THE DEFENSE OF DEMOCRACY IS THE DEFENSE OF LIBERTY AND HUMAN RIGHTS
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