Why
I Parted Ways With Chávez
Reuters/Carlos Garcia Rawlins
Raúl Isaías Baduel
By
Raúl Isaías Baduel
ON
Dec. 17, 1982, three of my fellow officers in the Venezuelan
Army and
I swore our allegiance to the Bolivarian Revolutionary
Army 2000. We considered ourselves to be at the birth of a movement
that would turn a critical eye on Venezuela's troubled social and
political system — and formulate proposals to improve it.
One of the officers with me was Hugo Chávez, the current
president of Venezuela, whom I have known since I entered the military
academy 35 years ago.
Hugo Chávez and I worked together for many years. I supported
him through thick and thin, serving as his defense minister. But
now, having recently retired, I find myself with the moral and
ethical obligation as a citizen to express my opposition to the
changes to the Constitution that President Chávez and the
National Assembly have presented for approval by the voters tomorrow.
The proposal,
which would abolish presidential term limits and expand presidential
powers, is nothing less than an attempt to
establish a socialist state in Venezuela. As our Catholic bishops
have already made clear, a socialist state is contrary to the beliefs
of Simón Bolívar, the South American liberation hero,
and it is also contrary to human nature and the Christian view
of society, because it grants the state absolute control over the
people it governs.
Venezuelan
society faces a broad array of problems that have not been addressed
in the eight years Mr. Chávez has been in
office, even though the present Constitution offers ample room
for any decent, honest government to do so. Inflation, threats
to personal safety, a scarcity of basic supplies, a housing shortage
and dismal education and health care are problems that will not
be resolved by approving this so-called reform.
How is it that we, the people of Venezuela, have reached such
a bizarre crossroads that we now ask ourselves if it is democratic
to establish the indefinite re-election of the president, to declare
that we are a socialist nation and to thwart civic participation?
The answer
is that all Venezuelans, from every social stratum, are responsible
for the institutional decay that we are witnessing.
The elite never understood — and still fail to understand — the
need to include, in every sense, the millions who have been kept
at the margins of the decision-making process because of their
poverty. At the same time, President Chávez led the poor
to believe that they are finally being included in a governmental
model that will reduce poverty and inequality. In reality, the
very opposite is true.
In recent years, the country's traditional political parties have
come to see the Venezuelan people as clients who can be bought
off.
During the
economic boom years, ushered in by a sustained increase in oil
prices, the parties dispensed favors, subsidies and alms.
In the end, they taught the people about rights rather than obligations,
thus establishing the myth that Venezuela is a rich country, and
that the sole duty of a good government is to distribute its wealth
evenly. President Chávez has been buying and selling against
this idea, continuing to practice the kind of neopopulism that
will reach its limit only when the country receives what economists
call an "external shock."
Exorbitant public expenditures, the recurrence of government deficits
even at times of record-high oil prices, the extreme vulnerability
of foreign investments, exceedingly high import tariffs, and our
increased domestic consumption of fuel at laughably low prices
are all signs of what lurks on the horizon. It now seems that,
even without an appreciable dip in global oil prices, our economy
may well come to a crashing halt. When it does, it will bring an
end to the populism that the government practices and has tried
to export to neighboring countries.
Venezuela will thrive only when all its citizens truly have a
stake in society. Consolidating more power in the presidency through
insidious constitutional reforms will not bring that about. That's
why the Venezuelan people should vote no tomorrow, and prepare
to pursue a political culture that will finally be able to steer
our beloved nation toward true economic and social progress.
Raúl
Isaías
Baduel was commander in chief of the Venezuelan Army from
2004 until July. Petroleumworld
not necessarily share these views.
Editor's note: This
commentary was originally published by The
New York Times, December
1, 2007. This
article was translated by Kristina Cordero from the Spanish . Petroleumworld
reprint this article in the interest of our readers.
