Chávez is in fact out of control.

Sir, in your editorial “Chávez in control“ you seem to believe that the president who loves to be called “Commander” has with this recent proposals of some changes in the Venezuelan constitution and that among other would allow him to reign forever, has suddenly reached a point of inflexion where now his plans “would be to weaken democracy”. You also mention “a landslide victory” for Chávez in the elections in December last year.

Sir, you have been mightily misinformed. Last December the opposition managed to get 4.3 million votes, 37% of the electorate and this was counted by the electoral authorities who had all been appointed by Chávez and who did not include among them anyone who represented the opposition. And that 37% of the electorate, ever since December 2005, because of their more than reasonable distrust in the electoral system, have had to live with a Congress with 167 members in favour and very obedient to Hugo Chávez and none, zero, zilch of who differ with him.

Please, whatever, do not tell us it is only now this authoritarian is getting in control since truth is, if anything, what is happening is that he is now really getting out of control.

Massachusetts, please show some dignity!

Sent to Boston Globe and Boston Herald, December 2005, destiny unknown

Late in 1998, the price of a barrel of oil fell under 7 US$, but we never heard anyone volunteering to help out Venezuela’s poor. In December 1999, Venezuela suffered some horrendous mudslides, but, when the US sent some well-equipped engineer corps to help out, Hugo Chávez, the president of Venezuela, refused them. Massachusetts has a yearly per capita income of US$ 41,801, while Venezuela has slightly less than a tenth of that, US$ 4.020

The ad in which Citgo, the oil company in the United States owned by PDVSA, the Venezuelan state owned oil company, announces the program shows a picture of a large, two-story, typical Massachusetts detached house, with a small garden and a big tree in front, beautifully decorated with what looks like Christmas ornaments, and a completely lit up porch. Please compare that house with our shanty towns in Venezuela. Of course it is a wrongly chosen photo, and your Massachusetts poor do live in bad conditions, but, in fact, that they were not even able to choose the right picture just adds salt to our national injury.

The same ad, spelling out the partnership between PDVSA and the government of Hugo Chávez, ends with the statement: “The fuel assistance program isn’t about politics. It’s about offering humanitarian aid to those who need it. What could be more American than that?” The radical leftist Noam Chomsky recently described this as “one of the more ironic gestures ever in the North-South dialogue,” but I, as a Venezuelan, can only classify it as a gesture of utmost cynical insolence.

Many Venezuelans are upset with Chávez giving away money all over the world, while our own country has so many very much poorer people but, currently at least, there is very little we can do about it and much less so after the elections for congress held on December 4, 2005. Although everyone knows that Venezuela is a country where opinions are highly divided, the result was that 167 representatives who favor the government of Hugo Chávez were elected, and none, zero, zilch, of who differ with him. There are many explanations for these results, but, at the end of the day, they are all irrelevant since a 167-to-0 ratio is plainly not acceptable. Just as Democrats would not stand for a United States Congress made up 100% of Republicans, and just as Republicans would not stand for a Congress made up of 100% Democrats, this principle is just as true in Venezuela.

In these circumstances, I wonder, would it be too much to ask for some dignity in Massachusetts? Do you really take any gifts from anyone? Where is the limit?

What is the financial world to do with a Venezuela?

Sir, In Venezuela, as in most other countries, Congress is supposed to exercise control over the executive branch and its Constitution establishes that ‘No contract in the municipal, state or national public interest s determined shall be entered into with foreign states or official entities, or with companies not domiciled in Venezuela, or transferred to any of the same, without the approval of the National Assembly.’

Now, even though Venezuela is currently known as a very polarized nation, after the elections of December 4, 2005, its Congress includes 167 members who are in favor of and obedient to him who wishes to be called ‘Commander’, and none, zero, zilch, of those many who are not in the least in agreement with Chávez´s confused vision of a twenty-first-century socialism. This should pose some serious questions about the Congress legitimacy and therefore serious challenges for those who issue those opinions needed by the financial sector.

For instance, what are legal counselors or credit-rating agencies to do after they might receive a letter from a Venezuelan citizen (or perhaps even read this letter in FT) informing them that sooner or later the debts now contracted by Venezuela might be questioned as ‘odious debt’, as they are not duly approved by a legitimate congress (167-0), nor are they needed, as can be evidenced by the many donations Venezuela, with its own so many very poor, has recently made, among them, to the somewhat poor of Massachusetts.

Sir, if a company like Nike has to worry about the labor conditions in the factories to which they outsource their production, why should the financial world be allowed to ignore civil representation issues in those countries it helps to finance?

Sent to FT, December 18 and December 28, 2005

Copied into my 2006 Voice and Noise