Failure of XXI century socialism and time of change in Venezuela

After Hugo Chavez´s death and following the constitutional orders, it call to presidential elections in Venezuela, beggining a new chapter at the History of the Caribbean country. The electoral overturning in relation to october elections surprised international community: the opposition had achieved cut a fourteen points distance to the minimum (one comma eightythree points). The figures showed that bolivarian regime heir had been rejected by its own electors.

However, the Nicolas Maduro´s poor victory smells fishy due to it´s too difficult to accept that using all the ways and resources of statal power, in order to coerce the vote and pervert the elections, he got only two hundred thousand votes above Henrique Capriles. As a matter of fact, we can pose some questions: Are the election results more manipulated than ever? What would happen if the winner was Capriles?

On one hand, Spanish left, making a wink to authoritarian regimes, is supporting the electoral results while it praises the fiability and modernity of the Venezuelan electoral system. On the other hand, Spanish government has recognised clumsily the government of Nicolas Maduro despite its illegitimate, arrogant and authoritarian character. Both of them should think about the fiability of an electoral telematic inventory and the moral and ethic rate of the called assisted vote.

Those election results show the falling of XXI century socialism. During years the government has been subsidizing the popular sectors of society, instead to teach people how to generate richness and promote the personal autonomy. The direct subsidy has attracted the vote of poorest, but it hasn´t report a well-fare State anyway; due to poverty must be defeated teaching in hard-work culture, the effort and the equality of opportunities. Therefore, it´s a wrong perspective to achieve the social progress through the indiscriminate persecution of richness, the property collectivization and the statal planification in citizens life.

These elections will be an advance to the formal instauration of a comunist dictadure; in fact, the country has been known as an hybrid State, a pseudodemocracy with totalitarian characteristics, typical of fascism and with an important dose of populism which mobilizes people. Chavism will get down democratic disguise and will repress with the power State any opposition focus. In the same way, the purpose is stress the socialist revolution; that point of view is according with penitentiary secretary and Nicolás Maduro statements (“Anyone will hurt you, but I am preparing the cell where you will have to pay for your crimes, because you´re a fascist and killer”; “Capriles fascist, I´ll working hard in order to make you pay all the damage you´re inflicting to our country and people”).

Opposition is not fighting against government plan, but a statal project: right now, the Venezuelan government is owner of the State, turning to property of socialist revolution. It´s not easy to defend the ideas of change in a not neutral State where oficialism shakes its bases and use coercion in order to get the victory. In that way, it´s amazing the effort made by Venezuelan opposition which is facing the Bolivarian politics on ideas field.

Venezuela is poorer than fourteen years ago: it grows up in a slowler rhythm than its continental neighbours and it´s the most second violent country of Latin America. Apart from, the panorama is complemented by any positive figures such as the drop of the petroleum production and a galloping inflation. On that abominable situation, Capriles represents a movement of change and renovation, he knows the ways which could situate Venezuela in the right place as emergent power.

To sum up, we can´t speak about democracy where there isn´t a clear separation of powers, either where members of Electoral National Council are elected by government; and either where civil servants have seen conditioned their freedom to vote. In short, either can´t exist democracy in a State where the elected president thinks he´s “son” and “heir” of former president, due to in democracy there are leaders and statesman, but never heirs.