Castroism unable to explain the censure of ‘chavismo’
ORLANDO FREIRE SANTANA | La Habana | 11 de Abril de 2017 – 13:58 CEST.
There is no doubt that Cuban rulers are concerned about the progressive
isolation of Nicolás Maduro’s chavista (inspired by the legacy of the
late Hugo Chávez) government. The official newspaper Juventud Rebelde,
in its edition last Thursday, published an article from its
correspondent to Caracas entitled “Lucidity takes the form of
multitudes”, in which the journalist posed the following question: what
has Venezuela done to deserve this war to the death of which it is now
First, it should be clarified that this “war to the death” is not
against Venezuela, but against Maduro’s regime. In addition to
imprisoning his political opponents and not accepting the electoral
calendar that most Venezuelans are clamoring for, Mr. Maduro has struck
against one of the cornerstones of the rule of law: the division of powers.
The chavista authorities, by discrediting and all but annulling the
legislative work of the National Assembly, controlled by the opposition,
have given a coup de grace to the balance of powers, which must exist in
any society calling itself democratic. Of course, this behavior has
stirred up animosity in many of the nations making up the Organization
of American States (OAS).
For Castroism the division of powers is meaningless, as the regime
employs a political mechanism in which the “legislative” work is
performed, indistinctly, by both the rulers and the deputies, gathered
in the same body, during sessions of the National Assembly of Popular
Power. And, with respect to the judiciary, all the judges – or the vast
majority of them – are card-carrying members of the governing Communist
Party, the only one permitted.
This April marks 148th years since Cuban independence fighters convened
in the Camagüey town of Guáimaro to draft the first Constitution of the
Republic in Arms, a magna carta that established the division of powers
as one of the basic mechanisms of government – one that would be upheld
in 1873 with the dismissal of the president Carlos Manuel de Céspedes
via a decision by the House of Representatives.
The official Cuban press, when citing this event, usually explains that
the man from La Demajagua was the victim of a betrayal or a coup. What
it fails to say is that this action by the House of Representatives, in
response to certain dictatorial moves by the President, was actually
consistent with the liberal-democratic spirit of the men who took to the
swamps in 1868, an attitude found in the essence of our nationality,
forming part of us long before any socialist or Marxist ideas.
The Juventud Rebelde writer’s point of view is perfectly consistent with
the way Castroism portrays the situation in and surrounding Venezuela to
ordinary citizens, according to which everything has been nothing more
than the result of Luis Almagro and his obsession, following US orders,
to destroy the “Bolivarian” revolution.
This way of assessing events in black and white, and not recognizing any
nuances, negates the credibility of the official press. This tendency is
what leads it to refer to a “a group of countries forming a minority
faction” as a way of describing the nations in the region that have
criticized the serious institutional rupture that has taken place in
But the readers of Granma or Juventud Rebelde will look in vain for the
names of the countries that make up that “minority faction.” Why?
Because they would be hard pressed to explain to Cubans why even some
leftist governments, in no way subordinated to Washington – of course,
of the democratic left – have echoed the OAS’s criticism of Maduro’s
Source: Castroism unable to explain the censure of ‘chavismo’ | Diario
de Cuba – www.diariodecuba.com/cuba/1491911926_30310.html