www.canada.com Canadian Press Thursday, January 30, 2003

CARACAS (AP) - Venezuelan opposition leaders accused President Hugo Chavez of threatening the country's bankers to make them abandon a general strike aimed at toppling him.

The National Banking Council said Wednesday that its members will return to normal operating hours on Monday. For two months, thousands of people have waited in long lines while banks opened just three hours a day. Other sectors, including workers in the state oil company, will remain on strike.

"This is a government that, one way or another, acts with pressure and repression. This influenced the decision," said strike leader Carlos Fernandez.

Chavez had threatened to fine banks and withdraw the armed forces' deposits from private institutions if they did not resume normal operations. Bankers said they provide a public service, which influenced the decision.

"We owe the public," Nelson Mezerhane, the council's vice-president, said after a council meeting Wednesday. "They have their earnings and money in our institutions."

Fearing that effects of the work stoppage - shortages of food, medicine, fuel and cash - could hurt their cause, many businesses plan to reopen next week. Many also worry about bankruptcy.

Deepening recession, the strike and lack of oil income will close 25,000 small and medium-size manufacturing and service businesses - at least eight per cent of total small and medium firms, the Fedeindustria business chamber has predicted. Closures in the first half of 2003 will leave 200,000 people jobless, it said earlier this month.

Oil output surpassed one million barrels a day this week, a third of pre-strike levels. Oil provides half of government income and 70 per cent of export revenue.

Dissident executives at state-run oil monopoly Petroleos de Venezuela S.A., or PDVSA, said the strike will continue in the oil industry despite the government's success in raising production.

The strike has cost Venezuela $4 billion US so far. It has forced the government to suspend foreign exchange trading until at least Feb. 5 to protect its currency, the bolivar, which has lost 25 per cent of its value this year. At the end of the freeze, the government plans to limit the amount of foreign currency Venezuelans can buy.

The government may set the bolivar at 1,600 to the U.S. dollar and then devalue it every month, Ricardo Sanguino, a member of the congressional finance commission and Chavez's Fifth Republic Movement party, told Globovision television Thursday. The bolivar closed at 1,853 before the dollar sales freeze began last week.

Arguing that oil executives sabotaged oil installations to ensure the strike's success, Chavez has fired one-eighth of the company's work force to regain control of the industry.

"These traitors should be in prison," Chavez said on Wednesday. "I call on judges to listen to the clamour of the people and jail these traitors."

Oil company strikers have rejected the accusation and challenged the government to present proof of sabotage.

While businesses pinched by the strike began to stray, government adversaries decided the best strategy to oust Chavez is by amending the constitution to shorten the presidential term and open the way for early elections.

The idea, which was floated by former U.S. president Jimmy Carter, "is the priority, it's the proposal we prefer," said Pedro Nikken, a lawyer and adviser to the Democratic Co-ordinator opposition movement.

Venezuela's diverse opposition had been considering a host of proposals, ranging from a referendum in August on the president's rule to amending the constitution to shorten the president's term from six years to four.

Chavez was elected in 1998 and re-elected two years later. His term ends in 2007.

The amendment proposal will be formally presented to "The Group of Friends of Venezuela," a forum of six countries helping broker an end to Venezuela's political conflict.

Diplomats from the United States, Brazil, Mexico, Chile, Spain and Portugal were to arrive in Venezuela on Thursday to support negotiations led by the Organization of American States.

www.uexpress.com Georgie Anne Geyer

NEW YORK -- It has been my sage observation over some 30 years of interviewing world leaders that the press usually attack them. The journalists are the questioners and complainers, not the other way around.

But when Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez came to the United Nations last week for a speech and afterward admitted a few of us to a press briefing, the quixotic Chavez did things a little differently -- and perhaps that should have been expected.

Stalking into the room at the Venezuelan Mission on 46th Street, Chavez looked for all the world the vengeful enforcer, the raging godfather, the paranoid-in-winter. His once-handsome and controlled face was dark and brooding, his eyes tight and wary as he constantly scanned the room.

What was left of his nervous restraint broke down completely at the first question from a Latin female journalist: "Why is it that so many say you are capricious and ineffective?"

"It is very difficult for me to talk about myself," he began, before speaking for nearly 25 minutes about himself. "Not only do they call me 'capricious and arbitrary,' but they call me an 'assassin ... Hitler ... Mussolini ...' I believe that I am the victim of a psychological war. I am in the laboratory, and you on the radio and in the newspapers, you repeat it over and over, as if I were Jack the Ripper. If you repeat the 'big lie' 10 times, or a thousand times, people will begin to believe it."

Why, he asked, do so many Americans tell him that he is the "enemy of America"? He told us that he said to people in New York: "I am not an enemy; it is the information you are getting. For instance, I was in Baghdad last year, and I was riding around in a car driven by Saddam. How could I know that no president of any country had gone there since the Gulf War? I was also in Riyadh, in Doha, in Djakarta, with other presidents, but nobody was interested in that.

"I met with the pope three times, and that was never published anywhere."

Then this man who has called the Roman Catholic Church in Venezuela a "tumor on Venezuelan society" suddenly proclaimed to the journalists, many of whom were looking more than slightly stunned: "I am a Catholic!" Pregnant pause. "My mama wanted me to be a priest." At this, he began humming the Mass. "And I am a Christian," he added. He suddenly took a small silver cross out of his pocket, kissed it vigorously and began to sing robustly, "Forgive me, Father, for I have sinned."

"They've made me into a devil," he said a little later. He paused, and an ambivalent small smile played around his lips. "Perhaps," he added, "we need an exorcist."

Other stories were told that late afternoon, many of them about Fidel Castro, whom Chavez constantly referred to emotionally as "my friend!" But after seven weeks of upheaval, violence and oil strikes in his country, the Venezuelan opposition are not his "friends" at all.

"They ought to be in prison, those terrorists of these last few weeks," he stated in an obviously disturbed voice. "Why are they here and not in prison? I have political power, but I am not a dictator -- otherwise, I would have shot them! In other times, they would have shot them in the patio of the military barracks. Shot them! That has not happened in Venezuela."

With disdain and derision virtually dripping from his words, he added, "You can see what quality of opposition we have in Venezuela -- a bunch of fascists!"

At this point, he looked very deliberately at the reporters whom he knew were from Latin America, directing his remarks particularly to Brazil and Ecuador, where fellow leftist leaders of his have just been elected to the presidencies. "It's fascism, brothers!" he went on. "Because tomorrow it could be you. Until now, the rich have given us presidents, and the rich have taken them away. This is the war of the end of the century, the war of the end of the world. I will fight to the death."

And all the while -- the meeting went on for most of an hour and a half in the early winter's evening -- the Venezuelan president carefully and suspiciously checked off each questioner on a media list prepared for him by his information officers in order to know who was who.

As I watched and listened, I could not help but compare this man of dark rages and apocalyptic visions to the Hugo Chavez I had interviewed in Caracas only four years ago, just before he was elected president of the country. Much thinner, infinitely sunnier and charming, Chavez then spoke only about peacefully reforming the country in its own historic Venezuelan way. "There isn't any model," he told me then, "certainly not Cuba or the Soviet Union. We don't copy other models, we invent them."

But in these four years, Hugo Chavez has gone completely to the left. Fidel is his best friend and, despite his fulminations to the contrary, the pope is not. After seven weeks of oil company and other strikes that have paralyzed the country, Chavez is at total war with the opposition, which is a melange of substantial middle-class people, trade unionists and businessmen, but also leftover politicians from the two "democratic" parties that ruined and scavenged the oil-rich country for 40 years.

This same week, a "friends" group made up of the United States, Brazil, Mexico, Chile, Spain and Portugal has been formed to try to broker a peace settlement between Chavez and the opposition. But one has to wonder whether it is too late. The sense of the Venezuelan crisis, from the Chavez left, is that they are in an all-out push for revolution, no longer for reform. The opposition seems to plan no further ahead than the next day's demonstration -- and every day, those demonstrations grow more violent, more obdurate and more dangerous.

From Caracas, the message is that it is too late for negotiations. The world oil markets have been shaken by the cutoff of Venezuelan oil. An estimated 50 percent of small businesses are in danger of collapse. "Here, there is a clash of systems," the Venezuelan scholar Alberto Garrido, a specialist on Chavez's philosophy, was quoted as saying this week in The Washington Post, "something that neither (the Organization of American States) nor the United States understands. For this reason, no negotiation is possible."

If Chavez believes what he has said, that the country's public and private institutions must be broken down in order for his revolution to take root in Venezuelan soil, that appears to be what is happening in that important Latin American country. If so, the United States and the world could be up against a war even more bizarre and threatening than Hugo Chavez's words.

Response of Venezuelan academics to their Spanish colleagues

On December 23, 2002, a pronouncement supporting the régime of Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez, signed by 64 professors and researchers from Spanish universities, appeared in the Madrid edition of the newspaper El País. Its principal argument “in favor of democratic legality” was the legitimacy of Mr. Chávez, who was elected to office in 1998 and ratified in 2000.

Distinguished colleagues: We sincerely appreciate your concern for the grave crisis affecting our country and your generosity in assuming the expense involved in publishing a full-page pronouncement. Moreover, we understand that the distance from events, the rather clumsy handling of some stereotypes by certain international media, as well as the costly disinformation campaign undertaken by our government, all are factors which, understandably, may have confused you to such a degree that you were moved to support what you assume to be a genuinely democratic government. As academics from different Venezuelan universities and institutes of higher learning, who know and suffer personally the effects of this unfortunate juncture, we feel an obligation to respond, as a manifestation of our reasoned position before international public opinion.

It is true that Chávez was voted into power in 1998, although this came about with a high level of voter abstention, which rose even higher when he was ratified in 2000. Notwithstanding the value of this “legitimacy of origin” in both the national and international context, it does not of itself guarantee “legitimacy in exercise.” Original legitimacy may naturally be diminished and even completely annulled by the abuse of power and the violation of human rights. Hitler and Fujimori, rulers who were also voted into office, each used the weapons inherent in his system to assail that system from within. Four years ago, we Venezuelans voted to elect a democratic president, not the autocrat who, on more than one hundred occasions -- all documented and denounced by jurists -- has violated the Constitution he claims to defend, one who insists upon imposing a so-called “revolution” existing only in his own stubborn determination and in official rhetoric. Chávez has failed disastrously as a ruler; he has led the country into a situation wherein governing has become totally impossible. Regardless of this, he impudently affirms that he will govern until 2021. Let us continue.

From the start of his mandate, the Chávez régime has advanced a policy aimed at bringing down institutions. This has been made manifest by his attacks upon the Armed Forces, political parties, labor and management organizations, the Church, universities, local police forces, the merchant marine, etc. Although the ‘Chavistas’ won a parliamentary majority and control of many local governments, they have ostensibly and recurrently violated the law, so as to impose their hegemony over all branches of government, namely, the Judicial Power, Civil Power (Attorney General, Public Defender, Office of the Controller) and the Electoral Power. Today, this evident sequestration of the different powers is manifested in the designation of public officers, many of whom are members of the military who were involved in the 1992 coup d’état. Their selection has been based on their unconditional loyalty to the President, rather than on their efficacy, efficiency and merit in the discharge of their duties. This is the basic reason for the government’s conflict with the state-owned petroleum company (PDVSA), today an important factor in the nationwide civic work-suspension.

His abuse of power has reached Venezuelan public radio and television, which have become mere instruments of publicity for Mr. Chávez and his project. Through these media and the frequent broadcasts which all stations must obligatorily transmit, Chávez addresses the country for hours in a style which is at once paternalistic, picturesque, and aggressive, fraught with insults, admonitions, and bluster. These abuses have forced the private media to assume a political position that some consider exaggerated and others unavoidable. The few European opinion leaders who, displaying a romantic notion of Latin American revolutions, have embraced the ‘Chavista’ cause from a comfortable distance, always forget to mention this detail.

The violent circles have always harassed the communications media, taking some of their installations by assault, as occurred on December 10. There have been over 200 instances of aggressions – blows, stones, hail-shot -- against journalists and camera operators. Some have saved their lives by using bulletproof vests, which now constitute part of their standard equipment. Jorge Tortoza, a photographer who was murdered April 11, was not so lucky. Let us add to this list the forceful occupation and illegal detentions, the kidnapping and torture of activist Estrella Castellanos and of members of the Merchant Marine, the threats against opposition leaders, etc. Of course, the régime has systematically obstructed judicial investigations of these crimes and has boycotted the proposed formation of a Truth Commission of independent membership and subject to international oversight.

Despite his immense initial popularity, and his having received the largest fiscal income in the country’s history (U.S. $49 billion, only from the petroleum industry), Chávez has failed politically, economically and socially. He promised to eliminate poverty and is unable to exhibit a single achievement in favor of the poor; on the contrary, he eliminated social programs, substituting them for occasional gifts, proffered in exchange for political loyalty. Members of the middle class have been buffeted by growing unemployment, tax raises, and currency devaluation. Likewise, education, health, social security, nutrition, and transportation have substantially worsened. Chávez also promised administrative decentralization, yet he has instituted a perverse system of loyalties whereby only those mayors and governors who are submissive receive resources for their regions. Another of his electoral banners was fighting corruption, yet he has not mentioned this for some time, because his government has broken all previous records. With unconscionanable shamelessness and impudence, huge amounts of state moneys are diverted to the private accounts of his hierarchs; Chávez uses these funds to purchase armament and to buy consciences. Perhaps the worst sin of this nefarious ruler has been his pedagogy of hate, resentment and social confrontation. There, too, he has failed, for the great majority of Venezuelans, even those of us who sympathize with his cause, today favor reconciliation, cooperation and peace.

It will take time for our country to recover from this carnage, but we will. And the first step will be precisely, institutional recovery. That is why almost two million Venezuelans laboriously complied with all the constitutional requirements needed to petition a consultative referendum as to the permanence of Chávez in power. In the same way, we are ready to follow any of the democratic routes established in Article 70 of the Constitution, among others. The multitudinous street demonstrations and the pronouncements of all sectors of national life, including academics and intellectuals, constitute a daily referendum against the régime’s continual excesses. Members of the military who have declared their legitimate disobedience have done so without recourse to arms, accompanying civilians in their protests and protected by Article 350 of the Constitution, which legitimizes civil disobedience. This is in no way similar to armed military coups, such as the one staged in February 1992 by Hugo Chávez against a democratically elected government. That is why those of us who today are advocating an electoral solution to the political crisis are not “special interest groups”; neither are we political organizations who have been removed from power, as the pronouncement affirms. Much less are we “coup proponents,” “saboteurs,” or “fascists,” as Chávez and his acolytes are fond of calling us. Is it not absurd to call “coup proponents” those of us who demand elections and “democrats” those who try by every means to impede them?

Esteemed colleagues: For all these reasons, we reject the document you have subscribed and we invite you to open-minded reflection. Do not let yourselves be deceived. Chávez is nothing more than an autocrat disguised in the sheep’s clothing of constitutionality. His revolutionary rhetoric, with feigned demands for social justice, in reality conceals an infamous and power-hungry dictatorship. As abundant graphic testimony demonstrates daily, his adversary is a noble citizenry from all social strata, which continually becomes more conscious, combative and solid, and to which we are proud to belong.

Caracas, January 13, 2003.

Published in the daily newspaper El País; Madrid, Thursday January 23, 2003.

The publication of this pronouncement has been paid for by the individual contributions of the undersigned

Respuesta de los académicos venezolanos a sus colegas españoles

El pasado 23 de diciembre, firmado por 64 catedráticos, profesores e investigadores de diversas universidades españolas, apareció en el diario El País, edición Madrid, un remitido en defensa del régimen del presidente venezolano Hugo Chávez. El principal argumento de ese alegato “a favor de la legalidad democrática” era la legitimidad de quien fuera elegido en 1998 y ratificado en 2000.

Apreciamos sinceramente, destacados colegas, su preocupación por la grave crisis de nuestro país, así como su notable generosidad al costear tal publicación a página completa. Comprendemos también que la distancia de los acontecimientos, el manejo torpe de algunos estereotipos por ciertos medios internacionales, así como la costosa campaña de desinformación adelantada por nuestro gobierno, hayan llegado a confundirlos hasta el punto de moverlos a apoyar lo que suponen un gobierno genuinamente democrático que actúa honestamente en pro de los intereses del pueblo venezolano. Nosotros, académicos de diversas universidades e institutos de educación superior venezolanos, quienes conocemos y sufrimos en carne propia esta aciaga coyuntura, nos sentimos obligados a responderles, manifestando y razonando nuestra posición ante la opinión pública internacional.

Chávez, es cierto, llegó al poder en 1998 a través de los votos, aunque con un alto índice de abstención, que creció aún más al ser ratificado en 2000. Ahora bien, a pesar del valor que tiene la “legitimidad de origen” en el contexto nacional e internacional, ésta no garantiza por sí sola la “legitimidad por el ejercicio”. Puede naturalmente ser disminuida y hasta completamente anulada por el abuso del poder y la violación de los Derechos Humanos. Hitler y Fujimori también fueron gobernantes electos por los votos que atentaron con las armas del sistema, desde el sistema, contra el sistema. Hace cuatro años, los venezolanos votamos para escoger un presidente democrático, no al autócrata que en más de cien ocasiones, documentadas y denunciadas por juristas, ha violado la Constitución que dice defender; que se empeña en imponer una supuesta “revolución” sólo existente en el voluntarismo personalista y en la retórica oficial; que ha fracasado estruendosamente como gobernante al conducir al país a una situación de total ingobernabilidad y no obstante afirma con descaro que gobernará hasta el 2021. Veamos:

Desde el inicio de su mandato, el régimen de Chávez ha promovido una política de abatimiento de las instituciones. Han sido manifiestos sus ataques contra las Fuerzas Armadas, los partidos políticos, las organizaciones sindicales y patronales, la Iglesia, las universidades, las policías locales, la marina mercante, etc. Si bien los chavistas ganaron la mayoría parlamentaria y muchos gobiernos locales, han violado la ley de manera ostensible y recurrente, con el fin de imponer también su hegemonía sobre el Poder Judicial, el Poder Ciudadano (Fiscalía, Defensoría del Pueblo, Contraloría) y el Poder Electoral. Este secuestro de los poderes públicos es hoy evidente y se ha traducido en la designación de funcionarios públicos, muchos de ellos militares del golpe de estado de 1992, seleccionados por su incondicional lealtad al presidente, antes que por su eficacia, eficiencia y mérito en el desempeño de la función. Ésa es la razón de base del conflicto con la empresa petrolera estatal (PDVSA), hoy día parte importante del paro cívico nacional.

Su abuso de poder se ha extendido también a la radiotelevisión pública venezolana, al convertirla en mero instrumento publicitario suyo y de su proyecto. A través de ella y de frecuentes cadenas forzosas con los demás medios, Chávez habla al país durante horas cada semana en un estilo a la vez paternalista, pintoresco y agresivo, cargado de insultos, admoniciones y bravuconerías. Son esos abusos mediáticos los que han obligado a los medios privados a asumir una posición política que algunos consideran exagerada y otros imprescindible. Los escasos líderes de opinión europeos que, con una noción romántica de la revolución latinoamericana, han abrazado desde una cómoda lejanía la causa chavista, siempre olvidan mencionar este detalle.

Por su índole totalitaria, el chavismo no tolera la disidencia. Considera enemigos a sus adversarios políticos y los enfrenta con la violencia. Muchos de los mal llamados “Círculos Bolivarianos”, que la población llama “círculos del terror”, son brigadas mercenarias entrenadas y armadas por el régimen, conducidas por algunos de sus más conspicuos dirigentes. Entre sus hazañas, se cuenta el haber provocado el asesinato a mansalva de 19 manifestantes civiles desarmados el 11 de abril, plasmado en el video del periodista Luis Fernández, Premio Rey de España de Periodismo 2002. Los autores de este crimen fueron llamados por el oficialismo “héroes de la revolución”. El 6 de diciembre, la masacre de Altamira sumó tres muertos (entre ellos un apreciado docente universitario) y decenas de heridos más. Apresado in fraganti y confeso, uno de los asesinos fue defendido por el Presidente mientras las víctimas eran sepultadas. El día 3 de enero, añadimos con dolor dos muertos y una docena de heridos a este récord sangriento.

Los círculos violentos han acosado siempre a los medios de comunicación, tomando por asalto algunos de ellos, como ocurrió el 10 de diciembre. En más de 200 oportunidades, los periodistas y camarógrafos han sido agredidos con golpes, piedras y perdigones y algunos han salvado su vida gracias al chaleco blindado que ya forma parte de su equipo. El fotógrafo Jorge Tortoza, asesinado el 11 de abril, no corrió con esa suerte. Añádanse a esto los allanamientos y detenciones ilegales, el secuestro y tortura de la activista Estrella Castellanos y de los marinos mercantes, las amenazas a líderes de la oposición, etc. Por supuesto, el régimen ha obstaculizado sistemáticamente las investigaciones judiciales sobre estos crímenes y ha boicoteado la conformación de una Comisión de la Verdad integrada por personalidades independientes y sujeta a veeduría internacional.

A pesar de su inmensa popularidad inicial y de haber recibido los mayores ingresos fiscales de la historia del país (49 millardos de dólares, sólo de la industria petrolera), Chávez ha fracasado en lo político, lo económico y lo social. Prometió eliminar la pobreza y no puede exhibir ni un solo logro a favor de los pobres; más bien, eliminó los programas sociales, sustituyéndolos por dádivas ocasionales a cambio de lealtad política. La clase media ha sido golpeada por el creciente desempleo, el aumento de los impuestos y la devaluación de la moneda. Asimismo, la educación, la salud, la seguridad social, la alimentación y el transporte han empeorado sustancialmente. Prometió también la descentralización y a cambio ha instituido un perverso sistema de lealtades, según el cual sólo los alcaldes y gobernadores sumisos, reciben recursos para sus regiones. Otra bandera electoral de Chávez fue el combate contra la corrupción, pero hace tiempo no la menciona, pues su gobierno ha batido todas las marcas anteriores con impudicia y descaro inimaginables: desvía el dinero del Estado a raudales hacia las cuentas de sus jerarcas y lo utiliza para comprar armas y conciencias. Tal vez el peor de los pecados de este nefasto gobernante ha sido su pedagogía del odio, el resentimiento y la confrontación social. También allí ha fracasado, pues la gran mayoría de los venezolanos, y hasta sus propios simpatizantes, apostamos hoy por la reconciliación, la cooperación y la paz.

Tomará tiempo recuperar al país de esta hecatombe, pero vamos a lograrlo. Y el primer paso es precisamente recuperar la institucionalidad. Por eso, casi dos millones de venezolanos cumplieron trabajosamente con todos los requisitos constitucionales para solicitar un referéndum consultivo sobre la permanencia de Chávez en el poder. Estamos dispuestos a transitar igualmente cualquiera de las vías democráticas establecidas en el artículo 70 de la Constitución, entre otros. Las multitudinarias manifestaciones de calle y los pronunciamientos de todos los sectores de la vida nacional, incluidos los académicos e intelectuales, constituyen un referéndum diario contra los continuos desafueros del régimen. Los militares que se han declarado en desobediencia legítima, lo han hecho sin armas, acompañando a los civiles en sus protestas y amparados por el artículo 350 de la Constitución que consagra la desobediencia civil. Esto en nada se parece a los golpes de estado de militares armados, como el que sí dio Hugo Chávez en febrero de 1992 contra un gobierno electo democráticamente. Por eso, quienes hoy abogamos por una solución electoral para la crisis política no somos “grupos de intereses” ni organizaciones políticas desplazadas del poder, como afirma el remitido. Mucho menos “golpistas”, “saboteadores” o “fascistas”, como gustan calificarnos tanto Chávez como sus acólitos. ¿No es absurdo que se llame golpistas a quienes exigimos elecciones y demócratas a quienes tratan por todos los medios de impedirlas?

Por todo ello, estimados colegas, rechazamos el documento por ustedes suscrito y también los invitamos a reflexionar con amplitud de conciencia. No se dejen engañar. Chávez no es más que un autócrata disfrazado con la piel de oveja de la constitucionalidad. Su retórica revolucionaria, con fingidos reclamos de justicia social, encubre en realidad una dictadura torpe y ávida de poder. Como muestran cada día abundantes testimonios gráficos, su adversario es una ciudadanía noble, de todas las clases sociales, cada vez más consciente, combativa y solidaria, a la que estamos orgullosos de pertenecer.

Caracas, 13 de enero de 2003.

Publicado en el diario El País de Madrid, el día jueves 23 de enero 2003

La publicación de este remitido ha sido financiada mediante el aporte individual de los firmantes

Réponse des universitaires vénézuéliens à leurs collègues espagnols.

Le journal El País, vient de publier dans son édition de Madrid, le 23 décembre 2002, un manifeste signé par 64 membres – professeurs et chercheurs – de plusieurs universités espagnoles, soutenant le régime du président de la république du Venezuela: Hugo Chávez. Le principal argument avancé dans cette proclamation «en faveur de la légalité démocratique», s’appuie sur la légitimité du pouvoir de celui qui a été élu en deux occasions: 1998 et 2000.

Nous sommes sincèrement reconnaissants à nos collègues de leur préoccupation pour la crise qui sévit dans notre pays, ainsi que de leur remarquable générosité en assumant les frais de la publication à page entière de leur document. Nous comprenons également que, l’éloignement des évènements, la manipulation maladroite de certains stéréotypes due à certains médias internationaux, ajoutée à la coûteuse campagne de «désinformation» menée à bout par notre gouvernement, aient pu les induire en erreur au point de les amener à soutenir ce qu’ils croient être un gouvernement véritablement démocratique qui agit honnêtement en faveur des intérêts du peuple vénézuélien. Par contre, nous, les membres de diverses universités vénézuéliennes, qui connaissons et subissons les effets de cette malheureuse conjoncture, nous ne pouvons pas manquer de vous répondre dans le but de mettre au clair notre position face à l’opinion publique internationale.

C’est vrai: Chávez est arrivé au pouvoir en 1998, par le moyen des votes, bien qu’ils furent accompagnés par une importante abstention, abstention qui s’est accrue au moment de sa réélection, en 2000. Malgré la valeur accordée dans le contexte national et international à “la légitimité d’origine”, cette légitimité, à elle seule, suffit-elle à garantir “la légitimité d’exercice”? Cette légitimité d’origine ne peut-elle pas aller en se rétrécissant, naturellement, jusqu’à sa disparition sous l’effet des abus de pouvoir et de la violation des droits de l’homme? Hitler, Mussolini ou Fujimori avaient été élus, eux aussi, ce qui ne les a pas empêchés d’attenter contre le système, à partir du propre système et avec les propres armes du système. Il y a quatre ans, nous vénézuéliens, avons voté pour élire un président démocrate, pas un autocrate qui a violé, en plus de cent occasions, – dûment documentées et dénoncées par les juristes de notre pays – la Constitution qu’il prétend défendre; qui s’entête à vouloir imposer une pseudo- «révolution» qui n’existe que dans le volontarisme personnaliste et dans la rhétorique officielle; qui a bruyamment échoué en tant que gestionnaire, puisque sous son gouvernement le pays sombre dans l’ anarchie totale, et qui a, cependant, le toupet d’affirmer qu’il gouvernera jusqu’en 2021.

Dès le début de son mandat, le régime de Chávez a mis en œuvre l’abattement des institutions. Ses attaques et incursions contre l’armée, les partis politiques, les organisations syndicales et patronales, l’ Église, les universités, les polices locales, la marine marchande etc. sont manifestes. S’il est vrai que les «chavistes» ont gagné la majorité parlementaire et un bon nombre de gouvernements régionaux, il n’en est pas moins vrai qu’ils ont violé la loi de manière ostensible et récurrente afin d’imposer leur hégémonie sur le Pouvoir Judiciaire, le Pouvoir Moral (Défense et Accusation publiques et Contrôle de l’Administration publique) et le Pouvoir Electoral. Ce séquestre des pouvoirs publics est aujourd’hui évident, et se traduit par la désignation de fonctionnaires – beaucoup d’entre eux choisi parmi les militaires qui prirent part au coup d’Etat de 1992 – sélectionnés en fonction de leur loyauté inconditionnelle envers le président, plutôt que sur leur compétence et leur efficience ou des mérites prouvés dans l’exercice de leurs fonctions. C’est justement ce mépris de la «carrière professionnelle» des fonctionnaires qui a déclenché le conflit avec la compagnie pétrolière de l’Etat, PDVSA, composante importante, aujourd’hui du «paro cívico nacional».

Le abus de pouvoir de Chavez est extensif à la radio-télévision de l’Etat, transformée en un simple instrument publicitaire des faits et gestes du président et de son programme. Ce média de l’Etat est mis à sa disposition toutes les semaines pour transmettre ses interminables «cadenas» qu’il impose simultanément à tous les mass-media du pays, pour diffuser sur un ton paternaliste, pittoresque et agressif, ses allocutions émaillées d’insultes, d’admonitions et de bravades. Ce sont justement ces abus médiatiques qui ont poussé les médias privés à adopter une position politique que d’aucuns jugent exagérée et d’autres indispensable. C’est dommage que les rares leaders européens de l’opinion, imbus de la notion romantique de la révolution latino-américaine, qui, de leur confortable lointain, appuient la cause «chaviste», oublient toujours de faire référence à ce détail.

Le «chavisme», foncièrement totalitaire, ne tolère pas la dissidence. Il considère ses adversaires politiques comme des ennemis et il les affronte avec violence. Bon nombre de ces groupements, erronément appelés «Círculos Bolivarianos», que la population appelle «cercles de la terreur», sont des brigades mercenaires, entraînées et armées par le régime et guidées par certains des dirigeants les plus connus du gouvernement. Parmi leurs exploits les plus retentissants on compte l’assassinat des dix-neuf manifestants non-armés du 11 avril, dont la vidéo de Luis Fernández, (Prix du Roi d’Espagne au Journalisme, en 2002), rend compte, alors que les discours officiels attribuaient aux auteurs de ces crimes la qualité de «héros de la révolution». Le 10 décembre, un massacre à Altamira a produit trois morts, dont un très estimé collègue universitaire., à part la vingtaine de blessés. Arrêté in fraganti, le meurtrier avoua son crime, mais le Président de la République s’est chargé de le défendre publiquement au même moment où on enterrait ses victimes… Ce 3 janvier, nous avons encore dû ajouter deux morts de plus a ce douloureux record sanguinaire.

Les «cercles de la violence» ont toujours traqué les mass-média, certains d’ entre eux ayant subi des attaques à main armée, suivies de la destruction de leurs équipements et de dommages à leurs installations. Les agressions contre les journalistes et leurs caméramans dépassent les deux-cents cas. Certains d’entre eux ont sauvé leur vie grâce au port du gilet blindé qui fait maintenant partie de l’équipement des reporteurs; précaution que, malheureusement, le photographe Jorge Solorzano n’avait pas prise , le 11 avril , quand il fut assassiné. Ajoutons à cela les violations de domicile, les arrestations illégales, le séquestre et la torture subis par la militante de l’opposition Estrella Castellanos et, plus récemment, par les officiers de la marine, en plus des menaces devenues habituelles contre les leaders de l’opposition, etc. Il s’avère presque superflu de dire que le régime a systématiquement posé des obstacles aux investigations judiciaires concernant ces cas, de même qu’il a entravé l’instauration d’une «Commission de la Vérité» intégrée par des personnalités indépendantes sur le travail desquelles aurait droit de regard une commission internationale.

Malgré l’immense popularité des premiers temps de ce gouvernement et nonobstant la recette des revenus fiscaux les plus importants que l’histoire de ce pays ait jamais connus (49 milliards de dollars proviennent exclusivement de l’industrie du pétrole),Chávez a échoué sur le plan politique, sur le plan économique et sur le plan social. Il avait promis d’en finir avec la pauvreté, et il ne peut même pas montrer une mesure au bénéfice des pauvres; en effet, il a même éliminé les programmes sociaux qui existaient pour les remplacer par des dons circonstanciels qu’il octroie en contrepartie de la loyauté politique. Le chômage croissant, l’augmentation des impôts et la dévaluation de la monnaie assènent des coups à la classe moyenne. L’éducation, la santé, la sécurité sociale, l’alimentation et le transport, déjà déficients auparavant, ont encore sensiblement empiré. Il avait promis la décentralisation, et il a instauré un système de clientèle pervers, selon lequel seuls les maires et les gouverneurs régionaux soumis reçoivent les revenus nécessaires à l’administration de leurs régions. Une des promesses électorales les plus réitératives fut celle de combattre la corruption; cela fait longtemps qu’on n’en entend plus parler, car son gouvernement, dans la plus grande impudence, a battu tous les records antérieurs: des flots d’argent sont dévoyés vers les comptes bancaires de ses collaborateurs les plus proches et sont utilisés à l’achat d’armes et de consciences. Le plus grave pêché de ce gouverneur néfaste est sans doute sa pédagogie de la haine, du ressentiment et de l’affrontement social. Mais sur ce point aussi il a échoué, car, aujourd’hui, la grande majorité des vénézuéliens – voire ses propres sympathisants – nous misons sur la réconciliation, la coopération et la paix.

Il nous faudra longtemps pour réparer les effets de cette hécatombe, mais nous y parviendrons. Notre première démarche en ce sens exige la récupération du fonctionnement correct de nos institutions. C’est pourquoi, plus de deux millions de vénézuéliens, nous avons rempli tous les préceptes constitutionnels pour demander la convocation d’ un référendum qui consulte nos concitoyens sur la permanence de Chavez au pouvoir. Nous sommes également dans la meilleure disposition d’adhérer à toutes les démarches prévues dans la Constitution, y compris, entre autres, l’article 70. Les imposantes manifestations populaires et les prises de position manifestées par tous les secteurs de la vie nationale, y compris les universitaires et les intellectuels, ont force de jugement quotidien contre les excès du gouvernement. Les militaires qui ont légitimement récusé l’autorité du chef du gouvernement, l’ont fait sans armes, accompagnant les civils dans leurs protestations et se réclamant de l’article 350 de la Constitution, qui consacre la «désobéissance civile». Cette situation n’a aucun point en commun avec les coups d’ Etat des militaires qui prétendent s’imposer par la force des armes, comme ce fut le cas, en février 1992, quand Hugo Chávez se souleva contre un gouvernement élu démocratiquement. Ceux qui réclamons, aujourd’hui, une solution électorale à la crise politique, nous ne sommes ni «des groupes d’intérêts», ni des organisations politiques déplacées du pouvoir, comme votre manifeste l’affirme; pas plus, d’ailleurs que nous ne sommes «putschistes», ni «saboteurs», ni «fascistes» comme aiment l’affirmer sans cesse autant Chávez que ses acolytes. Absurde est le moins qu’on puisse dire de l’appellation de «putschistes» pour ceux qui demandent des élections et de «démocrates» pour ceux qui essayent par tous les moyens d’empêcher qu’elles aient lieu!

De sorte que, chers collègues, nous désavouons le document que vous avez soussigné et nous vous prions de réfléchir en conscience. Ne soyez pas dupes. Chávez n’est qu’un autocrate camouflé sous la toison de la constitutionalité. Sa rhétorique révolutionnaire, aux feintes réclamations de justice sociale, dissimule, en réalité, une dictature maladroite et avide de pouvoir. Tel que l’affichent tous les jours d’abondants témoignages graphiques, son adversaire est constitué par une société de citoyens pleins de noblesse, issue de toutes les classes sociales, chaque jour plus consciente, combattive et solidaire, à laquelle nous sommes fiers d’ appartenir.

Caracas, 13 janvier 2003

Publié dans le journal El País de Madrid, jeudi 23 janvier 2003-01-28

La publication de cette proclamation a été financée à travers la contribution individuelle des signataires