THE FEBRUARY 4 AND ITS HISTORICAL ROOTS
18 years ago, everyone in our country are wondering what happened. The country had gone from being a model of democracy in Latin America has to be shaken by two significant events: a popular revolt in 1989 and a coup. In the logic of Venezuelans permeated by the status quo and hegemonic power relations, these two events were a historical anomaly. However, there was more appreciation wrong than that.
The accumulation of deep contradictions stemming from the logic of the capitalist system and the political forms that had acquired explosion. You can not lose sight that the model of representative democracy introduced in 1958 was based on two essential conditions: 1) insisting on consensus and 2) avoid conflict. This obsession with stability resulted in the minimization of the huge contrasts from the standpoint of existing social and economic development in Venezuela. That was possible, given the financier of the Venezuelan economy. Do not forget that the productive nature of the oil business in our country is deeply worthwhile: to this day the difference between the cost of producing a barrel of oil sales and the cost is extremely favorable. Yeah well, between 1958-1973 the average barrel of oil was relatively small - ranging between 2.30 and U.S. $ 5 - after the Yom Kippur War, the price of a barrel of oil rose thus generating the state Venezuela will have significant resources to finance public expenditure. This provision allowed for a long time maintain the climate of stability - apparently they crave some Venezuelans. However, the weather was artificial. The contradictions and contrasts remained untouched, the limitations of the status quo unmediated forms of participation by the historical parties (AD, COPEI and URD) were many. The oil income was not actually distributed and the national and transnational capital benefited from it. She had not treated the issue of poverty and crisis in 1983 when he rentier model, contradictions surfaced more quickly. In response, political parties insisted on maintaining a climate of consensus despite impossible - from the standpoint of institutional and economic-to, but his insistence on staying as if nothing had happened after Caracazo - February 1989 - facilitated manifestation of a group of soldiers, far away from the classic militarism which had affected Latin America.
The rest is well known. Chávez, Arias, Ortiz Contreras and company did a coup that failed, but I do not want to focus my reflection on an otherwise trite subject. I want readers of this column understand - as well as some militants of the PSUV-military section of his actions is deeply rooted in the Venezuelan political thought. And not just point out the simplicity of Chávez's links to the ideals of the guerrillas of 60. It's about understanding that has to do with a political break that pattern in the early twentieth century. In the middle period gomecista, long before the events of February 1928, was growing a maturation process and socio-political change. In that change names like José Pío Tamayo, Salvador de la Plaza, Gustavo and Eduardo Machado, Miguel Otero Silva, begin to reflect on the impact of imperialism in the Caribbean. The fact that they gave this reflection on our country is not fortuitous: the whole area had an anti-imperialist climate that ended in the formation of the Anti-Imperialist League of the Caribbean, where we find names like Cesar Sandino, Farabundo Marti, Victor Raul Haya de La Torre, Juan Bosch, among others. It was they, who will introduce the discussion on the possibility of building socialism in these parts. And Jose Carlos Mariategui had thought his philosophical theses about Latin American reality and it would add further reflections on the road from Lenin suggesting - and triumphed in Russia, and Latin American reality itself.
The roots of this way to build raised a dilemma: 1) walk the path of reform without changing the social and economic exploitation or 2) further the changes and build another model of democracy. That dilemma is what led to Romulo Betancourt to distance themselves from Salvador de la Plaza, Gustavo and Eduardo Machado, moving to head the Rómulo Betancourt own commitment to building a model closer to social democracy, of whose dangers and Rosa Luxemburg warned in 1912. This is important to remember, as the gnawed Betancourt with the "cops" - communists would extend to his 2nd term in office (1959-1963) and mark the political process until the arrival of Chavez. It is understood that Chavez is the product of a historic rematch of the left on social democracy, while understanding that it is a phenomenon of enormous historical roots.
Dr. Juan Eduardo Romero
Historian
Juane1208@gmail.com
02/02/2010
0 comments:
Post a Comment