Luis Alberto and Jose Alberto Lopez Rafaschieri are politologists, they are bloggers at Morochos.net, and have occupied important positions in the Venezuelan Public Administration and private companies. They have published articles in various journals, more than 500 in Spanish, and more than 200 in English, on subjects related to politics, economy, energy and religion. They have written for journals such as "El Nuevo Herald", "El Universal", "El Mensajero de Oriente", "PetroleoYV" and "Analitica.com".
- President Hugo Chavez is evil genius Venezuela. He did with the country everything, that wanted. Whether you can now recognize country in which you were born?
- Venezuela was a democracy, but it is now ruled by an autocratic socialist government, this means scarcity, reduced civil rights, extreme public corruption, emigrants' waves and a president without limits.
In Chavez's country, virtually all public institutions and offices of the Venezuelan State are controlled by one "owner". Even in the armed forces, officers greet by saying the slogan of the PSUV, Chavez's party, as if the institutions that previously belonged to Venezuela had been privatized for the exclusive use of the Chavista monopoly. Definitely, this is other country, one that is not better.
- Why Hugo Chavez decided individually that Venezuela needs Cuban model of socialism?
- Because is a style of government where he can retain the power indefinitely. It's the perfect ideology for an autocratic project.
A socialist oligarchy can conserve the power for ever, arguing that they are working to build a new society, as in the Soviet Union or the Castro's Cuba. In democracy, you can't do these things.
What largest mistakes by Hugo Chavez?
First, his attitude. He has a very strong incapacity of hearing others, specially if they have different ideas. This is the most frequent mistake of extremists.
Second, his proposals. Venezuela has very serious problems, including hyperinflation and exponential crime rates. In our country most people are poor and face multiple forms of deprivation and social exclusion. However, the bizarre of this is the solution proposed by the current government. President Hugo Chavez is convinced that the best way to solve the problems of Venezuela, and Latin America, is to establish a presidency that has the potential to continue indefinitely, conducted under the totalitarian tenets of socialism.
This idea of life presidency is generally proposed in third world countries where institutions are weak. The indefinite reelection has been tried before in Latin America and has always had sad ends. Fidel Castro, Fujimori, Noriega and Pinochet were in their time defenders of this outlandish proposal to justify their tyrannical claims, and there we have the consequences.
And third, his methods. Since Chavez came to power, his government has sought to intimidate opponents. Chavistas have used insults, racism, threats, mass firings, blacklisting, closure of independent media, prosecution, imprisonment, human rights violations, tax penalties, armed gangs, toxic gases, beatings, and finally, a perpetual policy of repression and violence that, in theory, should have already intimidated the population.
But in the case of Venezuela, ten years of government repression have not had the desired effect on the opposition: In 2007, people said "No" to the referendum to transform Venezuela into a socialist State. In 2008, the electorate punished Chavismo by removing it from the major regional powers of Venezuela. In 2009, Chavez had to suffer to win the constitutional amendment, the international press is now completely adverse to Chavez, the anti-government protests bloom everywhere, and the opposition is today more numerous than ever. Which is sufficient to cast doubt on the effectiveness of Cuban dictatorial methods in Venezuela.
- With his bellicose bombast, theatrical gestures and dodgy jokes, Hugo Chavez, Venezuela’s president for the past 11 years, has turned himself into one of the world’s most recognizable and controversial rulers. As in Venezuela perceived such a "unique" international image of Hugo Chavez?
Venezuela is now divided in three big groups. For Chavez' supporters, he is seen as a national hero that will solve all problems. For Chavez's opposition, he is seen as a dictator that is destroying the country. And for the ni-nis (neither Chavistas nor opposition) both groups are extremists, however, in practice, they are with their vote Chavez's supporters.
- In one way or another, Chavez claim to have created a viable alternative to liberal democracy…
-We should evaluate results:
- Venezuela has an inflation rate of 30%
- Hundreds of Venezuelans are emigrating to USA or Europe
- When Chavez arrived to power, Venezuela had more than 12000 big industries, but it has less than 3000 today
- When Chavez arrived to power, the Venezuelan exchange rate against the US dollar was at 600 per dollar, but the current value is 4300 bolivares per dollar
- In Venezuela, nearly 100 persons are killed weekly by street crime
- All public powers are controlled by the same political party
- Justice is fully politicized, this is, you receive punishment if you are from the opposition and impunity if you are Chavista.
- Foreigners, Cubans, direct important positions of the Venezuelan State.
- Active and former Army officials occupy seats in all the Venezuelan public administration
- And the country is divided in two factions that hate each other like enemies.
Then if you ask, is this a good alternative to liberal democracy? We don't think so.
- Much more important is the damage president Chavez is doing to his own country. His “21st-century socialism” is a precarious construction.
- XXI century Socialism is the same than the old Socialism but with new protagonists and a democratic image due to frequent elections. But democracy it's not only about elections but also about law, human right and alternation of power.
It's like talking about XXI century slavery, or XXI century nazism. Here we see the importance of evaluating results instead of ideologies and propaganda.
- Now Venezuelans are suffering declining real wages, persistent shortages of staple goods (meat is the latest to become scarce) and daily power cuts. It too “21st-century socialism”?
- Sure, this is nothing new for Socialism, we must remember the old quote: “if the Communists took over the Sahara desert, there'd soon be a shortage of sand”.
Venezuela is an energetic potency, the fifth largest oil exporting country in the world with the largest reserves of heavy crude oil at an estimated 99.4 billion barrels as of 2010. Venezuela has the largest reserves of light and heavy crude oil in the entire western hemisphere. This country has also a very big facility for Hydroelectricity generation -The Guri dam- and receive solar radiation during the entire year. But if ruled by socialists, you should expect scarcity of energy, even in Venezuela.
It's no secret that President Chavez has spent billions of dollars on weapons. Money that, given the many other needs of Venezuela, could well be spent on improving the electrical system of this country.
According to sources of the Russian newspaper PRAVDA, the estimated total costs of armament contracts between Hugo Chavez and the Kremlin will reach $30 billion before 2012. Incredibly, more than it cost to build the China's Three Gorges Dam, which had a cost of approximately $25 billion and has a generating capacity of 100 TWh per year -the largest hydroelectric dam in the world-.
If Chavez had used what it spent on Russian weapons to develop national energy programs, we would not be experiencing the severe electrical crisis caused by the neglect of his government.
It's disconcerting, but that is the real Chavez's Venezuela, a poor country immersed in a frightening power crisis, ruled by a clique of communists with a penchant for Russian weapons. As in Cuba, in socialism welfare is rationed, never the arms race.
- Choice between Chavez and democracy - it is a complex choice?
- It's very simple, we prefer the results of democracy. What Chavez offers are the same problems seen in the past of Latin America: Militarism, populism, extremist leftism and autocracy.
There is the example of Chile. While some governments in Latin America are trying to return to the past, Chile has just recently joined the OECD -the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development- which is integrated by a group of countries considered the world's most developed.
It is interesting that Chile has done this earlier than Venezuela, considering that Chavez's country has a much larger GDP -The Venezuelan economy doubles in size to that of Chile-. But for the OECD it's not only important to have a big economy, it's also essential to have strong democratic institutions, independent central banks, a robust private sector, an advanced legal system, a stable economy and the willingness to implement joint policies; variables that Venezuela has deteriorated over the past ten years with the government of President Chavez.
The two political models being debated now in Latin America: Chavez's extremist style, or the moderate way, like Chile. This last is doing better, say the world's most developed countries.
- Public opinion still matters in Venezuela?
- Yes, in some occasions Chavez has had to stop his radical reforms due to the public unrest, however, in the long run, he has ever found the way to apply his changes. So, public opinion still matters in Venezuela, but it's not more determinant than Chavez' will.
- In 2012 Venezuela will face a stark choice: Chavez or democracy?
- If Chavez wins again in 2012, he will enact all the reforms that he needs to install a communist regime, so Venezuela would definitely lose its democracy. In this case, we think that Venezuela would looks like Cuba or Belarus.
Economically, the system would be fully nationalized but with a small space for the micro private property. And politically, we would have a lifetime president and a privatized bureaucracy in the hands of Chavistas.
- That in Venezuela think of that - Chavez’s rule will end peacefully or not?
- Venezuela has the legal mechanisms to refrain Chavez, but now they are in the wrong hands. It will take some more time to recover these powers democratically, however, at the end, this way is the best because is a more long term solution. Eventually, Chavez's supporters will retire their votes because of the socialism's facts. And without this popular support, Chavismo will collapse pacifically.
