The nomination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez in 1998 was directly attributable to his campaign of change and a “third way,” the central tenets of which were two major promises: to fight poverty and social exclusion, and to eliminate corruption.
While tax revenues and total income in Venezuela during Chavez’s presidency have totaled roughly $700 billion, it is nowhere to be seen in terms of public works, health care and education programs. Moreover, during the tenure of Chavez, Venezuela’s national debt has increased from $22 billion to about $70 billion. The national poverty rate, which was 32.2% in 1991, rose to nearly 50% by 2000, and, according to the World Bank, Venezuela is among the most corrupt nations in the world.
Venezuela’s immense oil resources and income should have been a blessing for its citizens.
Instead it has become a curse. The socialization and government take-over of private sectors— combined with massive and rapid government interference in the market, poor administrative controls, weak political institutions, and a welfare state where hard work and social discipline are not encouraged, has led to government corruption and abuse of power, and worsened living conditions of the Venezuelan people.
Although Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has repeatedly championed and praised the unfettered civil liberties Venezuelan people revel in, Venezuela’s assault on free speech and the press was the subject of discussion at The Cato Institute on July 30th.
To discuss the increasingly oppressive and harsh stance the Venezuelan government has adopted toward news networks and reporters, CATO featured speakers Carlos Alberto Zuloaga, Executive Vice President of Globovisión; Rafael Alfonzo, President of Venezuelan think-tank CEDICE; and Robert Rivard, Director for the Committee on Freedom of the Press. Globovisión President Guillermo Zuloaga was also listed as speaker but could not appear due to his detainment in Venezuela.
Globovisión Televisión, a 24-hour cable-news network and Venezuela’s last independent station has been a frequent target of abuse and threat by Chavez and has a very real possibility of being shut down (cable news network RCTV, also known for its strong editorial slant against the Castro presidency, was forced to cease operations in 2007).
Carlos Alberto Zuloaga opened by relaying a few of the incidents Globovisión employees have endured the past few years illustrating the obstacles any opposition faces.
A few of the incidents involving Globovisión include:
• Its office being severely vandalized and destroyed (a case the government has yet to investigate), President Zuloaga’s house raided by the police,
• Being labeled a “rogue, fascist, racist network intent on sowing terror” by government official Nicolas Maduro,
• Fined $2 million for granting airtime to non-governmental organization messages (only to have it raised another $2 million after a successful fund-raising drive),
• Investigated because they aired earthquake-warnings before the government, and its reporters were assaulted innumerable times by police and Chavez supporters, some as recently as August 4th.
As for the government, “Chavez has the right to interrupt any TV programming at any time to air propaganda messages,” Zuloaga said. “Chavez has done so 1,877 times so far. And the Attorney General will also be presenting a new law to Congress punishing anti-government opinion, the first offense leading to six months in prison.”
And in a threatening letter Chavez wrote to Supreme Court justices, he stated that “only the president has the exclusive authority on the management of state affairs.”
The government is also creating other indirect, yet extreme and arbitrary measures to oppress news publications. As opposed to the U.S. court sytem in which libel has to be proven malicious and intentional, in Venezuela “if certain facts of a report later turn out to be mistaken, it can lead to a four-year sentence,”said Zuloaga. “Even if those mistakes come from a direct quote of government official in the report—verbatim.”
“I encourage you to take advantage and utilize the opportunity of social media such as Twitter,” said speaker Robert Rivard. “There is an insidious virus spreading across South America—from Venezuela, Columbia, Bolivia, Nicaragua, to Ecuador. All those leaders were also democratically elected, but they all have basically become rubber-stamp governments.”
As a reporter who had lived several years in Latin America, Rivard claimed it was increasingly difficult to use the term “government, and not regime” when referring to Venezuela. “Most Americans—and I do not exaggerate when I say this—would not even be able to grasp the level of atrocities that go on today in South America,” he argued.
Still, Rivard saw reason for hope and stated cautious optimism: “Chavez might have overplayed his hand for power, and may lead to his failure.”
Zuoloaga voiced his agreement with his colleague and stipulated a specific course of action: “If you look at what Chavez did when he first took power, he wrote a new constitution as a vehicle to destroy all existing political competition,” he said. “So we need to empower political parties once again.”
During the question-and-answer segment, a member of the audience describing himself as a reporter from Chile brought forth the issue of international politics to the panel. “There is hope and strong resistance in Venezuela, but do you think international support or force will be needed?” he asked.
“Venezuelans should not accept things that shouldn’t be accepted,” proclaimed Rafael Alonzo. “Venezuelans will fight, and solve the problem on their own.”
Anthony Kang is an intern at the American Journalism Center, a training program run by Accuracy in Media and Accuracy in Academia.
