Author: Fernando Dámaso

When a famous person dies, respect, consideration, and moderation should prevail at the funeral services, and should not be turned into something dramatic and sad, into a farce. Last week in Venezuela, and even today, they’ve exceeded all limits and have become something more like a folkloric spectacular than a mournful farewell, they have taken possession of the country and flooded the media. A central and disjointed and repetitive discourse, full of maudlin oaths, prayers, invocations to Christ, with pleas for forgiveness and even tears, was the official base of some later demonstrations, closer to collective hysteria and a sincere sorrow.

In the political manipulation of the illness of a leader and, in the last two months, the use of it emotionally to maintain popular support for the government at all costs, reached a catharsis last weekend, with the huge hype raising the figure of Hugo Chavez to Mount Olympus of the Gods, where they use all the adjectives available in Spanish, while his body remains unburied.

Our country was not foreign to him, and for three days, something quite unusual for a foreign personality no matter how close they were to the authorities, Cubans said farewell to him at the Plaza of the Revolution, with artillery salvos, beating of chests before the cameras, speakers and presenters dressed in black, and newspapers printed in black, all in mourning. Clearly it is not impossible to find a happy medium: either we fall short or go too far, and as usual, the latter happens.

Undoubtedly, loss is painful for anyone, and even more so when it is a public personality, whether or not we agree with their ideas but, as a neighbor of mine says: good is good, but not too but not too much of it. Luckily, for the tranquility of many, the election of the new Pope has taken over the headlines.

14 March 2013

The word “people” is widely used by politicians, mainly by those who are leftists or populists. Phrases such as the power of the people, the people decide, the people command, the people’s opinion, the people aroused, the people condemn, the people support and many others are seen and heard with great frequency. For these politicians the people are all homogenous, and include only those who share their political and ideological views, lumping everyone together without taking into account others who might think differently. The reality, however, is something else. Among the people there are views that are similar and views that are different. It is not a closed circuit but rather an unlimited open space. It would be more correct to speak of one or more segments of the people, of minorities and majorities, but certainly not of all the people.

Because of this, but mainly because of its demagogic usage, it is not a word of which I am fond. I much prefer the word citizen, which seems to me to be more  precise and which suggests a higher degree of individuality and awareness of rights and responsibilities. I see a citizen as someone far removed from the masses (a word which fortunately has been out of favor for a number of years), as someone capable making his or her presence in society felt.

One of our principle problems (though not the only one, by any means), is having to accept being confined by this generic concept of the people instead of having defended our status as citizens. The people, as well as the masses, have always been manipulated, serving as a platform and basis of support for flawed ideas, much to the nation’s detriment. This would not have happened if society had been made up of citizens – people who fulfilled their duties while demanding respect for their rights.

Reestablishing the role of the citizen is an arduous and complex task, but a necessary one if we truly want to overcome the moral and civic vacuum in which we find ourselves. It is essential for the real economic, politic and social change that the country demands.

11 March 2013

After a prolonged ordeal, which saw the release of more political statements than medical reports on his state of health — all in an effort to keep hope for a recovery alive in a society as convulsive as Venezuela’s — its president has passed away.

Aside from what this loss means for his country as well as for the left and for Latin American and Caribbean populism — his stature as a charismatic leader makes it difficult to replace him with any of the officialdom’s current leaders — it will lead to many problems after the initial period of grief and mourning has passed. Once people’s lives get back to normal, uncertainty will loom over our country.

Accustomed to living off subsidies from other countries — first for more than thirty years from the former USSR and the defunct Socialist camp, and later from a chavista Venezuela — we once again find ourselves in a disadvantaged position, without having resolved our long economic crisis, and without having created either the conditions or the mechanisms for doing so.

We were committed heart and soul to political and economic agreements with Venezuela, mainly with its president, who in most instances made decisions and took actions based on his own personal judgement, which did not always correspond to the interests of his country, as he tried to emulate Bolívar. Now that he is physically gone, no one can predict how the new authorities will act, and whether they will be confirmed or replaced in the coming constitutionally mandated elections. In the end what happens in Venezuela will not be determined by Cubans, regardless of all the official expressions of support for the chavista authorities, but rather by the Venezuelan people in the exercise of their rights as citizens of a free and sovereign nation that does not tolerate foreign interference.

This complex situation for Venezuela, a country rich in petroleum, is even more complex for Cuba, a poor country without properly utilized resources. I think that our authorities, both before and now in the face of this new reality, have been and are analyzing how to avoid the tempest blowing our way. After two disasters we are trying to resolve once and for all our economic problems by ourselves rather than continuing to look to others to pull our chestnuts out of the fire.

7 March 2013