Lunes, 29 de Mayo de 2017
17:07 CEST.
Venezuela

Castroism unable to explain the censure of 'chavismo'

There is no doubt that Cuban rulers are concerned about the progressive isolation of Nicolás Maduro's chavista (inspired by the legacy of the late Hugo Chávez) government. The official newspaper Juventud Rebelde, in its edition last Thursday, published an article from its correspondent to Caracas entitled "Lucidity takes the form of multitudes", in which the journalist posed the following question: what has Venezuela done to deserve this war to the death of which it is now the target?

First, it should be clarified that this "war to the death" is not against Venezuela, but against Maduro's regime. In addition to imprisoning his political opponents and not accepting the electoral calendar that most Venezuelans are clamoring for, Mr. Maduro has struck against one of the cornerstones of the rule of law: the division of powers.

The chavista authorities, by discrediting and all but annulling the legislative work of the National Assembly, controlled by the opposition, have given a coup de grace to the balance of powers, which must exist in any society calling itself democratic. Of course, this behavior has stirred up animosity in many of the nations making up the Organization of American States (OAS).

For Castroism the division of powers is meaningless, as the regime employs a political mechanism in which the "legislative" work is performed, indistinctly, by both the rulers and the deputies, gathered in the same body, during sessions of the National Assembly of Popular Power. And, with respect to the judiciary, all the judges - or the vast majority of them - are card-carrying members of the governing Communist Party, the only one permitted.

This April marks 148th years since Cuban independence fighters convened in the Camagüey town of Guáimaro to draft the first Constitution of the Republic in Arms, a magna carta that established the division of powers as one of the basic mechanisms of government – one that would be upheld in 1873 with the dismissal of the president Carlos Manuel de Céspedes via a decision by the House of Representatives.

The official Cuban press, when citing this event, usually explains that the man from La Demajagua was the victim of a betrayal or a coup. What it fails to say is that this action by the House of Representatives, in response to certain dictatorial moves by the President, was actually consistent with the liberal-democratic spirit of the men who took to the swamps in 1868, an attitude found in the essence of our nationality, forming part of us long before any socialist or Marxist ideas.

The Juventud Rebelde writer’s point of view is perfectly consistent with the way Castroism portrays the situation in and surrounding Venezuela to ordinary citizens, according to which everything has been nothing more than the result of Luis Almagro and his obsession, following US orders, to destroy the "Bolivarian" revolution.

This way of assessing events in black and white, and not recognizing any nuances, negates the credibility of the official press. This tendency is what leads it to refer to a "a group of countries forming a minority faction" as a way of describing the nations in the region that have criticized the serious institutional rupture that has taken place in Bolivar's country.

But the readers of Granma or Juventud Rebelde will look in vain for the names of the countries that make up that "minority faction." Why? Because they would be hard pressed to explain to Cubans why even some leftist governments, in no way subordinated to Washington - of course, of the democratic left - have echoed the OAS's criticism of Maduro's government.