This historic presidential election has left me with a great sense of irony. Though it is historically significant because of Senators Obama and Clinton's participation, I feel grave disappointment. While voter registration has increased in record numbers, I have become ever more disapproving of the status quo democratic process. And when Obama was named the Democratic presidential candidate, I felt a sense of tremendous defeat and cynicism.
Obama's romanticism has never inspired nor roused me. His on-screen charisma and photogenic charm are but eye candy for a retinal-minded America. The rhythm of his cadence may harken back to the Negro leaders of old, but he's no Martin.
The truth is Obama is an idealist. And so was I, when I could afford to be so. Senator Obama is undoubtedly bright and very accomplished. And though he has a proven track record to deliver results on a small scale, he has yet to demonstrate that he has the capacity to implement long term policy on a nation-wide level. If Sen. Ted Kennedy, a SENIOR statesmen with GREAT powers, has been fighting for affordable and accessible healthcare for all Americans for over four decades, what hope does Obama have?
Obama is not it. Obama is not the great White hope. He's not even the best candidate.
What America needs is better Americans. Not Obama's that do the work for us; or give us the false hope that we can be. America needs Americans that are more intelligent and further evolved. Not citizens that are easily persuaded by pulling on heart strings or loaded sound bytes. Americans need to stop supporting status quo candidates that spew doublespeak.
Democracy, in truth, is the ultimate representation of the human condition. It will only get better if the people do. And until that time we all have to suffer.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Monday, February 12, 2007
It's all you, baby
I say enough is enough.
The REAL problem with democracy, communism, socialism, and governments in general is the PEOPLE.
That's right, you, me, them, and US.
No more finger pointing at THEM. Turn your finger around and point right at yourself.
PEOPLE are the reasons why governments don't do what they SHOULD.
Look at democracy. We entrust an elite group of chosen people to represent us. This elite group is emboldened with the power to make decisions for the majority, the whole, the people, the US in the U.S.
Human beings, the fabric of democracy is inherently flawed because it is composed of human beings. We the people are flawed and imperfect. We have weaknesses and hang ups; pot bellies and acne; addictions and obsessions; The list is endless. So it should come to no surprise that we have systematically elected quite a few womanizers, slave owners, obsessive compulsives, alcoholics, pot heads, crack addicts, coke addicts, sex addicts, closeted sexual "deviants," hypocrites, pathological liars, racists, and neo-colonialists. If anything, the political elite that we elect is US. We are them. Get it?
Politicians are not OF the people, at least not in the populist sense. They are OF the people in the ways mentioned above; and for the underbelly characteristics of humanity. There aren't too many poor schmucks or regular Joe's voted into office. In fact democracy praises and rewards those that are exceptional--exceptionally rich or talented that is. Democracy doesn't reward average or mediocre. And why should it?
If America were a country of schlumps, would we want our government to be representative of that? Hell no! We would find ourselves that diamond in the ruff and elect him president.
Democracy, as a concept is problematic in and of itself. Not only for reasons mentioned above but also because it is a myth. Smoke and mirrors. Americans believe in democracy because they have to; because it is the foundation of their self-entitled superiority complex. The myth of democracy makes you subscribe to an ideal that people are good, that they inherently want to do good for others; and that they are just. Democracy is an ultra liberal left-wing ideologues wet dream.
For the rest of us, in the real world--those of us who can't afford to be idealists because bills need the rent needs to get paid--exist in democracy. Okay yes, we speak freely, and live free from harm but are getting railroaded by the corporate interests that govern OUR democracy.
This is not a populist battle cry against corporate America, but rather a legitimate complaint based on FACT.
The hard ugly truth is that governments will always be flawed as long as they're composed of people.
Call me a pessimist. Maybe I am not emphasizing or highlighting the high points. But the hell with that, this is about me being consumed with frustration and resentment for the political process. And the irony of this all is that I will be accused of being un-American for not appreciating the very freedoms that allow me to express my frustrations. But isn't that my choice as an American? Isn't freedom, the very freedom granted by democracy, all about choice?
So the hell with all that. This is about a good old fashioned whine. A therapeutic verbal diarrhea of complaints.
My soultions for addressing the problems of democracy are to lobotomize all of Congress. Labor intensive and probably expensive. But this way, Congress will officially be incapable of governing. I also suggest, forced vasectomy of all future male presidents. No explanation neccessary. And then, obligatory psychoanalysis of all government leaders and mandatory drug and alcohol testing.
Okay, so these are lame solutions. I guess I am of the typical liberal persuasion: i talk a lot of game but have very little follow through.
Look, I'm working on it.
But what do you expect?
I'm only human.
The REAL problem with democracy, communism, socialism, and governments in general is the PEOPLE.
That's right, you, me, them, and US.
No more finger pointing at THEM. Turn your finger around and point right at yourself.
PEOPLE are the reasons why governments don't do what they SHOULD.
Look at democracy. We entrust an elite group of chosen people to represent us. This elite group is emboldened with the power to make decisions for the majority, the whole, the people, the US in the U.S.
Human beings, the fabric of democracy is inherently flawed because it is composed of human beings. We the people are flawed and imperfect. We have weaknesses and hang ups; pot bellies and acne; addictions and obsessions; The list is endless. So it should come to no surprise that we have systematically elected quite a few womanizers, slave owners, obsessive compulsives, alcoholics, pot heads, crack addicts, coke addicts, sex addicts, closeted sexual "deviants," hypocrites, pathological liars, racists, and neo-colonialists. If anything, the political elite that we elect is US. We are them. Get it?
Politicians are not OF the people, at least not in the populist sense. They are OF the people in the ways mentioned above; and for the underbelly characteristics of humanity. There aren't too many poor schmucks or regular Joe's voted into office. In fact democracy praises and rewards those that are exceptional--exceptionally rich or talented that is. Democracy doesn't reward average or mediocre. And why should it?
If America were a country of schlumps, would we want our government to be representative of that? Hell no! We would find ourselves that diamond in the ruff and elect him president.
Democracy, as a concept is problematic in and of itself. Not only for reasons mentioned above but also because it is a myth. Smoke and mirrors. Americans believe in democracy because they have to; because it is the foundation of their self-entitled superiority complex. The myth of democracy makes you subscribe to an ideal that people are good, that they inherently want to do good for others; and that they are just. Democracy is an ultra liberal left-wing ideologues wet dream.
For the rest of us, in the real world--those of us who can't afford to be idealists because bills need the rent needs to get paid--exist in democracy. Okay yes, we speak freely, and live free from harm but are getting railroaded by the corporate interests that govern OUR democracy.
This is not a populist battle cry against corporate America, but rather a legitimate complaint based on FACT.
The hard ugly truth is that governments will always be flawed as long as they're composed of people.
Call me a pessimist. Maybe I am not emphasizing or highlighting the high points. But the hell with that, this is about me being consumed with frustration and resentment for the political process. And the irony of this all is that I will be accused of being un-American for not appreciating the very freedoms that allow me to express my frustrations. But isn't that my choice as an American? Isn't freedom, the very freedom granted by democracy, all about choice?
So the hell with all that. This is about a good old fashioned whine. A therapeutic verbal diarrhea of complaints.
My soultions for addressing the problems of democracy are to lobotomize all of Congress. Labor intensive and probably expensive. But this way, Congress will officially be incapable of governing. I also suggest, forced vasectomy of all future male presidents. No explanation neccessary. And then, obligatory psychoanalysis of all government leaders and mandatory drug and alcohol testing.
Okay, so these are lame solutions. I guess I am of the typical liberal persuasion: i talk a lot of game but have very little follow through.
Look, I'm working on it.
But what do you expect?
I'm only human.
Tripping Over Roots: The Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela
President Chavez and his public policies are seemingly revolutionary but ironic at best. The current Venezuelan political system as designed by President Chavez and the National Assembly is fated to encounter its demise much like the Punto Fijo Model. The regime change as orchestrated by the Fifth Republic has revolutionized politics in Venezuela but has demonstrated that, like the Punto Fijo model (PFM) authors and leaders, Chavistas have also succumb to characteristic systemic political dilemmas of Venezuela. Though the Chavistas and the PFM are ideologically opposed, they are functionally very similar. Instead of implementing a revolutionary change in Venezuelan democracy by presenting a seemingly alternative relief from the PFM, Chavez has merely replaced the elitist partiocracia with a populist version. It is still typically Venezuelan politics by another name. In fact, Chavez’s political upheaval is only a chapter in the on-going political crisis in Venezuela that began over two decades ago.
Since Chavez assumed the role of President there have been, ironically, similar incidences that have demonstrated public frustration with the systemic nature of the Chavez administration. The end of the Honeymoon phase after the 1999 constitution was passed and the subsequent opposition among Chavez loyalists emerged signaling the beginning of further political discord to come. The newest political actor, the Armed Forces, and previously marginalized leftist groups were placed in positions previously held by PFM elites. In addition, the new constitution gave Chavez and the Armed Forces a great deal of power with no means of checks and balances. Furthermore, the utilization of divisive rhetoric agitated racial and class tensions amongst citizens. Chavez’s use of pueblo is a limited nationalist code word that speaks exclusively too the poor sectors of the society and makes the middle and upper classes feel excluded from the national identity.[1] Increased polarization and opposition to Chavez’s administration came after the 49 decrees were passed. The collection of these events led to the Opposition’s failed coup attempt in April of 2002.
The Opposition’s persistence manifested in the oil strike from December 2002 till spring of 2003; their second attempt to oust Chavez from power. It failed, costing the country over $6 billion and gave Chavez the opportunity to exert his power over the heart of the nation’s political and economic system. However; for the first time public discontent had presented itself at such threatening levels that Chavez was forced to implement the Misssiones programs in order to appease the people and regain popular support. The third, and maybe the last attempt to oust Chavez came in the shape of a recall referendum. The Opposition’s failure to present themselves as legitimate political alternative to Chavismo demonstrates the power vacuum in Venezuelan politics as a result. The power vacuum typical of the Puntofijismo has been exacerbated with the consolidation of Chavez’s unchallenged power via the armed forces, National Assembly, and the state-owned oil company PDVSA.
A critical source of the decline of the PFM has already manifested itself with the lack political diversity and alternative options. What is important to consider now is how and when the paradigmatic shift will manifest. The breakdown of the Chavista political model is inevitable despite the new characteristics of his power because they are subordinate to the same problems. In addition to the historic episodes that contributed to the decline of the PFM there were also systemic characteristics that further lessened its credibility. I am unsure when Chavez’s tenure will end, democratically or not; but I am certain that while his leadership seems popular and well supported his placement is more tenuous because of the mistakes he has failed to learn from the PFM.
For example, the power vacuum created by AD and COPEI was due to their policy of exclusion.[2] Political decisions were negotiated behind closed doors among leaders of AD and COPEI excluding smaller and marginal political actors from the political system.[3] Even though the PFM created a policy of “proportional representation” for these groups it was a gesture of appeasement.[4] Members of the far-left were given a legitimate “place” in exchange for party loyalty and an end to guerilla insurgency.[5] The lack of political elasticity in conjunction with poor domestic policy contributed to declining public confidence in the capabilities of AD and COPEI leadership. It also created a power vacuum because no candidates were given opportunity to present an alternative outside of the PFM. Arguably the election of Caldera, set a precedent for Chavez, and was the first indication that not only could Venezuelans vote for someone outside the PFM but also win. But the lack of a strong alternative provided for a vacuum that Chavez was able to fill later on anyway.
Ironically, Chavez has composed a system that has created the same climate.
Like the PFM, Chavistas demonstrate little tolerance of external criticism and even less from rivals or opposition. Even though smaller and marginal political parties had representation in the PFM congressional structure, there is virtually none in the current National Assembly. Nor is there a policy of “proportional representation.” But even worse is that there is no party system. There are Chavistas and those who do not support Chavez. The collapse of the traditional party system and the emergence of a power vacuum has created a bipolar political arrangement composed of Chavistas and the Opposition, a loose conglomerate of the remnants of the political parties of the past and marginalized groups. The simplification of these two political factions has contributed to a paralyzing state of polarization. I reluctantly refer to the non-Chavistas as the Opposition because it is important to recognize that there is a moderate minority that support neither the Opposition nor Chavistas. In fact it is this generalization and oversimplification that contributes to the power vacuum in Venezuela. Increasing polarization has been exacerbated by the power vacuum and the inability of an alternative or moderate voice to manifest and be heard. Moreover, Chavez’s successful alienation of the shrinking middle class will undoubtedly be one of his greatest mistakes seeing as how they are central to the political, economic, and social health of the nation.[6]
Another problematic characteristic of the PFM that has manifest in Chavez’s administration is the institutionalization of Chavismo. While the Movement of the Fifth Republic is a political party, its members and those supportive of Chavez are affectionately referred to as Chavistas. The identification of oneself as a Chavista and voting for Chavez has helped contribute to and exacerbate polarization in Venezuela. Moreover, with the increasing incorporation of loyal Chavistas of the Armed Forces into the government bureaucracy Chavismo has become a well institutionalized element of the public sectors. Like the PFM, Chavismo risks the threat of also becoming “over-institutionalized.”[7]
Third, the PFM exacerbated the effects of Dutch Disease by preventing the investment and development of industries outside of oil production. Similiarly, Chavez has yet to present or implement domestic policies that will diversify Venezuela’s economy and divert dependence away from the petroleum industry. The new PdVSA may be more Venezolano by means of ownership but the structural nature of the organization still perpetuates the problems of the petro-state.
The symbolic re-appropriation of the national oil company Petroleos de Venezuela, S.A. during the national oil strike in 2003 signaled the beginning of a new era. The firing of Opposition allied PdVSA workers was a historically symbolic gesture because it signified a departure from the past; the last frontier in the changing of the guard from the old Punto Fijo model to the new Bolivarian Venezuela and the opportunity to effectively repeal the policies of the Apertura process. Through the Full Sovereignty over Oil program President Chavez and Minister Rafael Ramirez seek to restore national control over Venezuela’s natural resources by giving the state greater jurisdiction over the operations and profits from oil production. Oil revenues, which have traditionally funded a large percentage of the state bureaucracy, have been assigned to funds supporting social initiatives like the Misiones projects. The irony of the policies for nueva PdVSA is that even though they signal a change with the past they still foster the rent-seeking behavior and corrupt climate that was characteristic of the old PdVSA and perpetuate the problems associated with the Petro-State.
In the end, even though Chavez has re-appropriated the jurisdiction of control over the production of oil, PdVSA is still a holding company; the foreign affiliates are still intact. [8]
The irony is that the Sovereignty policies have made Venezuela just as dependent on foreign oil companies, if not more so, because without them there wouldn’t be sufficient human capital to sustain production. In addition, Venezuela’s economy is based on single-path development. Outside of petroleum, there are no other thriving industries; in over 50 years policymakers have yet to diversify their economy. Most basic products—milk and meat-- are expensive because they are imported. Yet, Venezuelans spend beyond their means because they have yet to overcome the perception that they are a wealthy state; even when 80% of the population is poor. The Chavez government has yet to radically reduce poverty and provide the poor with viable and marketable skills to attract industry through foreign direct investment. With the increase in government access to oil revenue, comes increased dependence on oil revenue contributing to further economic decline. The state’s autonomy and discretionary use of funds begets the same rentilistic behavior and corruption that plagued PdVSA in the past. Arguably the Chavistas have simply replaced the Aperturistas at PdVSA.
For Chavez to truly revolutionize PdVSA he will need to overcome oil dependence by
diversifying the economy and increasing the state’s revenues from income tax. Moreover, the effects of such reform would take a great deal of time to manifest and take effect. Despite Chavez’s populist rhetoric and promises for a 21st century socialist model he has yet to aggressively implement reforms to address the overwhelming majority of Venezuelans living in poverty. This is not only due to obstacles of polarization but the limitations of democracy and time. Similiarly, Chavez’s predecessors Caldera and leaders of the PFM failed to aggressively do so and paid the consequences.
In addition, Chavez has maintained the nation’s dependency on oil, as did the PFM. The nation’s oil industry is still too central a force in Venezuelan politics mainly because it is so intimately connected to national identity and the only true source of revenue. Moreover, because patriotic conceptions of wealth and wealth distribution are based upon the revenue from production it is a political tool that has yet to loose its public appeal. Unfortunately, problems of corruption and rent-seeking proliferate throughout the public and private sectors in both political models as a result.
In addition to the above mentioned systemic dilemmas to Chavismo there are three impediments to Chavez realizing his political ambitions for Venezuela. First, while Chavez has managed to elongate presidential terms he is still limited. So few years are not nearly enough time for the potential success of his reforms to be realized and further sustain the support of his constituents. Such change takes years, decades, maybe even generations. Sadly, his policies will require patience and continuity, and for a nation in a region known for political instability because of economic inequality it is unclear if the masses will have the foresight to see them through. He will have to further consolidate his power and authority in order to carry out his policies with least resistance.
Secondly, within the context of limited presidential terms he must maximize oil revenue profits by turning out effective and long-lasting poverty reducing and economic programs. However; these plans are dependent upon the volatile international market economy. Considering the government’s dependence on oil revenue it is unsettling to think of the implications should oil prices suddenly take a dive. Furthermore, with internal tensions at OPEC, their future is uncertain as an organization. While his reforms seem to bring light of the problem of oil dependency by diversifying the economy, ironically the initiation of these programs is still dependent on oil revenue. Moreover, Chavez’s ambitions are based on the assumption that he will be in power long enough to see the manifestation of his plans or that future leadership will continue with his plans.
Third, his presidentialist style of leadership is not just a reflection of his military training and political mindset but also the threats to his power. A president with an almost 100% majority in the National Assembly would not need to further consolidate power unless there were still imminent threats to his tenure. While one could argue that the coup d’etat in April 2002 was the inspiration it in fact is not. The consolidation of his power began with the ratification of the new constitution in 1999. Increased consolidation came about by default via various failures by the Opposition.
Just as the clientelism of the Punto Fijo model lead to a decline in voter confidence and citizen participation, Chavismo is showing signs of the same pattern. Arguably the Punto Fijo Model and its actors have merely been replaced by Chavistas, Venezuelans that follow a different ideology but engage in the same rent-seeking and corrupt behavior. Only time will reveal these patterns and bolster resentment and desire for change among the majority of Chavistas and all of Venezuela. Unless Chavez makes concessions and implements policy to overcome systemic problems endemic to the Venezuelan political system he will be like his predecessors and fail to see his Bolivarian dream through.
[1] Lander, 2005. P.33.
[2] Steve Ellner, “Introduction: The Search for Explanation”, in Steve Ellner and David Hellinger (eds.) Venezuelan Politics in the Chavez Era (2003) P. 12
[3] Ellner, (2003) P. 12.
[4] Ellner, (2003) P. 13.
[5] Ellner, (2003) P. 13.
[6] Daniel Hellinger, “Political Overview: The Breakdown of Puntofijismo and the Rise of Chavismo”, in Steve Ellner and Daniel Hellinger (eds.), Venezuelan Politics in the Chavez Era (2003). P. 50.
[7] Ellner, (2003) P. 12
[8] Mommer, P. 142.
Bibliography
2005,” European Review of Latin America and Carribbean Studies, N. 79, October 2005, P. 105-118.
Polarization, and Conflict. (Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2003).
Goodman, Louis W., Johanna Mendelson Forman, Moisés Naím, Joseph S.Tulchin, and
Gary Bland (eds.) Lessons of the Venezuelan Experience (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1995).
Lander, Edgardo. “Venezuelan Social Conflict in a Global Context,” Latin American
Perspectives, I. 141, V. 32, N.2, March 2005. P. 20-38.
Mc Coy, Jennifer and David J. Myers (eds.) The Unraveling of Representative
Democracy in Venezuela (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2004).
Venezuelan Democracy Under Stress (Coral Gables: The North-South Center, University of Miami, 1994).
N.1, P.109- 203.
S.A., Ministry of Energy and Mines. (http://www.pdvsa.pdv.com/interface.en/database/fichero/publicacion/1101/35.PDF)
In Venezuela,” Latin American Research Review, V. 32, N. 1, 1997, P. 7-36.
Petroleos de Venezuela, Socios Anonimos, Ministry of Energy and Mines, May 2006. (http://www.pdvsa.com/interface.en/database/fichero/publicacion/1413/61.PDF)
Venezuela, S.A., Ministry of Energy and Mines. (http://www.pdvsa.pdv.com/interface.en/database/fichero/publicacion/1421/62.PDF)
Petroleos de Venezuela, S.A., Ministry of Energy and Mines, (http://www.pdvsa.com/interface.en/database/fichero/publicacion/935/21.PDF).
The New PdVSA: Sowing the Oil for Greater Dependency
The symbolic re-appropriation of the national oil company Petroleos de Venezuela , S.A. Venezuela
Since PdVSA was established in 1976, it never completely assumed the “identity” of a national oil company. That is to say, management was under the influence of the ethos of international oil companies and resented the squandering of oil revenue on disastrous government programs initiated by President Carlos Andres Pérez. Congress had passed a law giving Pérez autonomy over spending in order to pursue his vision of “Greater Venezuela,” which initiated the country’s economic decline.[1] In response, PdVSA initiated the Internationalization policy as a way to protect revenue from the spending whims of the state.
In 1983, faced with the fallout from the oil shocks, production cuts, and a currency crisis the leadership at PdVSA refused to invest the money in
The Ministry of Energy and Mines lost the ability to monitor the levels of production as PdVSA surpassed its OPEC quota. Oil from the
By 1989, the combination of PdVSA’s internationalization policy, government overspending despite the lack of funds, the absence of much needed economic reform, and an increasing currency crisis, Venezuela was ripe for financial and political collapse. The Punto-Fijo leadership over the last two decades had refused to accommodate the changing needs in the economy as a result of the oil shocks and the policies of PdVSA. Successive governments increased state spending despite rising inflation, unemployment, and poverty. The middle class was being squeezed out of the crippling system. Inherent in the nearly twenty years of denial was the perception that Venezuela was rich because of the nation’s vast oil and gas reserves; but what people failed to realize was that the oil wealth, due to internationalization, was not in Venezuela. Accepting the harsh reality that
When Pérez was re-elected, he was confronted with a very different country from fifteen years before and he adopted policies suggested by the IMF and World Bank.[6] Pérez charged PdVSA with managing the opening of the oil industry to foreign investment.[7] In true PdVSA fashion, Pérez agreed to lower royalties and taxes in order to attract more foreign investment and cut high-taxed production.[8] To increase momentum towards privatization, PdVSA appointed itself as a pseudo-leasing agent between the state and foreign oil companies by providing financial guarantees against state posturing and subjected disputes to international arbitration.[9] Rising domestic tensions and the impending doom of the punto-fijo model was the ideal distraction to enable the passing of favorable legislation for PdVSA and foreign investors: PdVSA was granted a decrease in taxation for itself, the export levy of 1970 was abolished by 1996, and the state was receiving nearly fifty percent less in revenue from oil production.[10]
Once Chavez won the election in 1998, the momentum towards privatization came to a screeching halt. Chavez, a former coup leader against the Pérez administration in 1992, was able to take advantage of the political vacuum left by the imploding Punto Fijo system. For more than two decades the elitist policies of PdVSA and Punto Fijistas ignored the 80% of the population living in abject poverty and the soon-to-be extinct middle class. On the wings of nationalist rhetoric and promises of social reforms Chavez landed in Miraflores on a landslide victory. Even though the reform of PdVSA was not an immediate objective, the impact of dealing with the lowest crude prices in thirty-five years caused Chavez and his Minister of Energy and Mines, Rodríguez Araque, to repeal the policies of the ancíen regime and reinvigorate their loyalty to OPEC.[11] Chavez reestablished
After the passing of the 40 decrees, opposition to Chavez began to increase and the media embarked upon an aggressive slander campaign. Faced with increasing polarization and a decline in popularity, Chavez encountered grave challenges after four years in office. The national oil strike, organized by Opposition leaders, was a second attempt at ousting Chavez from power. After three months and a loss of over $10 billion, the Opposition forces failed and provided Chavez with the unexpected opportunity to solidify unprecedented presidential hegemony over PdVSA, to implement the Full Sovereignty over Oil program and defend high oil prices. When Chavez announced that the PdVSA employees who had refused to return to work as part of the national oil strike were permanently released of their services, he had systematically rid the organization of internal opposition to his plans. By the end of the oil strike in 2003 and one year after the coup attempt he had successfully gained power of the Constituent Assembly, the Armed Forces, and PdVSA.
For Chavez, there are three fundamental characteristics to the new policy of PdVSA: first, oil is a characteristic of national identity. In line with Chavez’s nationalist rhetoric and social democracy platform, the reappropriation of profits and majority ownership of the contract agreements, under the new PdVSA, was a defiant gesture against the capitalist undertones of oil extraction by multinational oil companies. At the core of the difference between the Chavista PdVSA and its Apertuirsta past is an ideological difference in the purpose of
Second, PdVSA is to have majority jurisdiction over
The Plan for Sowing the Oil, the long-term vision for the new PdVSA, was initiated in 2005 and has officially reconfigured the nation’s state owned oil company to be the engine of the Chavez revolution. The National Assembly approved the new 20 year Mixed Company agreements with PdVSA that guarantees a minimum of 50% ownership in any of the revised the 32 operating agreements signed between 1992 and 1997 because they are not valid according to the 2001 Organic Hydrocarbons Law.[15] Under these new agreements the state maintains “the principle of tax sovereignty” which translates into 50% income tax on all oil production.[16] This could give PdVSA over 80% of the profits earned. [17] In addition, there is a 3.3% special advantage contribution that goes towards development projects; from that 2.2% goes to the municipal council and the rest to the Endogenous Development Fund.[18]
Third, Chavez wants to diversify consumers of Venezuelan crude and lessen dependence on the
In the end, even though Chavez has re-appropriated the jurisdiction of control over the production of oil, PdVSA is still a holding company; the foreign affiliates are still intact. [19]
The irony is that the Sovereignty policies have made
The new PdVSA may be more Venezolano by means of ownership but the structural nature of the organization still perpetuates the problems of the petro-state. For Chavez to truly revolutionize PdVSA he will need to overcome oil dependence by diversifying the economy and increasing the state’s revenues from income tax.
Bibliography
Polarization, and Conflict. (
Mc Coy, Jennifer L., Andrés Serbin, William C. Smith, and Andrés Stambouli, (eds.)
Venezuelan Democracy Under Stress (Coral Gables: The North-South Center, University of Miami, 1994).
“Cornerstone,” Contact with the New PdVSA, January 2006, N.1. Petroleos de Venezuela, S.A.,
Ministry of Energy and Mines. (http://www.pdvsa.pdv.com/interface.en/database/fichero/publicacion/1101/35.PDF)
Full Oil Sovereignty: A National,Popular, and Revolutionary Oil Policy, Serie 1. Petroleos de
“Model for Mixed Companies,” Contact with the New PdVSA, March 2006, N.5, Petroleos de
“PetroCaribe: Integration in Motion,” The New PdVSA Contact, July 2005, N. 1, Petroleos de
1] Mommer, Bernard. “Subversive Oil,” in Ellner, Steve and Daniel Hellinger (eds.), Venezuelan Politics in the Chavéz Era:Class Polarization, and Conflict. (
[2]Ibid., P. 134.
[3] Ibid., P. 134-5.
[4] Ibid., P. 136.
[5] Ibid., P. 135.
[6] Ibid., P. 136.
[7] Ibid., P. 137.
[8] Mommer, P. 137.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Ibid., P. 140.
[12] Ibid., P. 139.
[13] Ibid., P. 141.
“PetroCaribe: Integration in Motion,” The New PdVSA Contact, July 2005, N. 1, Petroleos de Venezuela, S.A., Ministry of Energy and Mines, (http://www.pdvsa.com/interface.en/database/fichero/publicacion/935/21.PDF), P. 8.
[14] PdVSA, July 2005. P. 4.
[15] Ibid.
“Cornerstone,” Contact with the New PdVSA, January 2006, N.1.
[17]Ibid.
[18] “Model for Mixed Companies,” Contact with the New PdVSA, March 2006, N.5, Petroleos de
[19] Mommer, P. 142.
Friday, January 12, 2007
Caracas: A Tale of Two Movies
The documentary The Revolution will not be Televised and feature film Sequestro Express are cinematic illustrations of a polarized contemporary Venezuelan society. For both, the medium of film was chosen precisely because of the assumed impact it would have on public opinion. The two films have been so effective that they have gained an unexpected prestige as part of anyone’s indoctrination into learning about Venezuela
The Revolution Will Not be Televised, underwritten by the BBC, Ireland’s RTE, and other European broadcasters, is a documentary done with the intention of doing a portrait of President Hugo Chavez. But after being in Miraflores, by chance during the April 2002 coup attempt the documentary’s focus changed. For this reason, The Revolution Will Not be Televised is often also referred to Chavez: Inside the Coup. The two directors, Donnacha O’Briain and Kim Bartley, both television journalists from
The title, The Revolution will not be Televised, is well deserved and refers to the private media’s critical role in the April 11 coup attempt against President Chavez. Aside from winning awards and accolades abroad it has garnered a great deal of support in
Sequestro Express was intended as a film to initiate dialogue on the rising rate of kidnappings in
Early support from the Chavez administration, while shooting during the national oil strike, suggested that he was on the right track and that it would be well received. [1] Members of
The government charges that it may prosecute Jakubowicz with fomenting and glamorizing illegal drug and for the defamation of the integrity of the armed forces and local police because of two scenes in particular: a policeman accepts a bribe with cocaine; and a ranking military officer is engaged in an affair with a homosexual Colombian drug trafficker. Chavez reportedly called for laws condemning such insulting depictions of the military and law enforcement in the future.[3] If convicted he could serve between six to ten years in jail. Consequently, the film has garnered the label of being Anti-Chavista, but Jakubowicz argues that was not the intention at all because he has voted for him in the past.[4] Authorities from the National Autonomous Center of Cinematography (CNAC, www.cnac.org.ve) refused to send it to
Sequestro Express is supposed to be a terrorizing cinematic experience of an “express kidnapping” as a way to catalyze greater discussion and increase awareness, but this “express” cinematic indoctrination is inherently problematic because it employs simplistic caricatures of social class. Due to artistic liberty and personal interpretation, Sequestro Express has “inadvertently” reinforced social divisions and stereotypes. Jakubowicz presents the four kidnappers as caricatures of the lower classes and even though there is never any mention of Chavez, it is strongly implied that they are Chavistas. The four men are violent and resentful of the rich and therefore given license to be so as a manifestation of class struggle frustrations. The depiction of the kidnappers, the “other” victims of the system, is simply negative; but in truth derogatory.
The film elevates “express kidnappings” from mere criminal act to a tool of social revenge against the rich. Jakubowicz went “
Jakubowicz makes a weak attempt at giving the characters depth by presenting Budu as a sentimental father who kidnaps rich kids in order to pay for his sick daughter’s medicine.[12] Carla is the daughter of a wealthy doctor and a volunteer at a free clinic and because of this somehow she is to be excluded from the label of just being rich; instead she is rich with a conscience, and our resentment towards her because she is rich should be ameliorated. In fact, she informs the kidnappers of this as a means by which to gain leverage. Instead of inciting sympathy for all of the characters as victims of a failed socioeconomic system, Jakubowicz is unable to do so beyond the dimensions of class resentment.
In retrospect one has to wonder if the overwhelming popularity of the film was also due to the casting of
Ironically, even though Bartley and O’Briain are a little more successful at making a political film they too have a view that falls victim to one-dimensional characterization of the social sectors. At the heart of the drama for both films is the juxtaposition rich and poor, Chavista and Oposicionista. With
In The Revolution Will not be Televised, Chavistas are usually darker skinned and demonstrably of the poor sectors; the Opposition is represented by whiter-skinned and paranoid upper class Venezuelans. The only criticism of the Venezuelan government comes from the Opposition or the
In addition, the Bartley and O’Briain project the exotica and otherness of Venezuela by beginning the documentary with footage of Venezuelans engaged in a coastal ritual of drums and dancing. It’s as if the filmmakers couldn’t resist introducing the viewer to Venezuela via hot Caribbean rhythms and sensual hip-gyrating dances. The documentary is a much needed alternative view, but it fails to do the class struggle that Chavez represents any justice because of the simplistic characterization of the social sectors; especially that of the poor because juxtaposition of imagery of Chavistas to Opposition followers makes them seem savage and unruly. Moreover, not all Chavistas are poor; nor are Venezuelans who are against Chavez of the Opposition or wealthy and white.
Reviewing Malcolm X, and understanding the impetus to make the film, Spike Lee went through great efforts to portray Malcolm’s complexity because it was meant to inspire greater understanding and interest. Malcolm X wasn’t just about touting the anti-White rhetoric typical of Black national movements or of the Nation of Islam because showing Malcolm in a one-dimensional context would have taken away from the integrity of his character and legacy. Likewise, portraying the Opposition as wealthy brats who have been hogging the oil wealth for over three decades or the Chavistas as populists with a thirst for a war of retribution doesn’t do the political problems that plague Venezuela any justice. The Revolution will not be Televised as a result comes off as a leftist battle cry against the evils of America, neo-liberalism, and neo-imperialism and takes away from the credibility of the concrete political problems. Granted, the first time viewing the film it is easy to assume a Chavista stance because of the obvious slant; the film is relatively accurate and not comprehensive.[16] And even though the film is significant because it shows an alternative view that combats the mass media’s portrayal of Chavez it could’ve been just as successful by providing a complex and more comprehensive analysis of the Venezuelan society and politics.
Unfortunately, Jakubowicz and Bartley and O’Briain rely to heavily on overly simplified representations of class in Venezuela to convey their point. It is unfortunate that with the lack of fair media coverage of Venezuela that the films people encounter most only perpetuate an overly simplified representation of Venezuelan society and politics. Both films have intentions to bring awareness to the problem of economic and social divisions in Venezuela, but in order to do so they reinforce the problem rather than address the root causes of it by relying on simplistic characterizations of Venezuela’s wealthy and popular sectors. It is not enough to consider these works based on what the objective of the project was and if it was successful because the complexity of the issue of social divisions is too over simplified and would therefore fail if measured up against a more demanding list of expectations.
This is not to say that the two films are invalid cinematic statements because of their faults, but compared to other successful models it challenges their legitimacy. For example, Sequestro Express has often been compared to City of God because of the socioeconomic issues that are raised in both films. But City of God is much more successful at balancing entertainment and political point of view because of the complexity of the characters and the humanity of the characters.[17] This is why Missing, as a political film, is very successful. Based on a true story, the message of the film is innate not overt, and the experiences of the characters speak for themselves. The humanity of the characters portrayed is self-evident. Instead, the characters in Sequestro Express and The Revolution Will not be Televised are tools manipulated to promote a political agenda, rather than address the actual politics.
What is unsure is whether Jakubowicz, Bartley and O’Briain predicted that their films would become the cinematic banner for the two respective political camps in Venezuela: Sequestro Express for the cause of the Opposition and The Revolution Will not be Televised for the Chavistas. Chavistas consider Sequestro Express to be an outright criticism of the Chavez administration and The Revolution Will not be Televised has become the unofficial cinematic anthem of the same administration. Their label as political films now is not based on what their original intentions were but rather in how they have been adopted.
Reviewing Sequestro Express and The Revolution Will not be Televised has encouraged me to explore the characteristics of what a political film is. Too broad a definition obviously dilutes the significance of the genre, but then again any film content could be interpreted as political. What is inherently problematic is the medium itself because it leaves space for artistic license; but what elevates a film from the traps of artistic license and political impetus is integrity. Films such as Malcolm X and Missing are the perfect combination of accuracy and complexity, art and politics. Instead of falling victim to bias and political platform, these films are inspiring and successful as political films because of their inherent integrity and universal message. Sequestro Express and The Revolution Will not be Televised fall short of meeting the standards of political films as set by the examples of Malcolm X and Missing, but are significant nonetheless because of the political tools they have consequently become.
Bibliography
Berry, David. “Comment: The political and moral message of Sequestro Express,” Fifth Estate
online. (http://www.fifth-estate-online.co.uk/comment/messageofsequestroexpress.html)
Crowdus, Gary and Dan Georgakas (editors), The Cineaste Interviews 2: Filmmakers on the Art
and Politics of the Cinema (Chicago: Lake View Press, 20002).
Forrest, Brian. “Interview with Documentary Filmmakers Kim Bartley and Donnacha O’Brian,”
Venezuela Analysis.com, November 6, 2003, (http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1050)
Gunson, Phil. “Director’s Cut” The Columbia Journalism Review, May/June 2004, P. 59-60.
Johnston, Trevor. “Sequestro Express-Jonathan Jakubowicz,” TimeOut London, June 9, 2006.
(http://www.timeout.com/film/news/1202.html)
King, Michael. “Captive Audience: How a homegrown kidnapping thriller emerged as the most
popular film in Venezuela – and angered the Chavez administration in the process,” The Austin Chronicle, October 21, 2005. (http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/story?oid=oid%3A301932)
O’Keefe, Alice. “The Chavista War on Cinema,” The New Statesman, May 29, 2006. P. 28.
Sawtell, Jeff. “Film Review: Sequestro Express,” PoliticalAffairs.net, September 6, 2006.
(http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/view/3599/1/190)
[1] O’Keefe, Alice. “The Chavista War on Cinema,” The New Statesman, May 29, 2006. P. 28.
[2] Johnston, Trevor. “Sequestro Express-Jonathan Jakubowicz,” TimeOut London, June 9, 2006.
[3] O’Keefe, Alice. “The Chavista War on Cinema,” The New Statesman, May 29, 2006. P. 28.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid.
[6] King, Michael. “Captive Audience: How a homegrown kidnapping thriller emerged as the most
popular film in Venezuela – and angered the Chavez administration in the process,” The Austin Chronicle, October 21, 2005. (http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/story?oid=oid%3A301932)
[7] O’Keefe, Alice. “The Chavista War on Cinema,” The New Statesman, May 29, 2006. P. 28./ (hurryupharry.bloghouse.net)
[8] Johnston, Trevor. “Sequestro Express-Jonathan Jakubowicz,” TimeOut London, June 9, 2006.
[9] Berry, David. “Comment: The political and moral message of Sequestro Express,” Fifth Estate
online. (http://www.fifth-estate-online.co.uk/comment/messageofsequestroexpress.html).
[10] Ibid.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Sawtell, Jeff. “Film Review: Sequestro Express,” PoliticalAffairs.net, September 6, 2006.
[13] King, Michael. “Captive Audience: How a homegrown kidnapping thriller emerged as the most popular film in Venezuela – and angered the Chavez administration in the process,” The Austin Chronicle, October 21, 2005.
(http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/story?oid=oid%3A301932)
[14] Berry, David. “Comment: The political and moral message of Sequestro Express,” Fifth Estate
online. (http://www.fifth-estate-online.co.uk/comment/messageofsequestroexpress.html).
[15] Forrest, Brian. “Interview with Documentary Filmmakers Kim Bartley and Donnacha O’Brian,”
Venezuela Analysis.com, November 6, 2003, (http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1050).
[16] Gunson, Phil. “Director’s Cut” The Columbia Journalism Review, May/June 2004, P. 59-60.
[17] Sawtell, Jeff. “Film Review: Sequestro Express,” PoliticalAffairs.net, September 6, 2006.
(http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/view/3599/1/190)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
