[ad_1]
The Cuban and Venezuelan regimes are active on what we would call the extreme left. Latin America. At the internal level, they have several related characteristics, such as Contempt for democracy and excessive obsession with powerwhile externally they are hostile to the U.S. government and willing to act as geopolitical pawns of the Kremlin. Despite the above, it is important to note that Differences between the political systems of Havana and Caracas.
In Venezuela, despite heavy-handed government measures, channels for civil society participation remain open. Chavismo has failed to destroy all practices and institutions of democracy Society has not devised any other way to govern itself except for Western-style direct elections to the nation’s highest political offices. Although sometimes, as in the case of the recent presidential election, it is A process full of irregularities — or as much of the international community believed it was — a fraud — that ultimately declared President Nicolas Maduro re-electedSo the thing is, We are witnessing authoritarian systems of government in South American countries.
In Cuba, once the bearded people of the Sierra Maestra took over the country’s political power, they not only worked to destroy these institutions exist, but they built others as transmission belts between the powerful state and the masses.Here, repressive governments respond more to theoretical and ideological frameworks than to sophistry or situational factors. The space for civil society participation is restricted or eliminated, and the authorities strive to disrupt citizens’ subjectivity. In this action, concepts of democracy and freedom were replaced by utilitarian slogans. Castroism ultimately transformed democratic legitimacy into revolutionary legitimacySo the thing is, We are witnessing a totalitarian system of government on this Caribbean island.
Some experts apply general criteria, tending to include Right-wing dictatorship In the dictatorship part, the conditions of a totalitarian state are retained Left-wing dictatorship.
In this sense, they often take into account the rulers’ criteria regarding the time limit of their regime. Two right-wing dictators, Augusto Pinochet and Fulgencio Batista, were convinced – or circumstances forced them to understand – that their mandates could be time-limited. Remember the referendum that Pinochet allowed, which eventually gave way to democracy in Chile, and Batista, who would give up power in February 1959, giving way to the presidency of Andrés Rivero Agüero. Instead, Left-wing dictators usually don’t think about giving up power. For them, history stops when they move into government palaces.
Moreover, the paradox of political practice, albeit the least authoritarian, The dictatorship has reverted to its image of maximum repression. Since channels for participation are preserved, citizens can use them to express dissent through criticism, strikes, demonstrations, etc., and then take action Censorship, repression, and imprisonment.
Even though history has taught us that when they see the system in danger, they will not hesitate to mercilessly shoot at the masses or to roll tanks into the streets. Generally speaking, in totalitarian countries, generations of people grow up without even knowing the right to express dissent.while enjoying a rare, tomb-like tranquility. Therefore, people usually call Pinochet and Batista dictators, while Fidel Castor usually reserves a milder adjective.
We have no doubt that, deep down, Nicolás Maduro wants to change the character of his dictatorship His government, and Transforming Venezuela into a kind of private fiefdom under a totalitarian regimeWe need not doubt that Castroism desires such ambitious goals to be achieved by its Caracas cronies.
However, the ruling elites of the two regimes think one thing and another The aggressive Venezuelan peoplehe demonstrated his commitment to democracy on the streets.
[ad_2]
Source link
