[ad_1]
The Cuban and Venezuelan regimes constitute what we call the Latin American “extreme left.” Internally, they have several similarities, such as Contempt for democracy At the same time, externally, they are hostile to the US government and willing to act as pawns in the Kremlin’s geopolitics. Nevertheless, we can still notice important differences between the political systems of Havana and Caracas.
In Venezuela, despite the authoritarian government, civil society still has channels for participation. Chavismo never destroyed all practices and institutions of representative democracy, such as the press and opposition parties, and Venezuelan society had no other way to organize itself except through Western-style direct elections to the country’s highest political offices. Sometimes, however, as in the case of the recent presidential election, the electoral process is fraught with irregularities (or fraud, as most of the international community believes), which ultimately led to the re-election of President Nicolás Maduro. As a result, we are witnessing an authoritarian system of government in this South American country.
In Cuba, once the bearded men of the Sierra Maestra took control of state power, they not only began to destroy existing institutions, but also to create others to mediate the relationship between the powerful state and the people. Here, the operation of the authoritarian government is based more on theoretical and ideological frameworks than on decisive or current factors. The space for participation of civil society is limited or eliminated, and the authorities work to brainwash citizens, replacing the concepts of democracy and freedom with utilitarian slogans. Castroism ultimately transformed democratic legitimacy into revolutionary legitimacy. In fact, what we have today on this Caribbean island is a totalitarian system of government.
Some experts tend to classify right-wing dictatorships as authoritarian states and left-wing dictatorships as totalitarian states, using general criteria.
In this regard, they often take into account the criterion of the ruler’s temporary limitation of his regime. Both right-wing dictators, Augusto Pinochet and Fulgencio Batista, were convinced – or circumstances forced them to conclude – that their rule could be limited. We should recall the referendum that Pinochet allowed, which ultimately gave way to democracy in Chile, and the fact that Batista was ready to give up power in February 1959 to make way for the presidency of Andrés Rivero Aguero. Left-wing dictators, by contrast, generally never thought of giving up power. When they were firmly established in the palace of government, history stood still.
And, in political practice, a paradox is that authoritarian states are often perceived as the most repressive, despite being the least authoritarian. Because they preserve channels for participation, citizens can use them to express their dissent through criticism, strikes, and demonstrations, although these actions are of course subject to censorship, repression, and imprisonment.
In totalitarian states, although history tells us that they will not hesitate to shoot at the masses or unleash tanks when they see their system in danger, in general, the successive regime changes turn a blind eye to the right to dissent and an eerie tranquility reigns, like the tranquility of a cemetery. Hence the custom of calling Pinochet and Batista “dictators” and using a milder title for Fidel Castro.
We have no doubt that Nicolás Maduro internally wants to change the authoritarian character of his government and turn Venezuela into a kind of personal fiefdom of totalitarian rule. We are even more certain that Castroism wants its cronies in Caracas to achieve this horrifying goal.
However, what the ruling elites of both regimes think is one thing, and what the militant people of Venezuela do is something else entirely, as they have shown their willingness to fight for democracy on the streets of their own country.
[ad_2]
Source link
