claims of the Catholic Church leaders and other sectors stragglers who prefer an elite education and full of religious ideas. The European social liberalism would be amazed of the pulpit.
4) Chavez is "a champion of democracy," because although it has made "several electoral processes, as made "in a context increasingly stifling all civil liberties and total control of power Republicans." The "choking" of freedom seems to refer to the topic of the lack of freedom of speech and press in Venezuela. A stumbling block in some external media workhorse of domestic opposition. Chavez is accused of pursuing or restrict the means of violating freedom of expression. I never leave my amazement. Anyone who visits Venezuela fairly impartial can check for themselves that there are few countries in the world where the private sector, opposition to the government, has an extraordinary control over the media. I speak in quantitative terms and qualitative: not only is dominating most of the media, but also the most powerful and pervasive (electronic, without missing forms, newspapers, etc.). In fact, one can say that the integrating factor of the Venezuelan opposition are the means, and they work as a whole and their political party. When you read, see or hear the Venezuelan media, realizes that it is a country that enjoys great freedom of expression, sometimes bordering on debauchery (from the viewpoint of current regulations). Such opposition media have the luxury of not only lying, but openly violate the laws even more severe (eg inciting assassination ie, the assassination of President). In the United States and other countries, this offense would result in a prison for its authors. Not in Venezuela. The opposition media distort the facts and spread lies, and not sporadically or by mistake but intentionally and systematically. However, none of them have been censored or closed. I remember a case that shocked me. While in Venezuela and a half ago, I read in a newspaper's claim that right in schools, the government was distributing automatic rifles to children. The information is published as a truism, even included photos of the weapons. In any other country would have been the subject of a scandal and a huge investigation. Apparently the authorities were not in the need for such research. The news was so obviously a liar who disappeared like a sigh. It was a fib. People who do things like that, is the screaming (by the media) there is no freedom of expression.
5) Consider the second case the previous point: the relative control of powers. Perhaps the author relates primarily to the National Assembly (Congress) where there is no opposition representation. It's true. But you can not hide the fact that if there is no opposition because they chose not to participate in elections corresponding betting come to power by other means, not just democratic and lawful. Now the leaders are sorry, feel that their bet was a mistake and have stated that plan to participate in the upcoming elections to that body of power. They should.
6) None of the "missions" (in education, health, food, etc..) Created by the government, Krauze says, "has achieved the expected results. Its greatest impact has been cultural. " Man, is not an outcome or less negligible. But not the whole truth. Many people can see the good results (including all kinds of international agencies, NGOs, etc.).. For example, the data provided Chavez is nothing suspicious sources, such as ECLAC and the United Nations, show that conditions in Venezuela have changed favorably to the popular sectors in the field of education (Recently, Venezuela was declared by UNESCO as a country free of illiteracy), the health, food, among others. But above all, the results can clearly see are the millions of poor beneficiaries. It should be noted here also to a large proportion of middle-class citizens and even members of the upper class. But neither they nor willing to Krauze view.
And therein lies the problem largely Krauze's book: it is crossed by a cut vision and ideologically biased. Not that I can see but not see. Or better: just want to see what their political purposes and their ideological commitments you make. That's why, for him, the Bolivarian project has failed on all fronts, Chávez is an intolerable threat and socio-political landscape is bleak Venezuela. The nuances, when forced to make are only to confirm the negative absolute rule that has built its own prejudice.
To characterize this state of mind, Roberto Hernández Montoya has used the term denial. It refers to an unbeatable denial of the facts, sometimes borders on the ridiculous. For those affected, the cost is to understand nothing of what goes on around them. The deniers, he explains, can not see "missions, deny bridges, highways deny, deny literacy denied hundreds of thousands of people who regained vision [...], the tens of millions of books at low cost or free . Deny everything. Denied the benefits of the abolition of the credit index, indexed or Mexican. Cured in a module [health] of Barrio Adentro and deny it. Realero lose at the Stanford Bank [who conned an undetermined number of Venezuelans for more than 2 billion dollars] and deny or pay to fool with the arguments Chavez their fault that they ran into Stanford, fearful that Chavez will confiscate your money. He has not done in ten years, private enterprise has run its course in charge, making money like never before and still more afraid that Stanford Chávez. Being an idiot is the most expensive luxury. " Then explain that the conduct disorder that designates the denial "is not just deny something, but hide it, ignore it in a curtain of deafening silence. It was pathetic how the media kept silent about the second Oscar coup [in the latest installment] Sean Penn won [American actor who is sympathetic to the Bolivarian cause]. They see the government work, but when put string [television] to finally see it, then turn off the television or go to a cable channel. Internal exile. Do not want to see, not having to admit they do not want to admit: that this is the only good government of the Republic so far. It is not perfect, "someone said that was it, but the best" (10). Is, "I say the same thing happens to Krauze.
* The author is a professor-researcher at the Center for Research and Higher Studies in Social Anthropology (CIES). Director of the journal Memory . Recent works: Canon Snorri . cultural diversity and tolerance, UACM, Mexico, 2004; The labyrinth of identity , UNAM, Mexico, 2006, and praise of diversity. Globalization, multiculturalism and etnofagia , Casa de las Americas, Havana, 2008 (Essay Prize Ezequiel Martínez Estrada, Casa de las Americas 2008).
Notes:
1. Tusquets Editores, Mexico, 2008.
2. Anthony Giddens, The Third Way . The renewal of social , Taurus, Spain, 1999.
3. H. Díaz-Polanco, "The Third Way. A critical evaluation ", in Bulletin of American Anthropology , Institute of Geography and History, 34, Mexico, June, 1999.
4. José Antonio Crespo, 2006: speak the minutes. The weaknesses of the Mexican electoral authority , Random House Mondadori / Debate, Mexico, 2008.
5. Cf Letras Libres, Year X, no. 113, May 2008.
6. Enrique Krauze, "Journey to Caracas," Letras Libres , November 2008, p. 25.
7. Antonio Sánchez García, "Krauze and Vargas Llosa in Caracas", El Nacional, Caracas, December 6, 2008.
8. Cited by Krauze in power and delirium , op. cit., p. 330. Italics ours.
9. At least since 2005, Krauze has published "Ten Commandments" against "populism", adapted to the political situations of different countries (Mexico, Venezuela, etc..). The most far-reaching announcement was made in Spain: E. Krauze, "Decalogue of Latin American Populism", El Pais, October 14, 2005. This is a simplistic list, based on the topics most backward of liberalism on the sins incurred by politicians who are not pleasing to the conservative intellectuals. The meaning of article I analyzed accurately Krauze Emir Sader ("Populism: its complete translation," Alai-Amlatina , November 14, 2005). These sentences sum it up: "The Decalogue" said Sader, "is a whole body X-liberal cynicism [...] In the neoliberal era, the popular word used to try to disqualify the priority of social hub of the alternative post-neoliberal" .
10. Roberto Hernández Montoya, "denial" in Aporrea , Caracas, March 1, 2009.
0 comments:
Post a Comment