Caracas, November 25, 2008
Hi, Oscar
Question: I am trying to understand in a bit more depth what do these election results actually mean for the country. Was the opposition (broadly defined) hoping Chávez might fall under 50% support and now is disillusioned? Or is the fact that Caracas was won by them (you) enough reason for hope? Is Chávez really so positive about his loss as the pro-governmental media show?
Could you enlighten me on these questions, please (and/or if you access some good article/analysis of the elections, please share :)
Thanks
M.
Dear Mariya:
1.- In a pragmatist sense, I want to re-define my language game to differentiate it from the language of your question: Chávez Presidency was not on stake. What he was trying to do –and you follow him when you ask in those terms (even if you didn’t note it)- is to convert the governors and majors elections in a plebiscitary one: ‘If you vote by Ledezma, you are against me and you want Chávez to be killed and out of Miraflores, Oh, poor me!’. This discourse worked during 9 years, and was bought by many international analysts and journalists all around the world: that’s because i.e. the French leftist opinion believe we the opposition are a kind of pro Pinochet fascists. Now you know me and you’ve realized –I hope- that we are deep concerned with democratic values and behavior.
2.- During 9 years the opposition failed into this tricky discourse, saying ‘Vote for me for Major, and Chávez go away!’ When they (we) began to differentiate the issues on stake during the referendum last year, things began to change. The discourse was: Look, this is not personal: Chavez is the President and will continue being so, but here we are discussing a constitutional reform you should be concerned about. What do you think about this article onto the private property? And so on. People voted against the Constitutional Reform Project and not necessarily against the President, not matter what stupid French people we know can say.
3.- Chávez failed in his attempt to convert this election in a plebiscitary one. People made differences: Look, I still like Chávez, but Caracas now is the most dangerous city in the world (300 murders monthly) and we need solutions. The point is Major Juan Barreto and Major Freddy Bernal didn’t take care about this, the point is the President never showed concern with these kind of problems, and neither his candidates. So we need somebody else, people concerned openly and in public with the security claims of the citizens. Do you still love the President? Yes we do, but we need somebody else on charge in my district. Don’t you trust him? Not. But do you love him…? Yes. It may sound irrational and in fact it is. But think about a husband, who is a drunk and irresponsible for his children. Do you still love him? Yes. But do you trust him? Not. This is the terrible feeling you suffer when you are divorcing.
4.- You need to be mature to make this differences, and that’s because we got the majority in the largest cities of the country, there where the insecurity (killings, kidnaps) is the hardest task. So we defeated a particular politics of Chávez; the question for security, the concern for the public services and so on. We left behind the hyposthasys of believe he is the center of the universe (he loves it, indeed) and that the world should be described pro him or against him. We contested against Jessy Chacon, against Diosdado Cabello and against Aristobulo Isturiz en each case: and we won. In the small cities and towns, in the rural areas, they won. This is less instructed people, who cannot make easily a difference between their personal love for Chavez and their public concerns. Also for them the issue of insecurity is not a cornerstone like for us in the big cities. That’s because we won only 5 states, but we got almost 60% of the whole balloons. Largest populations of the country are inhabitants of this 5 States we won: Nueva Esparta, Táchira, Miranda, Zulia, Carabobo and we should include Capital District (Caracas DC). Therefore, the problems of insecurity are strongly affecting these large cities, and it was the focus of our campaign, not the personal figure of the President.
5.- Perhaps the feeling of divorce is becoming a reality, but we shall be linked with the President for a while: the formal separation perhaps will occur in 2012, in the presidential election. It will be very hard for him now to modify the Constitution in order to get indefinite terms. This is good for him and good for the democracy. We are putting check and balances to his office. He recognized this reality, and that’s because of his soft discourse. But he is still the most popular politician in Venezuela (near 50% of support in the last poll I’ve got) and we may not misunderstand the electoral results. I don’t see in this moment a leader able to defeat him in an electoral contest. But perhaps nobody has to, if he accepts the Constitution limits and leaves the office in 2013. Perhaps the contest in 2012 will be Jorge Rodriguez (Libertador’s new Major and the only person the President trusts in) versus Leopoldo López or some other young leader from the opposition. Is Chávez going to insist on his ambition to control the whole political power? That’s not my business. I don’t need him to be an angel: my job is to foster the check and balances institutions to secure our liberties. I hope the opposition left behind the counter–Chavez sick.
6.- Perhaps their governors and majors learned the lesson: not matter what Chávez says, they have to work hard, because the power is given by the people (the people organized is the real and pacific power, something very different from the violence of the State once they loss the power of gathering citizens into a project as Hannah Arendt said) and in consequence, if they want a second term they need the citizens’ support beyond Chavez will. It is going to be a hard reality next year: the budget was calculated onto the basis of a petroleum price near 60US$ per barrel, but now it has fallen under 50. The economic crisis is going to be the main concern next year, as The Economist predicted, and perhaps the occasion for new social struggles. So if we don’t want to disappear like the Titanic passengers we must found some minimal arrangements for governance, between the President, his governors and majors and ours.
7.- Is Chavez losing power in the way of violence from the State and capability to convoke people? Yes, and that’s good because he had too much and that’s perilous, as Lord Acton clearly advertised. So, we the opposition should be no more obsessed with Chávez neither trying to found a new Messiah to defeat him. Just to limit his excessive resources of violence is enough. And the only way we can achieve that goal is working even harder facing the elections next year for the county men and ladies and for the Congress in 2010. Even we should guarantee him a decent way to retire from Miraflores in 2013, if we really are democrats. What about a trial against him for crimes against the Human kind? That’s the dream of the right winged opposition, but is not my concern now. I’m not a jurist. First we have to clear what happened on April 11th, because a lot of people died, but in both sides. I need this true, before to judge anybody.
Receive my best regards.
O.
Question: I am trying to understand in a bit more depth what do these election results actually mean for the country. Was the opposition (broadly defined) hoping Chávez might fall under 50% support and now is disillusioned? Or is the fact that Caracas was won by them (you) enough reason for hope? Is Chávez really so positive about his loss as the pro-governmental media show?
Could you enlighten me on these questions, please (and/or if you access some good article/analysis of the elections, please share :)
Thanks
M.
Dear Mariya:
1.- In a pragmatist sense, I want to re-define my language game to differentiate it from the language of your question: Chávez Presidency was not on stake. What he was trying to do –and you follow him when you ask in those terms (even if you didn’t note it)- is to convert the governors and majors elections in a plebiscitary one: ‘If you vote by Ledezma, you are against me and you want Chávez to be killed and out of Miraflores, Oh, poor me!’. This discourse worked during 9 years, and was bought by many international analysts and journalists all around the world: that’s because i.e. the French leftist opinion believe we the opposition are a kind of pro Pinochet fascists. Now you know me and you’ve realized –I hope- that we are deep concerned with democratic values and behavior.
2.- During 9 years the opposition failed into this tricky discourse, saying ‘Vote for me for Major, and Chávez go away!’ When they (we) began to differentiate the issues on stake during the referendum last year, things began to change. The discourse was: Look, this is not personal: Chavez is the President and will continue being so, but here we are discussing a constitutional reform you should be concerned about. What do you think about this article onto the private property? And so on. People voted against the Constitutional Reform Project and not necessarily against the President, not matter what stupid French people we know can say.
3.- Chávez failed in his attempt to convert this election in a plebiscitary one. People made differences: Look, I still like Chávez, but Caracas now is the most dangerous city in the world (300 murders monthly) and we need solutions. The point is Major Juan Barreto and Major Freddy Bernal didn’t take care about this, the point is the President never showed concern with these kind of problems, and neither his candidates. So we need somebody else, people concerned openly and in public with the security claims of the citizens. Do you still love the President? Yes we do, but we need somebody else on charge in my district. Don’t you trust him? Not. But do you love him…? Yes. It may sound irrational and in fact it is. But think about a husband, who is a drunk and irresponsible for his children. Do you still love him? Yes. But do you trust him? Not. This is the terrible feeling you suffer when you are divorcing.
4.- You need to be mature to make this differences, and that’s because we got the majority in the largest cities of the country, there where the insecurity (killings, kidnaps) is the hardest task. So we defeated a particular politics of Chávez; the question for security, the concern for the public services and so on. We left behind the hyposthasys of believe he is the center of the universe (he loves it, indeed) and that the world should be described pro him or against him. We contested against Jessy Chacon, against Diosdado Cabello and against Aristobulo Isturiz en each case: and we won. In the small cities and towns, in the rural areas, they won. This is less instructed people, who cannot make easily a difference between their personal love for Chavez and their public concerns. Also for them the issue of insecurity is not a cornerstone like for us in the big cities. That’s because we won only 5 states, but we got almost 60% of the whole balloons. Largest populations of the country are inhabitants of this 5 States we won: Nueva Esparta, Táchira, Miranda, Zulia, Carabobo and we should include Capital District (Caracas DC). Therefore, the problems of insecurity are strongly affecting these large cities, and it was the focus of our campaign, not the personal figure of the President.
5.- Perhaps the feeling of divorce is becoming a reality, but we shall be linked with the President for a while: the formal separation perhaps will occur in 2012, in the presidential election. It will be very hard for him now to modify the Constitution in order to get indefinite terms. This is good for him and good for the democracy. We are putting check and balances to his office. He recognized this reality, and that’s because of his soft discourse. But he is still the most popular politician in Venezuela (near 50% of support in the last poll I’ve got) and we may not misunderstand the electoral results. I don’t see in this moment a leader able to defeat him in an electoral contest. But perhaps nobody has to, if he accepts the Constitution limits and leaves the office in 2013. Perhaps the contest in 2012 will be Jorge Rodriguez (Libertador’s new Major and the only person the President trusts in) versus Leopoldo López or some other young leader from the opposition. Is Chávez going to insist on his ambition to control the whole political power? That’s not my business. I don’t need him to be an angel: my job is to foster the check and balances institutions to secure our liberties. I hope the opposition left behind the counter–Chavez sick.
6.- Perhaps their governors and majors learned the lesson: not matter what Chávez says, they have to work hard, because the power is given by the people (the people organized is the real and pacific power, something very different from the violence of the State once they loss the power of gathering citizens into a project as Hannah Arendt said) and in consequence, if they want a second term they need the citizens’ support beyond Chavez will. It is going to be a hard reality next year: the budget was calculated onto the basis of a petroleum price near 60US$ per barrel, but now it has fallen under 50. The economic crisis is going to be the main concern next year, as The Economist predicted, and perhaps the occasion for new social struggles. So if we don’t want to disappear like the Titanic passengers we must found some minimal arrangements for governance, between the President, his governors and majors and ours.
7.- Is Chavez losing power in the way of violence from the State and capability to convoke people? Yes, and that’s good because he had too much and that’s perilous, as Lord Acton clearly advertised. So, we the opposition should be no more obsessed with Chávez neither trying to found a new Messiah to defeat him. Just to limit his excessive resources of violence is enough. And the only way we can achieve that goal is working even harder facing the elections next year for the county men and ladies and for the Congress in 2010. Even we should guarantee him a decent way to retire from Miraflores in 2013, if we really are democrats. What about a trial against him for crimes against the Human kind? That’s the dream of the right winged opposition, but is not my concern now. I’m not a jurist. First we have to clear what happened on April 11th, because a lot of people died, but in both sides. I need this true, before to judge anybody.
Receive my best regards.
O.
