"So phrases like "oposición oficialista" entered the debate, slurs meant to not to criticize the arguments of the other camp but to disqualify them on the basis of their their identity. In fact, the internal opposition debate has come to resemble nothing so much as the debate we used to have between the government and the opposition, with deeply entrenched positions and a growing sense that the other side is more than just wrong, it's evil.
So it's more than just a failure to learn, Katy. It's that the structural preconditions for collective learning aren't in place. It's that the norms of public discourse within the opposition itself have been chavesized, have devolved into a dysfunctional, primitive form where debate is always about people, never about ideas, and therefore yields enmity and resentment far more often than mutual understanding and convergence."
-Quico, from Caracas Chronicles.
Dear Quico,
Ok, I decided to reply to this comment since I am the first one who love to use the phrase "Vichy opposition", which is the same as "oposición oficialista". Actually, Vichy to me explains it better. Go back to war time and consider the French reasons for this and you will see the face of many Venezuelan politicians in it. Is not that degenerate to understand why France tried to do this. And all along with their justifiable reasons, it also came the bad part, which was to cooperate with the Nazi's racial policies.
See, maybe that's my intention, just like you said, to discredit some of the political parties who are calling to vote without enforcing the electoral conditions. But I am using some arguments in my reasoning, Quico. This is all about their ideas and nothing to do with the people. As a matter of fact, I know some of the people from the "other side" of the opposition who are very dear to me. But I still need to criticize their attitude.
Why do the Vichy political parties don't want to listen to the civil society? They say, in the name of peace and not create a civil war, let's deal with Chavismo the most we can, right? It doesn't matter right now, let's vote without fair electoral conditions, doesn't matter that this reform is not even an electoral matter, but we have an "strategy" that this time will work out. An strategy that doesn't even have some legal background... But curiously, the strategy that the 1999 Bolivarian constitutions suggest to deal in the case of a manic dictator wants to get away with it, it is disregarded as the part of the opposition who wants to use it is label as radical mirror of Chavismo, c'mon.
And what about the "let's debate" affair? Don't they have realized yet that this is exactly what Chavez wants? How much time until realize that if Chavez is calling to debate then hint that probably that's not a good idea? Chavez wants to take everybody to an eternal blah-blah-blah that won't take the opposition anywhere. We all are running on circles chasing our own tails thanks to those stupid constitutional "debates". He knows it, you know it, I know it... so, why keep on with it?
Am I wrong Quico? Tell me why my arguments as a citizen are not important for that Vichy political opposition who is calling to vote. Just like the 3 wise Chinese monkeys: "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil," they are nor listening.
In my opinion, the Vichy political opposition with their condescending and presumptuous attitude wants to take the civilians to the slaughter house, the same way Vichy France helped the Nazis to take on racial policies against the Jews. Why do I have to cooperate with them?
Why Quico?
The society know their drill already: they have asked the citizens to vote 3 times, the first during the RR in Aug 2004, they said they will do anything to protect the votes, even though a fair set of electoral conditions where not met. They didn't protect our votes. OK. It was very frustrating but somehow it was understood that we all were set up, that there wasn't anything else we could do. Second time, parliamentarians elections in Dec 2005. Nobody decided to vote this time. The politicians got it at the end that people were not going to vote and make a last declaration of "no participation" the night before the elections. Third time, Presidential elections 2006. Manuel Rosales entered the play. He asked for our votes and said that this time they will take care of out votes, that they will cash them in. I don't know what he cashed but it wasn't our votes since he was already giving a conceit speech even before the total votes were all counted for the first time.
But somehow to call them Vichy, or Chavista opposition in an insult. But for them not to respect the civil society and our votes is totally fine.
Why aren't they listening this time? Why do they think that is OK to work first for their party and secondly for the country is the way to go? What is it to me? I am not even into politics. Why do they even think this is OK? The political party which in my opinion have lost total sense of reality with the opposition is Primero Justicia. They decided to abandon the middle class to advocate to the lower classes, changing the tone of their speech to a 1950's populist-Chavistoso one. I understand their reasons but I don't know if in the long run would work for them since to abandon one platform which they worked hard for it, to go for another one makes them to look only desperate for votes and not genuinely worried for the country, and their people. The good thing would have been to go for both platforms and always been consistent with their line, since both sectors are part of the country, don't you think? Why do they are not even interested into getting a consensus? Have you though about it? I imagine you don't know the answer as well, since you are nor a militant of any of those parties, I am just lamenting out loud.
Moreover, why the dinosaur politics from them now? Cooooonchale hasta cuando! Don't you think we all deserve a little better? Don't you think the lower classes, more than any others, are sooo tired of empty promises?
So, what is it that they want this time? What's their plan? By any means, asking to vote with no electoral conditions will take us to seal the Chavismo into some type of democratic approved way.
It doesn't matter that 700 millions Venezuelans vote to take our democratic constitution to a communist one, were we won't be able to vote anymore (do this make sense to the reader? To vote to take out the right to vote?), the NYT publishes it and Jimmy Carter approves it. There's something called the Human Rights declaration were there are some natural rights of human beings than cannot be taken away. There's nothing to discuss, debate or to vote about it. Isn't this important? It is certainly for the rest of the country. So, why don't they talk about it in their populist speeches to the poor?
I don't understand the reasons on why some political parties do act like the Chinese 3 wise monkeys, they have to listen to the people and act, not setting up a political strategy that will benefit them-politically-and ask the people to act as they want to. That won't never work outside their members, for obvious reasons.
The first priority should be the country, and the second one should be their political interest, if any. Not the opposite. When you talk to them you hear them so caught into talking about how much they need to protect the interest of their party, to separate from the "old" politicians, and etc, that they don't even talk anymore about what is interest to the civil society, like the general food shortage that is taking over the whole country, only that will give you a hint of what's on their priority list. And maybe that's the real reason on why they don't even think it is so vital to reach a consensus RIGHT NOW. See, seems it's not even important for them... as a matter of fact, PJ is on their own Quixotesque crusade all alone. Can you tell me if that lonely man quest would help the country right now, and if so, how?
So, that's why we are in the place we are right now, politically speaking.
Do you think the people will ever forget and forgive that they didn't act accordingly to defend our democracy?
Who would care about political parties after Dec 9 anyway?
Something else that is important to mention that apparently is newsflash for those political parties which are calling once again to "vote" without fair electoral conditions: the "abstentionism" has come spontaneous. The speeches of people like Hermann Escarrá (who is not even asking for a political seat), has gotten a lot of reception spontaneously from both Chavismo and opposition people, maybe the % of people sympathetic with this won't be enough to make a difference, but it's growing much more than the "Vichy opposition" because it exposes the general voice of discontent of the country. Then we have to think why the "other" opposition hasn't been able to lower their tails and get that sympathy from the people, and why aren't they cooperating into reaching some type of agreement, consensus with this "other" opposition.
What would it takes to get a general political opposition consensus? Without it, Chavez will stay per secula seculorum on his Miraflores seat. Time is running very short!
Any ideas? What do you think? I think that there's a lot of discontent "common points" or intersections from all sectors, including Chavismo. So, why don't they all make a list with the most important of those important points who have to do with the country and not their personal interest and work it as a solid group with one common interest? Why does it has to be so hard?
Am I totally on crack in here or do you think I have some valid points to call that opposition "Vichy"?
Yours truly,
-f
No comments:
Post a Comment