April 30/13 | Reflexiones sobre muy merecida Carta del Ex Presidente Pastrana al Presidente Santos

¿Que le dijo Santos? ¿Algo así como, "Cuento contigo para mi reelección..."?

PMBComentario | Abajo encontraran la Carta que el Ex Presidente de Colombia Andrés Pastrana Arango envió el día de hoy (30 de abril) al Presidente Juan Manuel Santos. Es una carta dura pero muy digna de un demócrata - y gran amigo de Venezuela - dirigida a un Presidente que ha estado muy (pero muy) por debajo de las exigencias del momento. 

Parece mentira que hace poco el hoy Presidente de los colombianos escribía así: "Venezuela va camino de una despiadada dictadura o hacia una guerra civil. Y a casi nadie parece importarle o darse por enterado. Los últimos hechos así lo confirman y las consecuencias para América Latina, pero sobre todo para nosotros los colombianos, serán funestas" y continuaba diciendo "Lo grave es que, mientras se desarrolla lo que ha resultado ser la gran farsa del referéndum, el régimen de Chávez no ha escatimado esfuerzos para afianzar su revolución bolivariana y cerrarles cada vez más espacios a la oposición y a la democracia" y entre otras cosas por el estilo concluye reclamando: "Todo esto ante la indiferencia de las democracias continentales. En qué queda la Carta de la OEA? Dónde está la solidaridad democrática? Qué se hicieron los países amigos del Secretario General? Hasta Lula advirtió la semana pasada que Venezuela iba hacia una guerra civil si sigue irrespetando los cauces constitucionales ... Pero el resto del continente y del mundo no ha dicho ni mu. Semejante indiferencia, ceguera o imbecilidad puede resultar cómplice de una catástrofe política y social de enormes magnitudes. Las primeras víctimas serán los propios venezolanos. Las segundas, sus vecinos:nosotros los colombianos". Cierro comillas, e invito a leer el articulo entero de donde extraigo estas citas del ciudadano Juan Manuel Santos. Si bien no era Presidente entonces, contaba con casi 53 años - edad madura donde el cambio de valores y principios ya no lucen ni divierten.  

Tremenda inconsistencia e irresponsabilidad histórica bien merecen no solo esta durísima carta del Ex Presidente Pastrana sino el repudio de todos los demócratas del hemisferio. PMB

Bogotá, 30 de abril de 2013

Doctor
JUAN MANUEL SANTOS CALDERON
Presidente de la República
Ciudad

Señor Presidente:
Los recientes intercambios epistolares con Usted en torno a las relaciones exteriores de Colombia y el fin de la Comisión Asesora de Relaciones Exteriores han dejado en claro al país la ruptura del consenso nacional en materia de política  exterior.
La beligerancia en el debate interno y la ambigüedad en el trato con otras naciones son prueba fehaciente del nuevo rumbo que, entre otras cosas, lleva el debate a cielo abierto y libera a los miembros de la Comisión de las ataduras de la confidencialidad que en sus convocatorias fue norma.
Desde esta perspectiva me ha resultado sorprendente la ruptura de este gobierno de aún los requisitos mínimos de legalidad que deben signar las relaciones con nuestra hermana Venezuela. Sin siquiera guardar las formas diplomáticas de nuestra tradición democrática, el señor Presidente ha cambiado el eje de la política exterior para reconocer un gobierno antes de que se cuenten los votos y asumir la vocería y defensa de quien a todas luces es un mandatario en entredicho de una frágil democracia al borde de la dictadura.
Su expresión: "No es constructivo que los Estados Unidos no reconozca a Maduro", es una muestra de la política que asume hoy el señor Presidente de Colombia en nombre del sucesor de su 'nuevo mejor amigo' en un momento crucial para nuestra anhelada paz, que hoy parece condicionada a los vínculos venezolanos con las FARC.
Debo reconocer que cuando advertimos sobre los peligros de amarrar la paz a la reelección del señor Presidente nunca llegamos a considerar que en esa bandeja se entregaría al chavismo y sus aliados la cabeza de la democracia venezolana.
Como colombiano y como demócrata no puedo ser partícipe del sacrificio de la democracia venezolana en el altar de su reelección. Estoy convencido de que el diálogo interno basado en la verdad -que reclama el Santo Padre para nuestra hermana nación- debe ser la base del entendimiento y las buenas relaciones para garantizar una futura Venezuela democrática.
Por lo tanto, debo expresar al señor Presidente mi total rechazo a la política de complacencia de su gobierno y de su coalición de gobierno frente a la manipulación de los resultados de la elección presidencial venezolana a favor del régimen imperante.
Sin otro particular, me suscribo del señor Presidente.
Atentamente,

Con la firma de Andrés Pastrana Arango
Expresidente de Colombia

Read more of this PMBComment!

Apr 15/13 I Venezuela Electoral/Political Crisis: I invite you to follow me on Twitter

Of all the scenarios anticipated in my post of April 11th (see right below) the interim government of Nicolas Maduro opted for the most unsurvivable for him and his cronies. After the well documented abuse he did not have the option of stealing the election by a razor thin margin. As I wrote on the 11th:

Pollsters - from both camps - now talk about a one-digit gap, with 100% of the momentum in favor of Capriles. This puts us on track for a nerve-racking outcome or something worse. A victory by a narrow margin by either candidate might prove untenable. The incumbent, propelled by the business-as-usual abuse of rules and power and still trumpeting a 20% margin of victory, needs to clear the hurdle by a comfortable margin if the country and the world are to validate this unjust contest as a fair election. Yes, when you abuse the power of incumbency thou shalt deal with incredulity and illegitimacy as a logical reaction.

As the situation in Venezuela becomes more complex by the hour I invite you to follow me via my Twitter account (mostly in Spanish, but increasingly also in English): 

@pburelli

Read more of this PMBComment!

Apr 11/13 | Venezuela: One more go at an electoral solution to it's long nightmare

Same baseball cap, but VERY different men!

PMBComment | The shortest presidential campaign in Latin American history ends today and, God willing, votes will be cast and counted across Venezuela on Sunday the 14th. Who will inherit the messy mantle left behind by Castro-wannabe Hugo Chávez? It is impossible to say for sure. I, for one, am not willing to bet a penny on the outcome of an unusual contest where the 'favorite', Chávez's hand-picked successor, has turned out to be much much much (yes, three times much) worse than we all assumed, while the 'underdog' has sharpened his act - and his political dagger - beyond anyone's wildest expectations.

All polls are showing a dramatic narrowing of the gap separating the two candidates.

Right after the death of Hugo Chávez, Nicolas Maduro seemed a shoo-in with a 20% sympathy-vote-driven lead over Henrique Capriles. However, the Capriles that stepped into the ring this time is a changed man, with a crisper, more determined approach towards a contest in which he not only has to, yet again, re energize the opposition, but, most importantly, convince undecided voters and low-calorie-chavistas (a.k.a. chavistas lights), that he has the wherewithal to lead (or drag) an off-kilter nation away from its otherwise certain destiny: a bottomless and ruinous precipice. His task has been made somewhat easier by the growing sense that Maduro is, at best, a pirated catalogue of the worst traits of the unburied Comandante Presidente ('todos sus defectos, ninguna de sus virtudes').

Pollsters - from both camps - now talk about a one-digit gap, with 100% of the momentum in favor of Capriles. This puts us on track for a nerve-racking outcome or something worse. A victory by a narrow margin by either candidate might prove untenable. The incumbent, propelled by the business-as-usual abuse of rules and power and still trumpeting a 20% margin of victory, needs to clear the hurdle by a comfortable margin if the country and the world are to validate this unjust contest as a fair election. Yes, when you abuse the power of incumbency thou shalt deal with incredulity and illegitimacy as a logical reaction.

For Capriles the problem is quite different, if victorious against all original odds, he has the unenviable challenge of grabbing hold of - and retaining - the reins of power. The smaller the margin the more formidable the task. That said, I would be willing to bet that a Capriles upset would be followed not by sustained violence but by relief or even the kind of joy that we saw when the Berlin Wall suddenly crumbled or the 1991 KGB-led coup failed in Moscow. 

However, unbeknownst to all, in this second scenario, unlikely a few weeks ago, there is one huge uncertainty: When exactly would Capriles assume power IF he manages to pull off an upset? Well, nobody knows for sure. The 1999 Bolivarian Constitution is silent on this. It states - as we all know - that elections have to be called within 30 days of a formal ruling on the absolute absence of the President.  But, it says nothing about the nontrivial Inauguration that must follows the election. This clearly poses zero problems if Maduro wins; the Inauguration would probably take place as soon as Evo, Daniel and Rafael can haul their respective selves to Caracas (I doubt that Raul would risk making an appearance, but Lula might join in to collect his fees); but it does present a real challenge in the event of a Capriles upset. Too short a transition would be a daunting task, too long a transition a monumental risk. The intention of the framers of our Constitution must have been to resolve this in the shortest possible time. The peremptory period of 30 days for the election reveals that there was a sense of urgency associated with remedying the absolute absence of the head of state. Intentions aside, we will in all likelihood be in the hands of the Court of Supreme Injustice - or worst yet, in the kind of limbo no doctor would prescribe to a highly polarized society.

I bring this procedural matter to your attention to highlight yet another early challenge distinct from the oft discussed matters of the economy (in shambles), security (or lack thereof), military (demoralized and fractured), social expectations (undeliverable) and foreign meddling (unacceptably real)...to name but a few of our nightmares in inventory.

Some in the Venezuelan opposition have reached the sangfroid conclusion that a Maduro victory is the best outcome as it ensures that the consequences (and the full blame) for the certain macro debacle are borne by those that have mismanaged the affairs of the Bolivarian state. There is a perverse logic to this 'let the guilty foot the bill’ approach. The problem is that it is not just a bus-load of inane, incompetent and corrupt pols, bureaucrats, soldiers and bolicronies that will pay, it will be all of Venezuela that will suffer dearly. Betting on surviving such calamity unscathed is tantamount to jumping from a plane in your Sunday best sans a parachute, i.e. foolish, senseless and not a pretty picture.

The reconstruction of Venezuela has to start with the expulsion from power - preferably via the ballot box - of those that have proven over and over to be both incompetent and callous. This does not mean that opposition control of the Executive Branch is going to bring about a magical reversal of fortunes. But with power in the hands of proven derelicts nothing will start to get better, and much would actually get worse. The decline of Venezuela’s fortune started long before the arrival of Chávez - his election was at first a mere consequence of that involution - but, over fourteen years of misrule, Chávez and his cohorts became the cause of problems we would have never foreseen and have yet to be fully understood by the suffering public at large.

Mr Maduro’s obvious inadequacies and Mr. Capriles’ surprising resilience have brought us, yet again, to an inflection point to be resolved by the will of the people and the whim of a shamelessly biased electoral tribunal. As in the Constitutional Reform Referendum of December 02, 2007, it will be up to the voters, the students and the institutional elements within the politicized military to ensure that whim shall not trump will. I have a great deal of confidence that if the votes are cast for change, change will win the day whether Fidel Castro and his Venezuelan puppets like it or not. 

The good thing about snap elections is that we will not be in suspense much longer. The best poll of the week will be Sunday’s. The best outcome for Venezuela not exactly paved with rose petals. and the worst scenario too dire to imagine. PMB

Read more of this PMBComment!

Mar 05/13 | Hugo Chávez is dead, "Here be dragons"

Apres moi le deluge

PMBComment | Hugo Chávez (1954-2013) will be eulogized - and even lionized, today, but his misdeeds will take years to mend. He was a rude divider and a reckless weaver of myth and chaos. Some will miss him dearly, many will not shed a tear. What group you fall into depends on your understanding of or stance on Venezuelan political history, on whether you were on the receiving end of his control-free largess or the butt of his relentless vitriol and vindictiveness, on your views of the necessity or the perniciousness of self-appointed societal or global avengers. It all depends. I have no doubt where I stand. 

In February of 1998, months before the election that he won as a result of the most unbelievable accumulation of errors on the part of Venezuela's exhausted political and business elites, I had a unique opportunity to meet Lt. Col. Chávez. He crashed a lunch I was having in my house with a close family friend who had crossed all sorts of lines to become one of the closest aides to the failed coupster. Uninvited, and to some extent unwelcome, he ended up staying 7 hours. At the time, I was a member of the Board of Petróleos de Venezuela (PDVSA) and Chávez was intent on understanding everything about oil despite the fact that it was clear he had made up his mind on these all-too-critical matters without concern for geology, economics or fact. After a tense start, the conversation evolved well, he was attentive and took copious notes, his follow up questions showed that he had assimilated information even if it went against his obvious bias. 

Fours hours into our conversation, we touched on the subject of the December elections. Polls showed that two years after being graciously released from jail - without limits on his political rights - he had only 3% support (this in fact had been President Caldera's gamble when releasing him). He said that he expected to use this as a trail to be ready for a serious run in 2002, I ventured to say: "Hugo, you will probably win in December". He was shocked and said it was impossible. Let me tell you what I have seen in you during these hours, I said. "You are unexpectedly charming, very quick on your feet, you are endowed with what an uncle of mine used to call 'an encyclopedic ignorance' and you are totally irresponsible...and this Hugo, is an unbeatable combination at a time when many Venezuelans are seeking a break from what AD and Copei have become. Some will underestimate you, others will overestimate you and no one will be able to tell when you are lying - not even you!". He was aghast but pleased. 

I continued, "The problem here is that if you win, which I am willing to bet will be the case, you will not be the solution to Venezuela's problem but the embodiment of them...your election will prove that forty years of democratic experiment has yielded very little as nothing reflects better the state of a country than its choice of leaders. So, if they pick you...you automatically win your own argument as to the state of our democracy". Interestingly he was not offended and actually teased his friend (who went on to high offices) "You see Colonel, Pedro Mario thinks we have more chances than you". "Indeed", I retorted "but keep in mind that we will then be left to rebuild our country over your dead body". 

I never met Hugo Chavez again. I made up my mind on the spot. I warned many, some heeded the warnings, others did not. Over the last 14 years I have written and spoken profusely about the events as they occurred and the future they purported. There is no joy in having been right, I would much rather have been wrong, even very wrong. But that is not the case. We now enter uncharted territory, the sort Google Earth would do well to label "Here be dragons". That my dear friends is not a legacy, that is a tragedy. PMB

For more: www.pmbcomments.com

For 140 characters: @pburelli 

Read more of this PMBComment!

Jan 04/13 | On the Article "Why so much secrecy around Chávez's health?

A rash move that was not that smart

PMBComment |  See article from CSMonitor.com below. 

In July 2011, during the CELAC summit in Caracas, Brazil's President, Dilma Rousseff, told a few of her colleagues - in private - that Chávez was likely to die as a result of "his excessive paranoia rather than as a consequence of his serious - yet treatable - cancer". What she meant to say was that by choosing secrecy in Cuba over medical competence at the Sirio-Libanese Hospital in Sao Paulo (where she had been treated successfully for lymphatic cancer) Mr. Chavez had condemned himself to a shorter life. 

My sources tell me it was Nicolas Maduro, then just the Foreign Minister, who flew to Brasilia to meet with Ms. Rousseff and her oncologist. He presented the case, as diagnosed in Caracas and La Habana; the Brazilian specialist considered it treatable under world-class protocols available in his center. Then Maduro presented the conditions for treatment in Brazil which were immediately deemed absurd and impossible to satisfy by both the physician and Ms. Rousseff. From that moment on the patient was doomed.

Over the years, Fidel Castro and a handful of his closest aides have toiled hard to ensure that Chávez - whom they have always seen (and treated) as mentally unbalanced - remained completely beholden to them. By feeding him a cocktail of legitimate information gathered by their intelligence apparatus and lies and exaggerations dreamed up by Fidel himself, they made Hugo Chávez totally dependent and eternally grateful. Most of the 100,000 barrels of oil and oil products that are earmarked daily for Cuba are - medics and sports trainers notwithstanding - in return for this invaluable service which Chávez had come to consider indispensable for his survival in power. Whether it was sharing "Secret" and even "Top Secret" material extracted from different agencies of the US government, or producing bi-weekly reports of their extensive espionage within the Venezuelan military, or routinely blackmailing domestic opponents, the work of the Cubans became priceless for the increasingly paranoid coupster. 

As it turns out, this growing reliance on the Cubans has turned mortal for Mr. Chávez. At the same time the fidelistas in Cuba are struggling to figure out how to retain control of a country in which so much control was treasonably surrendered to them. Having seen lots of mistakes made by Fidel and his lackeys in Venezuela (i.e. assuming they could actually promote Elias Jaua - a Fidel flunky like few others - and his Cuban-trained cadres as the eventual replacements to Chavez and his revolving band of incompetent ministers), I would not bet too strongly on their success post-Chávez. They will try hard, they will fight hard, but Venezuela is so much more varied and chaotic after 14 years of chavismo that Cuba is after more than half a century of fidelismo. There are too many variables operating in Venezuela and it is because of them that secrecy has become paramount and the future looks so uncertain and even ominous. 

While everyone is focused on the fate of one man - and the ploys of his Cuban handlers, few focus on the incredibly troubled State - or ruin - he leaves behind. PMB

The Christian Science Monitor - CSMonitor.com

Why so much secrecy around Chávez's health? Venezuela's not alone.

Venezuelan officials characterized Chávez's health as 'severe' for the first time last night. From dictators to leaders of Western democracies, secrecy around health concerns is often the norm.
By Sara Miller Llana

posted January 4, 2013 at 12:36 pm EST

Mexico City

The government of Hugo Chávez has, for the first time, characterized the Venezuelan leader’s health condition as “severe” following his Dec. 11 surgery in Cuba for a recurrence of cancer.
But the announcement Thursday night is unlikely to put an end to the rumor mill that has swirled in the past three weeks in the Andean country.
While everyone is worked up over President Chávez's health status, his administration is not necessarily an anomaly in keeping relatively mum. From dictators who are unable to envision their countries without them at the helm, to leaders of western democracies who attempt to pursue political projects despite medical setbacks, secrecy is often the norm.
“It is a long-standing pattern,” says Jerrold Post, who co-wrote "When Illness Strikes the Leader: The Dilemma of the Captive King" and is director of the political psychology program at George Washington University.

'Tell us the truth'

Norm or not, the lack of news has kept people talking. Type in #DiganLaVerdadSobreChavez, or #TellUsTheTruthAboutChavez, and the trending Twitter topic reveals the state of speculation that has become the state of Venezuela since Chávez traveled to Havana for treatment last month.
No one has heard from him since.
He’s fine. He’s dead. He’s in a coma. He’s on life support. He’s recovering. You name it – any scenario you wish to believe has been posited. And that’s largely because no one knows. Since Chávez first announced he was ill, in 2011, no medical report has detailed exactly what he faces or what his prognosis is. The government has said that it is keeping the public informed of his health status, as the president himself wishes, but in reality their reports have raised more questions than answers, even as they accuse the opposition of spreading rumors in a form of “psychological war.”
The opposition, for their part, is outraged, demanding more specificity, that the Venezuelan people be told the “whole truth” of the status of the country’s leader.

What does secrecy tell us?

From former US presidents Ronald Reagan to Franklin Roosevelt, the states of health of leaders was carefully curated by administrations. In one oft-cited case, French President Francois Mitterrand hid his cancer diagnosis from the public for over a decade before being forced to step down. “Yet every year the doctor dutifully said he was in fine health,” says Dr. Post.
In some cases the secrecy reflects different historical social mores about privacy and the public's right to information. And in many cases it was also an effort not to minimize a leader’s mandate.
But in an age of social media, such secrecy is not tolerated – or even possible. The recent health statuses of other Latin American leaders facing illness, for example, including the presidents ofParaguay and Brazil, have been promptly released to the public.
In fact, Pedro Burelli, a former member of the executive board of Petróleos de Venezuela and today a political analyst in Washington who is critical of Chávez, says that the leader chose treatment in Cuba, where there is no free press, for the guarantee of secrecy.
“The natural tendency would have been for him to go to Brazil,” Mr. Burelli says, as it boasts among the best cancer treatment centers in Latin America. It’s also where other leaders in the region have been treated.
But in a democracy with a robust press, Burelli says, “Chávez feared that information [about his condition] would filter out.” Instead, he chose "sub-optimal care" in Cuba, in Burelli’s opinion, in order to keep his medical condition tightly concealed.

Imagining the future

In fact, Fidel Castro temporarily stepped down in 2006 and permanently in 2008, after his own health crisis was disclosed only as an intestinal problem and has been a “state secret” ever since. Over the years, Twitter has alighted with speculation of his health, especially after a long period out of the spotlight. Inevitably he has appeared again, either on television or with his name on a written column in the state-run Granma newspaper.
Mr. Pope says that in the case of leaders such as Castro or Chávez, the secrecy is linked to an inability to imagine their countries without them. “We are talking about [an individual], who has totally entwined his own identity with that of Venezuela,” Pope says.
It is possible that the newest announcement on Chávez’s health status by Venezuela’s Minister of Communication and Information, Ernesto Villegas, represents a move toward transparency on the part of the government. But now Venezuelans are speculating why he made the announcement. And he also failed to mention the scheduled Jan. 10 inauguration of Chávez, who won a fourth term in office in Oct. 7 elections.
Instead, Mr. Villegas condemned the "psychological war unleashed by transnational media about the health of the Head of State, with the ultimate goal of destabilizing the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela,” he said.
Twitter accounts are likely to stay as active, and as speculative, until the government gives more clarity.

© The Christian Science Monitor. All Rights Reserved. Terms under which this service is provided to you. Privacy Policy.

Read more of this PMBComment!

Oct 23/12 | The sad truth..

- You have to have no shame to throw away you future for a blender!
- And for whom did you vote?
- For an amazing washer...

Read more of this PMBComment!

Oct 19/12 | Sobre "La democracia chavista" y sus derivaciones

La sombra de lo que fue una democracia

PMBComentario: El título de este comentario lo tomo prestado del magnífico artículo de los Doctores Rubén Perina y Jaime Aparicio que fue publicado ayer en la edición digital de El Universal de Caracas (lo pueden leer a continuación de mi primer comentario post-electoral).

Mucho se ha escrito desde el 7 de octubre sobre lo que ocurrió en las 'elecciones' venezolanas. El día 11 participé en un panel en el Center for Strategic and International Studies en Washington, DC (CSIS) y traté de contribuir al tema poniendo el resultado en el correcto contexto histórico.  Concluí diciendo que las elecciones no fueron justas y por lo tanto tampoco libres (o vice versa que es exactamente lo mismo) y que lo que se consolidada en Venezuela es el populismo - ahora en su versión mas anti-democrática ergo autocrática. (Enlace al audio, mi intervención es a partir del minuto 30 - la sesión terminó con un muy animado periodo de preguntas y respuestas).

El modelo chavista, en contraste con la repartición de dinero que ocurría anteriormente (1958-1998), ha contado con muchísimo mas para repartir - por el vertiginoso aumento en el precio del petróleo - y ha utilizado la distribución caótica de esa riqueza fácil como mecanismo efectivo - y muy perverso - de premiar a unos y castigar a todos. Es difícil imaginar otro resultado cuando la gran mayoría de los venezolanos (unos que votaron por Chávez y otros por Capriles) creen que el único rol del estado es repartirles personalmente la riqueza que menos del .001% de la población produce. ¿Hasta cuando puede seguir esto? Decía yo en CSIS que aun con ingresos petroleros - producción - alicaídos, por culpa de la ineptitud y corrupción que definen hoy el manejo de Petróleos de Venezuela, la función puede continuar mientras los chinos - y me refiero al Gobierno de la República Popular China - no se cansen de financiar su exportaciones a Venezuela. Y afirmaba que era difícil imaginar que se cansarían de hacer eso considerando los 350 mil millones de barriles de petróleo, y mas, que Venezuela tiene in situ en el centro mismo del Hemisferio Occidental. Así pues, y para provocar, concluí que tanto el modelo de vida americano - con sus inmenso deficit fiscal, como el venezolano - con un deficit de todo, dependen hoy por hoy - irónicamente - del financiamiento de China. Vaya ironía!

El 'triunfo' de Chávez no es sino la confirmación de que una sociedad TOTALMENTE dependiente del estado puede actuar - voluntaria o involuntariamente - en contra de sus intereses a mediano y largo plazo. La necesidad y el temor, es decir las dádivas y las amenazas, se mezclan para condicionar un voto que termina siendo todo menos libre y es ademas infinitamente humillante No hay mejor indicación de esto que la falta absoluta de jolgorio en la calle. La 're-re-reelección' (como la tildan Perina y Aparicio) de un líder dizque popular tendría que necesariamente producir mucho mas que resignación y caras largas a los suyos. Una sociedad que ha sido convencida por unos y otros que su prosperidad depende de una maquinita de votación, es una sociedad que vive - y quizás muera - en esa fantasía. Ese costosísimo sistema electoral que James Earl Carter, uno de los mas infelices Presidentes de los EEUU,  alabó como 'el mejor del mundo', dio como resultado uno de los resultados menos democráticos del mundo. Gracias Jimmy por tu infinita, criminal y continua ingenuidad. 

Quienes felicitan a Venezuela por el gran día que tuvo su democracia o bien no conocen a Venezuela, o no saben que es democracia o, mas triste aun, no entienden que es un día. Lamentablemente esas congratulaciones externas - en algunos casos de bocas sorprendentes como las de los gobiernos democráticos de Chile o España - han tenido su corolario en declaraciones insólitas de voceros de la oposición que se atreven a decir que las elecciones fueron 'libres pero no justas'. A estos últimos no les ha caído en gracia mi contribución vía Twitter que dice que eso es como decir que 'la Señorita es virgen y pxxa.' O se es una cosa o la otra, las dos son incompatibles. Además de el artículo citado al comienzo, los invito a ver este breve vídeo donde el Embajador de Panamá ante la OEA, Guillermo Cochez, da una lección a sus pares - y a esos mismos voceros de la Mesa de la Unidad en Caracas - sobre lo que constituye un proceso electoral democrático.  

Finalmente me gustaría decir algo sobre el candidato 'perdedor' y sobre el 'ganador' de esta insólita elección.  

Henrique Capriles hizo, sin duda alguna, una campaña admirable en lo físico y en lo emotivo. No todos creíamos al principio, cuando registró su candidatura ante el CNE, que podría entusiasmar con un discurso que dejaba mucho que desear. Pero cambió el tono, aceleró el paso y llegó al día de las elecciones considerado por muchos como un válido y valeroso contendor. Esa era su tarea principal, cumplió.  El éxito de su campaña se puede medir en el 81.4% de participación que hubo en estas elecciones. Esta es una participación que rebasó la que estimaban las empresas encuestadoras, inclusive aquellas que acertaron el resultado. Henrique Capriles definitivamente movió el piso político de Venezuela y forzó al régimen a valerse - ilegal e ilegítimamente - de TODOS los recursos e instituciones del estado para lograr un resultado mucho mas estrecho que el que hace solo unos meses pregonaban por el mundo. Son infinitos ya los testimonios de como se violentó la libertad y la voluntad de los electores y por tanto la transparencia de las elecciones. Es responsabilidad de Henrique Capriles, mas allá de su deseo de reelegirse como Gobernador del Estado Miranda, documentar estos abusos y hablar de ellos sin tapujo. Defender la vía electoral y pelear airadamente por condiciones justas para las elecciones son la misma cosa. Intentar callar a quienes denunciamos los abusos porque contribuimos a desalentar a los votantes en futuras contiendas es un absurdo con costos a la vista. Los venezolanos quizá han reducido sus exigencia y expectativa democrática al mero acto de votar pero tampoco hay que esconderle a ellos la triste realidad de como un régimen manipulador y canalla ha utilizado el dinero de todos para forjar una falsa - y quizás precaria - mayoría.

Y termino con una breve reflexión sobre - y para - Hugo Chávez. Sin saber aun cual es la verdadera naturaleza y prognosis de la dolencia física que lo obligó a viajar una y otra vez a Cuba, en compañía de innumerables familiares, colaboradores (y guardaespaldas), lo que si tengo muy claro es que si alguien sabe perfectamente que ocurrió en estas elecciones es Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías.  El sabe SIN LUGAR A DUDAS cuáles recursos del estado usó ilegalmente, qué amenazas se impartieron por orden suya, cuáles son las posibilidades ciertas de cumplir con múltiples promesas hechas, cuánto dinero queda en las arcas, cuánta deuda se contrajo en el esfuerzo, y qué mas le debe ahora a sus aliados y complices preferidos. Un hombre que exhibe a diario todas las características de ser un narcisista paranoico, debe estar profundamente consciente de que su popularidad no es tal y por tanto mucho mas paranoico e inoperante que de costumbre. Triste futuro se compró Venezuela en estas elecciones. Caras les saldrán las trampas al tramposo pero lamentablemente también a quienes votaron por el - por las buenas y por las malas - y a quienes no lo hicimos por la razón que sea. PMB 

NOTA: los invito a seguirme via Twitter: https://twitter.com/pburelli

Articulo de opinión:

http://www.eluniversal.com/opinion/121018/la-democracia-chavista

La democracia chavista

Por Rubén M. Perina y Jaime Aparicio

Luego  de la reciente re-re-elección del presidente Chávez,  cabe preguntarse si  Venezuela es hoy una  república democrática.

Con la firma de la Carta Democrática Interamericana en  2001, los Estados miembros de la OEA (incluyendo Venezuela), identificaron los principios, instituciones, valores y prácticas que constituyen una democracia representativa y se comprometieron a cumplirlos.  La constituyen, entre otros, la libertad de expresión y de prensa; elecciones periódicas, libres y justas; la alternancia en el poder; la transparencia y la ética en gobierno; la equidad social; el respecto por la diversidad y las minorías, a los derechos humanos y al Estado de derecho; la separación e independencia  entre poderes del Estado para limitar la concentración y el abuso del poder. ¿Tienen vigencia hoy estos componentes de la democracia en Venezuela?

Como inspirado por Gramsci, Hugo Chávez llega al poder por medios distintos a los del marxismo clásico,  para  instaurar  su  revolución socialista.  Para ello, se vale de uno de los instrumentos más importantes de la democracia: las elecciones. Una vez electo en 1998, logra la reforma constitucional y pasa a controlar todas las instituciones y los cuantiosos recurso del Estado, provenientes de la mayor bonanza petrolera de la historia venezolana. Con el control personal, absoluto y discrecional de los mismos construye su mayoría electoral con elecciones periódicas que lo entronizan por catorce años más, los próximos seis.

Chávez ejerce su hegemonía mediante la fusión de su figura personal con la del gobierno y de éste con el Estado.  Es el padre de los desposeídos y de la nueva burguesía. Es el "máximo líder de la revolución", su Mao, su  Duce, su Perón. Se conecta genética y casi religiosamente con ese 55% que lo vota,  porque se siente empoderado y recibe beneficios concretos través del sistema caritativo de las llamadas  misiones de asistencia social. Con ellas promueve la equidad y la inclusión social y su socialismo del siglo XXI, y consigue, según la Cepal, reducir la pobreza del 49% de la población al 26%. El sistema incluye prebendas, subvenciones y donaciones, y se promociona con  símbolos, slogans y propaganda oficial. A cambio de esa generosidad, su pueblo 55%  lo idolatra  y se moviliza para apoyarlo políticamente.

Pero los éxitos electorales y sociales de su gobierno se ven empañados por la vigencia de un  régimen político que se puede caracterizar como personalista, paternalista/clientelista que genera ciudadanos cautivos y Estado-dependientes.  El régimen se sostiene y renueva gracias a un ventajismo alevoso en los procesos electorales,  que hace innecesario  el fraude el día de los comicios. Para ello usa y abusa de los recursos del Estado con los que financia (sin rendir cuentas) su  campaña electoral; utiliza las fuerzas armadas para la movilización y transporte del votante; intimida familias beneficiarias de las misiones  y funcionarios de ministerios y empresas del Estado con el mensaje de que perderán  sus beneficios y trabajos si no votan o si lo hacen  por el opositor; y controla abusivamente la mayoría de los medios (la televisión, la radio y la prensa escrita). Así, el proceso deja de ser justo y equitativo, como lo demandan los estándares interamericanos.

La otra mitad del  país, la minoría que logró el 45% de los votos (más de seis millones nada menos),  percibe que este sistema en realidad perpetúa las condiciones que pretende subsanar, y condena a gran parte de ese 55% al asistencialismo, a pésimos servicios de sanidad, educación, transporte y vialidad, seguridad, electricidad y otros, y a seguir sufriendo la corrupción, la inseguridad, la escasez y la inflación. Para esa mitad de venezolanos, y para observadores internacionales, Chávez no ha cumplido con el compromiso de gobernar en el marco de los principios, instituciones, valores y prácticas democráticas acordados en la Carta Democrática.  De hecho, el presidente no parece interesado en cumplir con los requisitos de la gobernanza democrática,  excepto por la realización de elecciones, ni en respetar a ese 45% de ciudadanos, a cuyos líderes los descalifica como "los escuálidos" neoliberales.

Ni Chávez ni sus seguidores parecen entender que democracia no es sólo elecciones, sino que requiere que se gobierne democráticamente también. O sea,  el principal desafío de su nuevo gobierno es combinar lo conseguido en equidad e inclusión social con el respeto a las instituciones, valores y prácticas de la democracia representativa, tal como se comprometieron todos los países del hemisferio en la Carta Democrática. De lo contrario, Venezuela seguirá siendo una democracia chavista: autoritaria, personalista, paternalista/clientelista y limitada, lejos de ser una verdadera república democrática.

Jaime Aparicio es consultor internacional, y expresidente del Comité Jurídico Interamericano.

apariciojaime@hotmail.com

Rubén M. Perina es profesor de la Universidad de Georgetown y exfuncionario de OEA.

perinar@georgetown.edu

Read more of this PMBComment!