By Andres F. Guevara B.
Venezuela
it's experiencing hard times. Virtually there is no space in the country that
is not subject to painful misfortunes. One day a refinery blows, the day after the
parliament approves regulations of questionable constitutionality. Many rights
are constantly violated. Amid the whirlwind of experiences people forget other
events that were amazing in their time.
No
wonder that as a result of the Republican erosion an important sector of the
population it's against Bolivarian socialism. After all, the supporters of this
political ideology have taken control of the country since 1999. In this sense,
looks pretty reasonable to attribute much of socialist management of the ills
afflicting the country.
To
be against the Bolivarian socialism is, thus, a legitimate act and so far
allowed in Venezuela. However, some people in their opposition to the
Bolivarian socialism does not hesitate to describe the current administration
as the ultimate manifestation of "liberalism" or a government of
"rights". At this point arises for us a fundamental question: Why they
do it?
Defining
liberalism as a political philosophy is not easy. However, we believe that a
liberal is someone who loves freedom, has faith in progress, is open to change,
and practices tolerance and solidarity [1]. Carlos Alberto Montaner in his
essay What does being liberal? [2] set
forth a sort of list of what he sees as the fundamental beliefs that
characterize liberals:
We believe in freedom
and individual responsibility as supreme values of the community.
We believe in the
importance of tolerance and acceptance of differences and pluralism as
essential virtues to preserve peaceful coexistence.
We believe in the
existence of private property, and legislation for protection, for both,
freedom and responsibility, can be really exercised.
We believe in living
within a rule of law governed by a constitution that safeguards the inalienable
rights of the person and in which the laws are neutral and universal to promote
meritocracy and nobody has privileges.
We believe that the
market -a market open to competition and non-price controls is the most
effective way to conduct financial transactions and to allocate resources. At
least, much more effective and morally just that the arbitrary designation of
winners and losers that occurs in collectivist societies designed for
"social engineers" and directed by commissioners.
We believe in the
supremacy of civil society composed of citizens, not subjects, who voluntarily
and freely secreted some type of state for their enjoyment and benefit, and not
vice versa.
We believe in
representative democracy as a method of collective decision making, with
assurances that minority rights can not be violated.
We believe that the
government, the less the better-always composed of public servants, totally
obedient to the laws, is accountable under the law and subject to constant
inspection of citizens.
Comparing
the features exposed by Montaner with practice and preaching of Bolivarian
socialism is imperative. The Bolivarian socialism shares nothing with liberal
thought. The same test could be done with basic texts of the liberal
doctrine-from classical liberalism of John Locke to the tenets of Murray
Rothbard and we will find that in any way the Bolivarian socialism approaches to
liberalism.
Cleared
the conceptual doubt on the foundations of liberal thought, we wonder what could
be the reason that certain public pundits generate this semantic confusion in the audience who receive his speech.
A
first reason may be ignorance. Just who know the subject is expressed on
developing its content. We believe, however, that qualifying someone as
ignorant is a gesture of pride and arrogance. Additionally, many of these
public pundits have studied political theory at length, even to get doctorates
and academic awards in the best universities in Venezuela and worldwide. Thus,
it looks doubtful that people with similar levels of education ignore the
foundations of liberal thought.
In
this sense, in our view, the fundamental cause of the semantic smear towards
liberalism (and consistently to capitalism) is due to the vested interests
around the socialist ideology in Venezuela.
Today
socialism in Venezuela is very discredited as a result of the Bolivarian administration.
There has been no policy, measure or law that has not been done in the name of
"socialism". Despite its obvious failure (not only in Venezuela but
anywhere in the world where they have been implemented), there are still people
of good will believe that socialism is still an ideology able to give mankind a
better world.
That
is why we consistently observed substantial efforts to disseminate the idea that
Bolivarian socialism is not the "true socialism" but it is an
authoritarian government of the "right" and "liberal" as it
leaves the mercy of helplessness its citizens. According to these people the
true socialism is in examples such as Brazil and Europe, especially in the case
of the Scandinavian countries.
Is
beyond the scope of this article to explain why we believe that these
assumptions are incorrect and why, as Hayek rightly raised in his time,
socialism as a form of thinking is rooted deeply totalitarian.
Coupled
with the failure of the Bolivarian administration valiant effort to impose
"true socialism" the result is more than obvious: the only way to
discredit and oppose the current government without sullying the ideology in
which it is believed is attributing to the Bolivarian administration a
qualifier against what it truly is. Thus, in unison they Bolivarian
administration claims that it is "liberal" and "right".
Such
conduct constitutes a gesture of intellectual hypocrisy. Additionally, hinders
the study and discussion of political theory in the country, a feature which is
now more than ever requires a solid foundation for the formation of future
generations.
No
doubt those who still believe in socialism in any of its forms have a huge
challenge ahead: achieving success doing exactly what they claim to oppose and
repeatedly failed. Following this quote attributed to Albert Einstein:
"The definition of insanity is to continue doing the same thing and
expecting different results."
That
challenge, however, can not give rise to abuse and prostitution of language
semantics of words. Proponents of liberal culture can not allow vested
interests to continue tarnishing socialism around the word "freedom"
to pursue the attainment of a single harvest ideas of servitude and slavery.
Against this background, keeping quiet is not an option.
[1] Javier Ocampo
López, ¿Qué es el conservatismo colombiano? en José Tomás Esteves,¿Conservadores o liberales? Cuaderno del
Centro de Divulgación de Conocimiento Económico No. 72, Caracas, Venezuela,
2000, p.8
[2] Carlos Alberto Montaner ¿Qué significa
ser liberal? El cato, publicado el 6 de febrero de 2009. Disponible
en: http://www.elcato.org/que-significa-ser-liberal [Consultado
en septiembre, 2012]
No comments:
Post a Comment