To: webnews@washingtonpost.com Subject: my opinio on Mark Weisbrot's article Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 08:50:53 -0800 (PST)

Dear Mr. Weisbrot,

I have just finished reading your article "A Split Screen In Strike-Torn Venezuela" published on Sunday, January 12, 2003. And I can't believe the lightness with which you write about the crisis my country is going through.

We are a democratic country and we are a capitalistic one as well. Therefore, calling on a general strike will never have 100% backing from the people because if that would be the case then why bother with a strike! Our strike is not about a group against another but the people vs. the government. In South Africa the strikes were against apartheid and they lasted around 9 days each time. Being a capitalistic country means that we, the people, need to work to eat. There is no government paying our bills. So believing that business will remain totally closed is not only stupid but simplistic and unreal. The level of commitment varies from person to person and we, the people, are no match, financially speaking, to our government which has no family to feed. Only a very tiny percentage of the population has enough funds to stay home for extended periods of times. We, the people, can stay away from some sort of work a week maybe a month but after that we have no funds to keep going. Unless of course you suggest we kill all the member of our family to pursue our dream.

I don't believe in God, I'm a true atheist but I live in a country where most people are Catholics and Christmas has a special meaning. We are also a very young society with a marked reverence to youth and children. Therefore strike or no strike people were going to try give their children Santa Claus. It was one more effort to bring normality to our lives. We don't want to give up who we are, we just want to improve who we are and what we have. We don't want to go backwards.

Yes, it is true that on the eastern side of the city the strike is more strict. However, the reasons why on the west the strike is not so obvious is not as simple as you put it. Yes, a lot of Chavez's followers are there but there is also a big number of businesses who are afraid to remain closed because they can be attacked by these followers. (Remember that Chavez has lost control of his radical groups and he never controlled the common criminals around the cities.)

As I mentioned in my letter to Prof. Amy Chua, Yale University, luckily THIS IS NOT THE USA and Chavez cannot crush this strike because we are simply too many. If he were to fire the people who are on strike there wouldn't be many people working. He cannot fire all the teacher because he would have to close the schools, the public schools that is (by the way, have you come across Chavez's new history and social study books? Do you know what they contain?). He had a road market to mitigate the strike that lasted only a couple of days because they ran out of goods, the military rebelled against being street vendors and guess what?! The prices were higher than in the east end of town!

The merchandise they have confiscated from what they call "acaparamiento ilicito" are TVs, soft drinks and beers which they give out among the military and on the poorer areas of town. Are those basic goods like milk or diapers? I guess not.

Chavez has let loose some of his pitbulls (National Guard) against peaceful demonstrators and they will have to respond to crimes against humanity, but that will be later. He knows that the more he attacks the people the less popular he becomes.

This is not an oil strike, although they are the one who can strike longer. This a strike of the general population against a government incapable to offer its people social well-being. I noticed that you mentioned the skin color of the people in favor of Chavez in the marches. The marches of the oppositon have more people therefore you will see more variation. And in case you didn't know most Venezuelans have some indigenous or African blood in them. I'LL REPEAT THIS IS NOT THE USA. Being 'more well dressed' does not make us less Venezuelan or are you suggesting that we have to be poor and 'noticeable darker' to have the right to protest against what we believe is wrong?

If we lift the strike today, which you say does not exist, they country is literally broke, not the government but the people. There are businesses which will never reopen and it will take a few years to get back to normal, but we are willing to endure all this and more to ensure a free Venezuela with social well-being for all.

Reading your article has made me sick. I truly wonder have much were you paid to write such a superficial and misleading article. If you cannot tell the truth remain silent. If you cannot be objective find another line of work. Twisting the truth to accommodate your short-sighted opinion is irresponsible and criminal.

We have sufficient problems as is, we don't need outsiders to inflame the situation with distortions of the truth.

Virginia Bushell

A Split Screen In Strike-Torn Venezuela By Mark Weisbrot Sunday, January 12, 2003; Page B04

Walking around Caracas late last month during Venezuela's ongoing protests, I was surprised by what I saw. My expectations had been shaped by persistent U.S. media coverage of the nationwide strike called by the opposition, which seeks President Hugo Chavez's ouster. Yet in most of the city, where poor and working-class people live, there were few signs of the strike. Streets were crowded with holiday shoppers, metro trains and buses were running normally, and shops were open for business. Only in the eastern, wealthier neighborhoods of the capital were businesses mostly closed.

This is clearly an oil strike, not a "general strike," as it is often described. At the state-owned oil company, PDVSA, which controls the industry, management is leading the strike because it is at odds with the Chavez government. And while Venezuela depends on oil for 80 percent of its export earnings and half its national budget, the industry's workers represent a tiny fraction of the labor force. Outside the oil industry, it is hard to find workers who are actually on strike. Some have been locked out from their jobs, as business owners -- including big foreign corporations such as McDonald's and FedEx -- have closed their doors in support of the opposition.

Most Americans seem to believe that the Chavez government is a dictatorship, and one of the most repressive governments in Latin America. But these impressions are false.

Not only was Chavez democratically elected, his government is probably one of the least repressive in Latin America. This, too, is easy to see in Caracas. While army troops are deployed to protect Miraflores (the presidential compound), there is little military or police presence in most of the capital, which is particularly striking in such a tense and volatile political situation. No one seems the least bit afraid of the national government, and despite the seriousness of this latest effort to topple it, no one has been arrested for political activities.

Chavez has been reluctant to use state power to break the strike, despite the enormous damage to the economy. In the United States, a strike of this sort -- one that caused massive damage to the economy, or one where public or private workers were making political demands -- would be declared illegal. Its participants could be fired, and its leaders -- if they persisted in the strike -- imprisoned under a court injunction. In Venezuela, the issue has yet to be decided. The supreme court last month ordered PDVSA employees back to work until it rules on the strike's legality.

To anyone who has been in Venezuela lately, opposition charges that Chavez is "turning the country into a Castro-communist dictatorship" -- repeated so often that millions of Americans apparently now believe them -- are absurd on their face.

If any leaders have a penchant for dictatorship in Venezuela, it is the opposition's. On April 12 they carried out a military coup against the elected government. They installed the head of the business federation as president and dissolved the legislature and the supreme court, until mass protests and military officers reversed the coup two days later.

Military officers stand in Altamira Plaza and openly call for another coup. It is hard to think of another country where this could happen. The government's efforts to prosecute leaders of the coup were canceled when the court dismissed the charges in August. Despite the anger of his supporters, some of whom lost friends and relatives last year during the two days of the coup government, Chavez respected the decision of the court.

The opposition controls the private media, and to watch TV in Caracas is truly an Orwellian experience. The five private TV stations (there is one state-owned channel) that reach most Venezuelans play continuous anti-Chavez propaganda. But it is worse than that: They are also shamelessly dishonest. For example, on Dec. 6 an apparently deranged gunman fired on a crowd of opposition demonstrators, killing three and injuring dozens. Although there was no evidence linking the government to the crime, the television news creators -- armed with footage of bloody bodies and grieving relatives -- went to work immediately to convince the public that Chavez was responsible. Soon after the shooting, they were broadcasting grainy video clips allegedly showing the assailant attending a pro-Chavez rally.

Now consider how people in Caracas's barrios see the opposition, a view rarely heard in the United States: Led by representatives of the corrupt old order, the opposition is trying to overthrow a government that has won three elections and two referendums since 1998. Its coup failed partly because hundreds of thousands of people risked their lives by taking to the streets to defend democracy. So now it is crippling the economy with an oil strike. The upper classes are simply attempting to gain through economic sabotage what they could not and -- given the intense rivalry and hatred among opposition groups and leaders -- still cannot win at the ballot box.

From the other side of the class divide, the conflict is also seen as a struggle over who will control and benefit from the nation's oil riches. Over the last quarter-century PDVSA has swelled to a $50 billion a year enterprise, while the income of the average Venezuelan has declined and poverty has increased more than anywhere in Latin America. Billions of dollars of the oil company's revenue could instead be used to finance health care and education for millions of Venezuelans.

Now add Washington to the mix: The United States, alone in the Americas, supported the coup, and before then it increased its financial support of the opposition. Washington shares PDVSA executives' goals of increasing oil production, busting OPEC quotas and even selling off the company to private foreign investors. So it is not surprising that the whole conflict is seen in much of Latin America as just another case of Washington trying to overthrow an independent, democratically elected government.

This view from the barrios seems plausible. The polarization of Venezuelan demonstrations themselves. The pro-government marches are filled with poor and working-class people who are noticeably darker -- descendants of the country's indigenous people and African slaves -- than the more expensively dressed upper classes of the opposition. Supporters of the opposition that I spoke with dismissed these differences, insisting that Chavez's followers were simply "ignorant," and were being manipulated by a "demagogue."

But for many, Chavez is the best, and possibly last, hope not only for social and economic betterment, but for democracy itself. At the pro-government demonstrations, people carry pocket-size copies of the country's 1999 constitution, and vendors hawk them to the crowds. Leaders of the various non-governmental organizations that I met with, who helped draft the constitution, have different reasons for revering it: women's groups, for example, because of its anti-discrimination articles; and indigenous leaders because it is the first to recognize their people's rights. But all see themselves as defending constitutional democracy and civil liberties against what they describe as "the threat of fascism" from the opposition.

This threat is very real. Opposition leaders have made no apologies for the April coup, nor for the arrest and killing of scores of civilians during the two days of illegal government. They continue to stand up on television and appeal for another coup -- which, given the depth of Chavez's support, would have to be bloody in order to hold power.

Where does the U.S. government now stand on the question of democracy in Venezuela? The Bush administration joined the opposition in taking advantage of the Dec. 6 shootings to call for early elections, which would violate the Venezuelan constitution. The administration reversed itself the next week, but despite paying lip service to the negotiations mediated by the OAS, it has done nothing to encourage its allies in the opposition to seek a constitutional or even a peaceful solution.

Sixteen members of Congress sent a letter to Bush last month, asking him to state clearly that the United States would not have normal diplomatic relations with a coup-installed government in Venezuela. But despite its apprehension about disruption of Venezuelan oil supplies on the eve of a probable war against Iraq, the Bush administration is not yet ready to give up any of its options for "regime change" in Caracas. And -- not surprisingly -- neither is the Venezuelan opposition.

Mark Weisbrot is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, an independent nonpartisan think tank in Washington.

OPINION PARA "LA VANGUARDIA DIGITAL" (Barcelona)

Cuando el 2 de febrero de 1999 Hugo Chávez asumió la presidencia en medio de una gran esperanza popular, jamás hubiera imaginado que años después los venezolanos saldrían en forma masiva a las calles, día tras día, en Caracas y en muchas ciudades del país, para pedir su renuncia o elecciones anticipadas. Quien se creía dueño absoluto del fervor popular, quien gobernó prácticamente sin oposición al menos durante los dos primeros años de su mandato, tiene ahora a gran parte del país en su contra. El inicial respaldo ciudadano, y una personalidad autoritaria, que el entrenamiento de años en la Academia Militar había ido exacerbando, le llevaron a concebir su gestión en el gobierno como una campaña militar en la cual los objetivos se van alcanzando de modo frío e implacable, sin consideración alguna para los daños y desastres que ese esfuerzo provoque.

Creyendo que su presidencia estaba dando forma a una nueva epopeya histórica, teniendo como bandera el combate a la corrupción y la redención de los desposeídos, Chávez jamás percibió que el respaldo electoral en sucesivas votaciones no eran más que el fruto de las expectativas -siempre incumplidas- que despertó en base a una demagogia suicida.

En la soberbia de creer que seguía siendo amado hasta morir por un pueblo que lo respaldó en el pasado, pero que terminó dándole la espalda, y aferrado a los cartabones de una fantasiosa revolución que ha pagado con pobreza y autocracia la ingenuidad o negligencia política de los venezolanos, Chávez ha seguido gobernando con desdén por las preocupaciones fundamentales de la población. En esas circunstancias, el derroche descarado del dinero público, el rápido enriquecimiento de la "nomenclatura" chavista, la ineficiencia administrativa, el colapso del sistema productivo, las violaciones consuetudinarias al marco constitucional y legal, la descalificación ruidosa de toda disidencia y el atropello violento a los opositores políticos con ayuda de bandas financiadas desde el palacio presidencial de Miraflores, han sido los rasgos más destacados de un gobierno cada vez más arbitrario.

Pese al desastre económico y la tremenda fractura social provocada por la gestión del presidente Hugo Chávez, el enfrentamiento actual con la oposición no es una lucha por el poder político dentro del sistema democrático. Es una lucha entre dos sistemas políticos que no pueden coexistir: la democracia por un lado y una revolución autoritaria por el otro, a la que no hay que ponerle etiquetas de marxista, castrista, ni cualquier otra definición de alguna ideología política. Se trata del chavismo, que nadie sabe qué es ni a donde conduce. La única certeza es que con Chávez en el poder no hay posibilidad de tranquilidad social, ni progreso, ni inversión, ni finanzas transparentes. La creciente militarización del país en todos los sectores de la vida nacional conduce a una autocracia cuartelera en la que ya apenas existen instituciones, Estado de derecho o separación de poderes.

El analista Alberto Quirós Corradi señalaba en el diario "El Nacional" que en Venezuela la negociación para que "gane" uno u otro bando, como se hace en unas elecciones normales dentro de un sistema democrático, no es posible. "Nadie 'negocia' su propia destrucción. Por tanto, cualquier salida negociada a esta crisis habrá que verla como un paso hacia un conflicto que, hoy por hoy, parece inevitable y que, tarde o temprano, decidirá quién se va y quién se queda", señala Quirós Corradi.

A pesar de recurrir al dinero público para comprar acarreados, Chávez perdió la capacidad de movilizar a sus partidarios: las veces que ha osado medirse en la calle con la oposición ha sido vapuleado. El viernes 20 de diciembre, mientras la disidencia movilizaba a cientos de miles de personas, Chávez a duras penas lograba meter a unos 6.000 "bolivarianos" frente a la sede de la compañía petrolera PDVSA en La Campiña. El 31 de diciembre, para despedir el Año Viejo y recibir el 2003, volvió a evidenciarse que el presidente ha perdido la calle. Sólo un puñado de "boinas rojas" logró reunir en el convite, mientras centenares de miles de opositores participaban en una fiesta que levantó el ánimo por su alegría y optimismo. El episodio era tan bochornoso para el chavismo que el canal oficial Venezolana de Televisión, cortó la transmisión y optó por reponer viejos videos de salsa.

Lo que ocurre en Caracas se repite en todo el país. Las encuestas y demás sondeos de opinión muestran el derrumbe de la popularidad de Chávez en todos los sectores sociales. La última medición de Datanálisis apenas le daba el 20 % de apoyo.

Sin embargo, a Chávez no parece importarle las manifestaciones populares ni las encuestas que sentencian su impopularidad. Actúa como si ignorara todas las expresiones de descontento. Habla del "soberano" como si todavía le apoyara el 80 por ciento de los venezolanos. Pero sabe bien que eso es mentira. Por eso no acepta elecciones anticipadas ni permite celebrar el referéndum consultivo convocado por el Consejo Nacional Electoral para el próximo 2 de febrero. En la Mesa de Negociación y Acuerdos bloquea cualquier salida electoral que cerraría la enorme fractura que separa al país. Los argumentos que esgrime para rechazar una consulta a las urnas que demanda la gran mayoría del país están sustentados en una Constitución que ha irrespetado en muchas ocasiones, pero que contempla muchas fórmulas para celebrar la votación sin violar la institucionalidad.

La sociedad civil venezolana experimenta en el último año el cambio más notable que se recuerda en la historia nacional. Trino Márquez recuerda en "El Globo" que lo que más se aproxima a lo que se vive en la actualidad son las transformaciones que se produjeron en Venezuela después de la muerte de Juan Vicente Gómez, cuando aparecen los grandes partidos políticos, se fortalecen los sindicatos y los gremios profesionales, y surgen las federaciones empresariales.

Todos los analistas e historiadores coinciden en que nunca hubo una movilización ciudadana como la que ahora se observa a diario. La pasión que se vive actualmente, promovida en buena parte por la incorporación a las manifestaciones de los jóvenes y las mujeres, es un fenómeno reciente. Este es un movimiento inspirado por la defensa de la libertad y la democracia, valores que podrían parecen excentricidades en un país con el 80 % de pobreza y en el que la clase media pasa a ser una franja cada vez más reducida. Una nación con estas características socioeconómicas es la que sale a luchar, no por ésta o aquella reivindicación salarial, sino por un valor a la vez universal y abstracto como es la democracia.

Chávez tacha de "golpistas", "terroristas" y "fascistas" a quienes piden elecciones. Sus desplantes e insultos frente al inmenso esfuerzo de una sociedad que está dispuesta a sacrificarlo todo se afincan en la prepotencia que le insuflan los fusiles y las tanquetas de los militares con los que busca frenar la indignación los ciudadanos armados con cacerolas, pitos, gorras multicolores y banderas.