La Justicia de Paz: Muerta al nacer

Dr. Carlos E. Ponce S.

La Asamblea Nacional de Venezuela aprobará la Ley Orgánica de la Jurisdicción Especial de la Justicia de Paz Comunal y lamentablemente los/as legisladores/as no se han dado a la tarea de preguntarse porque fracasaron los demás intentos de impulsar la justicia de paz en Venezuela.

La Ley Orgánica de Tribunales y Procedimientos de Paz (LOTPP) aprobada del 20 de septiembre de 1993 no llego a ser implementada porque fue modificada para eliminarle algunas competencias que se veían como de jurisdicción formal y para eliminarle las formas de financiamiento que estaban incluidas. Luego fue aprobada la Ley Orgánica de la Justicia de Paz (LOJP) el 21 de diciembre de 1994 que planteaba un mecanismo de solución de controversias en las comunidades sin mayores formalismos en conciliación y equidad.

Esta justicia de paz fue impulsada inicialmente a través del apoyo de una ONG, algunos municipios pioneros y el Ministerio de la Familia, quien puso personal y recursos, así se logro la elección de los/as primeros/as jueces/az de Paz. Fue el compromiso de personas específicas en el Municipio Baruta del Estado Miranda, el Municipio Giradot del Estado Aragua y el Municipio Libertador del Distrito Capital. Luego se sumaron sabana de Parra en Yaracuy, Municipio Sucre del Estado Miranda, Caroní del Estado Bolívar, un par de Municipios en Portuguesa, Valencia en Carabobo, Chacao en Miranda y algunos municipios en Monagas, Anzoátegui y otras zonas del país. Pero fue producto de mucho voluntarismo, increíble esfuerzo y un apoyo inicial de la cooperación internacional de manos de la Unión Europea, la Fundación Interamericana y algunos recursos que los municipios lograban del Fides. Se desarrollaron manuales de capacitación, campanas de promoción en televisión, programas de radio e insertados en prensa.

Lamentablemente, salvo el apoyo inicial del extinto Ministerio de la Familia, no se conto con mayor apoyo del Poder Judicial ni del Poder Ejecutivo, con lo cual el esfuerzo se vio limitado a diversas iniciativas esparcidas por todo el país y no se contaba con mecanismos de seguimiento que permitieran ver las necesidades de los jueces y juezas de paz o de mejorar sus capacitaciones.

El error de dejar a la deriva el financiamiento para implementar la justicia de paz a la voluntariedad de los gobiernos municipales fue el mayor error de la LOJP, que prácticamente la sentencio desde su nacimiento. Otro grave error era dejar a los jueces/zas de Paz a la deriva en cuanto al financiamiento necesario, sede, recursos para movilización, papelería, etc. Si bien ha sido un tema de mucha discusión si deben o no cobrar los jueces/zas de paz, la realidad es que no sólo se les pide que no cobren nada sino que además pongan de sus recursos para resolver los conflictos. Muchas veces eso deja la puerta abierta para otros cobros que no son los adecuados. En países como el Perú les otorgan facultades notariales para que puedan financiar sus gastos y en diversos países forman parte de la estructura judicial.

Y es que la Asamblea Nacional nuevamente se equivoca pensando que los cambios que necesita la justicia de paz es de mero nombre o de incluirle más atribuciones o de transferir las responsabilidades al poder comunal, porque realmente hay unos criterios filosóficos y estructurales más importantes que resolver primero.

Habiendo sido unos de los redactores de la LOTPP y de la LOJP realmente me alaga que muchas de las ideas que surgieron de unas horas de discusión entre tres recién graduados de abogados en la sala de mi casa, que dieron origen a la mayoría de estructuras y conceptos que continúa teniendo la justicia de paz, ahora comunal. Pero también me preocupa que los cambios que se le dieron a la LOJP en la nueva Ley Orgánica de la Jurisdicción Especial de la Justicia de Paz Comunal no reflejen la experiencia de estos 17 años de haberse elegido el primer juez de paz en el Placer de María del Municipio Baruta.

Me toco contribuir organizando, con un selecto grupo de soñadores/as, las primeras elecciones, las primeras capacitaciones, los primeros materiales y los primeros municipios, así como viajar por todo el país promoviendo e impulsando la justicia de paz. En ese camino aprendí mucho del que fue llamado el padre de la justicia de paz, mi buen amigo Don Alirio Abreu Burelli, que lamentablemente ya se fue, pero lo recordamos. Pero Don Alirio realmente representaba el juez bueno, el buen padre de familia y lo que es el corazón de la justicia de paz. Son muchas historias lo que acompañaron ese proceso de varios años de trabajo.

Pero lamentablemente la falta de un impulso inicial fuerte por parte del gobierno, la carencia de recursos y los cambios políticos que se dieron en el país conspiraron seriamente contra la justicia de paz. Pese a que en muchas comunidades eligieron jueces y juezas extraordinarios/as, las fallas estructurales de la ley y la falta de apoyo a estos jueces/zas limitaron el crecimiento de la figura en el país.

Solo en los municipios que tomaron en serio la justicia de paz como un programa vital para las comunidades, esta justicia de paz ha permanecido.

Hay cientos de errores que se dieron en la implementación, uno de ellos la soberbia inicial de nuestra parte de querer una justicia pura en las comunidades. La otra pensar que porque se pone en una Ley se debería implementar.

Salvo los cambios de nombres realmente no veo mayores cambios positivos en la nueva ley que hagan ahora que la justicia de paz tenga mejores oportunidades. Seguimos en presencia de un hibrido extraño que no tiene dolientes. La Ley le asigna a la Escuela Nacional de la Magistratura la responsabilidad de formar a los jueces de paz, pero realmente estos jueces no parecieran tener mayor relación con el Poder Judicial porque la ley cada vez que hace referencia a otras instancias se refiere a la “autoridad competente”. La nueva Ley sustituye las responsabilidades de los Municipio y sus Alcaldes en cuanto a la justicia de paz y se las da ahora al Poder Popular, pero sin tener claridad el ente encargado. Así que no hay realmente un responsable de dar seguimiento y apoyo a los jueces y juezas de paz.

El sistema de revisión de decisiones de la nueva ley queda solamente relegado al amparo constitucional, sin que realmente existan mecanismos posibles de revisión de decisiones de equidad. Vemos como hay una situación clara de indefensión de las partes y hay una imposibilidad real de control de la actuación de los jueces y juezas de paz.

El financiamiento de la justicia de paz pasa ahora a un peor nivel que en el pasado, porque si bien había sido una responsabilidad de los municipios de financiar la justicia de paz, había muy pocos alcaldes y Concejos Municipales que realmente asignaron recursos. Eso llevo a que no existieran recursos para las elecciones de los jueces y juezas, gastos básicos de funcionamiento y otras necesidades mínimas. La nueva ley se vuelve completamente utópica al establecer en su Articulo 13 que “El financiamiento de la justicia de paz corresponde a la comunidad organizada del ámbito territorial donde se haya constituido” y “podrá” incluirse en los planes de desarrollo y proyectos comunitarios de los Consejos Comunales.

No es una cuestión de constitucionalidad o una cuestión de competencias, es un problema de no querer aprender de los errores y pensar que la ley lo resuelve todo. Es un asunto de sentarse a evaluar porque no funciono y que se puede hacer para que esta vez si funcione.

Basado en la experiencia de los casi 15 años que dedique a la justicia de paz, desde el primer borrador de ley que redactamos ese año o de la primera experiencia con Árbitros Comunitarios me da tristeza tener que ver que nuevamente la justicia de paz pareciera no tener mejores perspectivas para el futuro porque esta arrancando con los mismos vicios que en el pasado y pareciera que la nueva legislación no permite que la figura se desarrolle, todo por la ceguera de querer gobernar viéndose el ombligo y no querer aprender del diálogo y de la experiencia.



Mi Experiencia con la Justicia de Paz: En materia de justicia de paz fui co-redactor de la Ley Orgánica de Tribunales y Procedimientos de Paz y de la Ley Orgánica de la Justicia de Paz, asesore los procesos de implantación de la justicia de paz en diversos municipios de Venezuela, co-redactor del primer manual de formación de jueces de paz y de diversos materiales de formación de jueces de paz y de los primeros talleres de capacitación y asesore procesos de justicia de Paz en Colombia, Ecuador y Perú.

La Justicia Piche

Luisa Estella Morales y Hugo

Luego de 13 años del gobierno autoritario chavista corrompiendo las instituciones y destruyendo cualquier sombra institucional, donde una de las más destruidas es la justicia, a uno no le puede extrañar que ya se llegara al nivel del absurdo en donde se encuentra Venezuela.

La total vagabundería y sinvergüenzura de la Presidenta del Tribunal Supremo de Injusticia de la República Bolivariana de Venezuela, “Dra.” Luisa Estella Morales no tiene límite. No le ha bastado declararse abiertamente en favor de la “revolución” que adelanta Hugo Chávez, y de mostrar total parcialidad hacia el régimen, no le basta demostrar su apoyo directo a la dictadura de Cuba, cuando manifestó el 17 de mayo de 2011 que “El modelo de justicia cubano sirve de referencia para lograr los cambios que se promueven en Venezuela” y no le ha temblado la mano cuando declaro inaplicable las Sentencias de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos violando la Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos (Pacto de San José).

En el día de ayer, la sala Constitucional del Tribunal Supremo de Injusticia, también presidida por la Sra. Morales, emitió una sentencia donde elimina la aplicación de dos artículos del Código Penal que castigan el delito de invasión a la propiedad privada. El fallo no sólo ordena desaplicar ­"en casos en donde se observe un conflicto entre particulares devenido de la actividad agraria"­ el artículo 471-A del Código Penal (referido a las invasiones), sino además el 472, en el que se penaliza a quien perturbe violentamente a otra persona que tenga la posesión pacífica de un bien inmueble. Eso lleva abiertamente a autorizar la invasión a la propiedad privada. También abre peligrosamente la puerta a la ley del más fuerte al no dejar caminos legales que frenen la invasión.

No podemos esperar otro tipo de decisiones de personas a las cuales la justicia simplemente es un instrumento de poder económico o político. La Sra. Morales no es precisamente un ejemplo de moralidad o de carrera judicial digna, ella fue destituida como juez en 1989, en la Gaceta Oficial Nº 34.354, de fecha viernes 24 de junio de 1989, se publicó la sentencia mediante la cual el entonces Consejo de la Judicatura destituyó del cargo de juez titular del Tribunal de Primera Instancia Agraria del estado Yaracuy a la doctora Luisa Estela Morales Lamuño de Acosta. En el texto de la sentencia se señala que Morales Lamuño incurrió en la alteración de actas y otro concurso de infracciones. Si esta es la Presidenta del Tribunal, poco podemos esperar del resto del sistema donde algunos tienen en lugar de curriculum unos prontuarios criminales.

El uso del Poder Judicial como mecanismo político de la robolución, para perseguir opositores, expropiar lo inexpropiable, silenciar a los medios y perseguir sistemáticamente, ha sido una constante en la dictadura de Hugo Chavez Frias.

Pese a que sea una constante la manipulación del poder judicial, hay veces que lo ridículo de algunas decisiones hace pensar que hay veces que lo hacen a uno asombrarse, lo cual parecía imposible, una de esas decisiones es la “jueza” Dinorah Yosmar González del Juzgado XV de Juicio del Circuito Judicial Penal del Área Metropolitana, de sobreseer la causa abierta con ocasión de la querella entablada contra Mario Silva, conductor del programa La Hojilla de la televisora oficial, por la comisión del delito de injuria agravada con insultos y groserías permanentes contra cualquier persona que pueda ser de oposición. El principal argumento de la jueza ha sido que llamar a alguien “hijo de -----”, y además por televisión, no constituye un hecho punible y que por tanto la querella presentada en contra de Silva atenta contra su derecho a la libertad de expresión.

En pocas palabras, cuando una persona pone una caricatura en un periódico indicando que algunas lideresas del chavismo en algunos poderes son cortesanas del régimen, el periodista va preso (Leocenis García), pero si un esbirro del régimen insulta sistemáticamente en el canal de televisión del Estado (en televisión abierta) con cualquier tipo de vulgaridades e injurias personales a cualquier persona o su familia, eso sí está muy bien y es simplemente el derecho a la libertad de expresión.

Realmente Macondo y los personajes de Márquez en Cien Años de Soledad cobran vida en una Venezuela completamente surrealista.

The OAS in the Abysm

Dr. Carlos E. Ponce

Published December 11, 2011| Fox News Latino

Once the champion of regional integration and human rights, Brazil has been changing its foreign policy approaches and now it is the enemy of the Inter American Human Rights System and an active promoter of “non-intervention” in terms of democracy and human rights.

Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff ordered a review of relations with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) after the regional body issued interim measures to protect indigenous rights-tribes and asked the government to suspend construction of Brazil’s $17 billion Belo Monte dam last April. Since then Brazil joined forces with the autocrat from Venezuela, Mr. Hugo Chavez, to conspire against the Organization of American States (OAS) and also it has been trying to control or eliminate the powers of the Inter American Human Rights Commission.

Recently the Brazil OAS Permanent Mission has been blackmailing the organization suspending the annual maintenance mandatory country quota trying to force the organization to a technical shutdown. The Brazilian Government debt is US $ 6.3 million, and they are willing to pay the quota if the OAS “behavior” changes in favor of the new empire of the Americas.

The majority of the governments have been paying their quotas with the exception of Brazil and Venezuela. The case of Venezuela is just more of the same buffoonery of Mr. Chavez. Venezuela has been actively promoting a new organization called CELAC (The Community of Latin American and Caribbean States) to replace the OAS, excluding Canada and United States from the “new” organization, but a country with a debt of US $ 2.5 million to the OAS and with similar debts in all the international institutions it is not the strongest base for a new organization. The CELAC it is just another ineffective Presidential Club in the region with lot of discourses and lack of programs. If fact their “democratic” clause it is just a mechanism to protect presidents or autocrats in power, but it is not a mechanism to promote a defend democracy. An organization designed by Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua will be far from democratic and human rights/Civil rights will not be a priority.

The OAS lives one of its worst moments, broke with the worst General Secretary in its history and a week leadership in the region. In fact, the OAS only has US $ 50,000 in hand to cover all its December operations.

Even though I believe that Mr. Jose Miguel Insulza must quit, allowing the OAS to elect a better leader, and that the organization needs a major auditing to evaluate possible missuses and corruption inside the organization and a fundamental reform to be more efficient, the worst thing that we can do right now is to allow Brazil and Venezuela to get away with their plan to shut down the organization.

Killing the OAS will also kill the Inter American Human Right System leaving the region without institutions that actively protect human rights. There are several things that we can save from the OAS with innovation and with political will. The OAS needs a new responsible leadership but leaving the decision in the hands of the autocrats Rafael Correa, Hugo Chavez and Daniel Ortega or satisfying Brazil new imperial mode it is not a cleaver move.

Replacing the OAS with ALBA, CELAC or with any other mockery of an institution will not solve regional challenges.

CELAC, Una nueva Payasada regional

La nueva organización regional CELAC (Comunidad de Estados Latinoamericanos y Caribeños) surge con muy mal pie, lo primero es que se reúne en un país no democrático, lo segundo es que su "clausula democrática" lo que contempla es suspensión de un Estado cuando exista la ruptura de la democracia pero por supuesto no contempla nada sobre estos Presidentes y gobiernos que violan sistemáticamente los principios democráticos y "presidentes" como Daniel Ortega que no son electos (porque un fraude mayor ya lo hace dictador) o el caso de Cuba (con que perverso cinismo firma Cuba una clausula democrática). La Carta Democrática de la OEA (Interamericana) ha sido letra muerta salvo cuando se dio la crisis de Honduras pero de resto no se ha querido implementar, así que una clausula democrática solo para preservar jefes de estado es risible.

Lo otro es en derechos humanos, lo único verdaderamente funcional de la OEA es el Sistema Interamericano de Derechos Humanos y eso ha sido un sistema difícil de montar y mantener, del cual muchos gobiernos han pretendido destruir. De hecho Brasil amenazo no pagar más sus cuotas en la OEA si el sistema sigue revisando casos en Brasil. Y es que Venezuela y Colombia, Bolivia y otros no quieren a nadie que revise las violaciones de derechos humanos en sus países. Así que me pregunto, que clase de mecanismo de derechos humanos tendrá el Celac?, tal vez un sistema diseñado entre Cuba y Venezuela.

Me preocupa es la carencia de liderazgo y como nuestra región simplemente ríe y se hace cómplice este tipo de iniciativas.

Lo malo para Venezuela es que tendrá que cargar con los costos de esta nueva locura del emperador porque dudo mucho que ningún país pueda pagar las cuotas de esta "organización" cuando la mayoría de ellos no han estado nunca al día con las cuotas de la ONU, OEA y cientos de organizaciones existentes.

La OEA se mantiene gracias a los pagos a tiempo de Estados Unidos, Canadá y Brasil, los pagos acumulados pero anuales de Chile y México, de allí la mayoría de países simplemente paga con retardos de varios años o no paga (no existe mecanismo de sanción como en la Unesco por el retardo).

Venezuela esta retardada en los pagos de casi todas las organizaciones internacionales, y ahora será el gran pagador de esta?, siendo el gran financista por supuesto que pretenderá como en la Alianza Bolivariana (ALBA) dominar los temas, agendas y posiciones. Sera que Venezuela pretende darle petróleo a toda la región de gratis para que se mantengan en el Celac? Y cuanta corrupción, compra de armas, financiamiento de gobiernos y movimientos tiránicos y violentos, desestabilización e ineficiencia puede comprar el petróleo venezolano?

Muchos países priorizan el pago de organizaciones que les son útiles y eficientes en materia comercial y política, pero sobre todo aquellas regionales que los atienden directamente, y allí vemos como poco a poco Mercosur ha sido fortalecida, como la organización del caribe (Caricom) tiene su fuerza de sus socios y ahora los acuerdos centroamericanos/sistema integrado ven poco a poco como se tiene frutos de esos acuerdos con una organización cada día más sólida.

El Celac arranca con el mecanismo del consenso para la toma de decisiones, eso ha significado que en materia de violaciones a la democracia en la región la OEA no ha servido para mucho, llegando las situaciones a escalar mientras se logra que todo el mundo esté en la misma línea, así que en que difiere Celac de la OEA en cuanto a la ineficiencia?.

El Celac es simplemente la fantasía de una OEA sin estados Unidos y Canadá, pero francamente lo que parece es una mala copia de la OEA con todos sus males pero sin la únicas parta que sirve que es la experiencia y algunos mecanismos que se han desarrollado (como el caso del Sistema Interamericano de derechos Humanos).

Sin querer defender a Estados Unidos o Canadá, pero la verdad es que no me quedo claro el racional de tener una cuasi-OEA pero sin ellos y sumando Cuba (mas cuando Cuba en estos momentos no está en la OEA porque no quiere asumir el reto de mejorar los principios democráticos, como se expresó luego de la Asamblea General de la OEA de san Pedro Sula, Honduras), así que es una organización de las Américas pero sin dos países de las Américas, porque es que México forma parte del Bloque del Norte, así que francamente hay un racional que pareciera es excluyente en tiempos que requieren de la voluntad de todos.

Otra pregunta que me surge es el nivel de participación prevista para la sociedad civil, porque por lo que se ve ese es un tema Tabú para esta organización.

Una organización con las dictaduras de Cuba, Nicaragua y Venezuela dentro y los autoritarismos de Ecuador y Bolivia no se ve muy abierta a sociedad civil.

En lugar de pelear por un bien liderazgo en la OEA (no corrupto como el actual) y que limpiemos a una estructura rescatable y que en muchos sentidos sigue teniendo mucho potencial, se dedican esfuerzos tiempo y recursos a una payasada más del loco tirano de Venezuela.

La OEA necesita cambios inmediatos, comenzando por la renuncia inmediata del bufón de Insulza, expulsar a todos los vividores amigos de Insulza y de diferentes embajadores y gobiernos que simplemente son nombrados por sus grados de amistad y hacen de la OEA una carga burocrática inefectiva, hay que limitar la posibilidad del Secretario General de usar la organización como su caja chica. Dentro de todo se necesita seriedad, pero para ello necesita voluntad política de los Estados, pero francamente lo que están es perdiendo el tiempo con organizaciones de maletín.

Si me preguntaran el reto es fortalecer a la Organización de Estados Americanos, para que su rol se pueda cumplir a cabalidad y que logremos además fortalecer los grandes bloques sub-regionales (que son mecanismos comerciales y de integración efectivos) y si se quiere crear algo es un mecanismo de integración y coordinación de bloques sub-regionales.

En unos años veremos a este Celac desapareciendo por la puerta trasera al igual que el Alba, el banco del Sur y tanta payasada del “Socialismo del Siglo XXI” y su payaso mayor.

Anarquismo 2.0

Publicado Diciembre 2011 en revista Nueva Politica

La complejidad de los diferentes mecanismos de interrelación y comunicación que se vienen desarrollando así como el cansancio de las personas de los mecanismos tradicionales de control social, ha producido una verdadera revolución política, social y económica, que va desde comunidades 2.0 abiertas de trabajo, socialización y familiares, así como nuevas formas de participación política a nivel mundial.

El surgimiento de Facebook como plataforma de intercambio, nuevas plataformas de mensajes, twitter, Pins, la nueve y otras formas de interrelación, combinado con plataformas y estrategias de intercambio voluntario de ideas, sistemas, programas y conocimiento. En el activismo político de calle, el movimiento de indignados de España, el Movimiento de Ocupantes de Wall Street, el movimiento universitario de Venezuela o de Chile o la reacción masiva en Túnez, Egipto, entre otros, vemos claros signos de iniciativas individuales y colectivas sin mayor coordinación inicial y con diversos liderazgos difusos.

Es que realmente estamos en la puerta de movimientos irreverentes contra las autoridades usurpadas de la gente. En Cuba, los blogueros la Generación-Y y otros han estado usando Internet y el twitter a pesar de las prohibiciones del régimen y las políticas públicas contra el uso de internet. Lo mismo se aplica a China y otros regímenes represivos. En el caso de Venezuela, aun cuando el gobierno ha venido reprimiendo y cerrando medios de comunicación los estudiantes han estado utilizando plataformas 2.0 como una forma coordinar estrategias, monitorear elecciones y de protestar contra la represión. Por lo tanto, no importa si usted tiene una orden, una ley o normas que limiten o restrinjan la difusión de información, las personas siempre encuentran la manera de superar esta normativa

Twitter ha sido un actor fundamental en el drama de Irán, en la liberación de Libia, la revuelta pacifica de Túnez y el inicio de cambios en Egipto. Con Irán el Departamento de Estado de los Estados Unidos solicitó hace un par de años a la red social Twitter que retrasara calendario de mantenimiento durante la protesta de Irán para evitar la interrupción de las comunicaciones entre los ciudadanos iraníes y el resto del mundo, [1] esto es sólo una prueba como sociales las redes de influencia en las políticas públicas y la creciente influencia de la base de Internet planteamientos contra reglas injustas. Twitter ha ido cambiando la forma en que algunos programas de noticias cubren las noticias y la forma en que algunos políticos han estado tratando de conectar con sus electores y en el caso de los regímenes represivos, la manera cómo la gente desafiar la represión y el bloqueo de los medios de comunicación formal.

Los ejemplos de Túnez y Egipto dan una clara demostración del impacto de las nuevas formas de interacción colectiva utilizando internet-base y tecnologías de la comunicación. También es una buena manera de ver cómo las redes sociales han sido la creación de un nuevo paradigma y un cambio social / cultural.

Los medios sociales, Twitter y otras formas de tecnologías han ayudado a crear una comunidad virtual y el poder de un cambio cultural. Según el Ex Presidente Fernando Henrique Cardozo del Brasil las crisis sistemáticas traen momentos de desorden e incertidumbre, pero también una oportunidad para transformar debido a que hay un reconocimiento de que más de lo mismo no va a funcionar y se abre el espacio para la innovación y las ideas alternativas, ya que "no hay un sólo actor, público o privado, que pueda tener todo el conocimiento y la información necesaria, ningún actor tiene visión suficiente para hacer que las aplicaciones de instrumentos eficaces, y ningún actor por sí mismo tiene suficiente potencial para dominar un determinado modelo de gobierno", es decir, el poder de las redes. [2]

Estamos en una época de cambios y la prisa de todos para la conectividad también está cambiando las interacciones sociales y se trata de un nuevo enfoque hacia el colectivismo. Incluso con la batalla por el control de Internet por su informal no jerárquica de la red social siempre encuentra una manera de ir en contra de la regulación, los controles y restricciones económicas. Estamos hablando de anarquismo en la web, la organización social sin Estado. Se trata de un nuevo movimiento, más allá de los criterios tradicionales de derechas o izquierdas, que opera en el ámbito de la cultura, la interacción social y la economía y está obligando también los cambios de gobierno, políticas públicas y el Estado. E-anarquismo es parte de la convicción de que la sociedad humana puede existir sin una autoridad externa y depende de la buena voluntad sin coacción y social limita de sus miembros.

Después de la revolución industrial, los teóricos, como Tocqueville, Marx y Durkheim estaban seriamente preocupado por la disminución de la conectividad social, los valores tradicionales y la solidaridad política, debido a la dispersión de los agraristas de sus raíces en las masas de trabajadores urbanos. La alienación de Marx o de la anomia de Durkheim mostró sus puntos de vista sobre el final de la participación cívica. Hay una percepción también en los políticos tradicionales de ver el mundo con vistas también tradicionales en lugar de abrir sus marcos, a nuevas formas de contratos y abrir la elaboración de políticas para la innovación y una nueva forma de participación ciudadana. Este nuevo e-anarquismo es parte de las nuevas formas de compromiso cívico y representa un cambio fundamental en nuestras estructuras políticas, sociales, culturales y económicos. Es un momento para el cambio social.

A pesar de que a la gente no le guste mucho el término estamos en presencia de la mayor red anarquista de conocimiento, interrelación social y política. Considerando el anarquismo un movimiento político-social que se inspira en la libertad del individuo y la necesaria limitación del poder de control del estado, vemos como consientes o no, vamos hacia un mundo más políticamente orientado al anarquismo. Y es que el anarquismo va más allá de las derechas o las izquierdas, es el encuentro prefecto entre los movimientos que procuran el mínimo estado y de allí surgen todas las ramificaciones. No hablamos de la manipulación violenta que usa el anarquismo como bandera, hablamos del principio de libertad ante todo.

Vivimos en una era en la que Rousseau, Proudhon, Volaire, Godwin, Kropotkin, entre otros, estarían sonando despiertos. Una era donde las libertades individuales 2.0 se imponen a los controles férreos de los gobiernos. El filósofo francés Sébastien Faure decía que cualquiera que niegue la autoridad y luche contra ella es un anarquista.[3] Tal vez nos movemos hacia la sociedad igualitaria de Tomás Moro (1516) en su Utopía.

El mundo está cambiando hacia un enfoque más colectivo inter-relación, pero lamentablemente, los gobiernos siguen anclados en el pasado. Tenemos nuevas tecnologías y un amplio uso de sistema de Internet de la base de las relaciones recíprocas entre los ciudadanos y el gobierno, pero tenemos más burocracia con peores servicios. El sector público debe dejar de ser reacio a reformar su estructura y adaptarse a los tiempos de la burocracia de redes nuevas. Las personas y las sociedades son más ingeniosos hoy más que nunca la imaginación colectiva que puede ser más eficaz que las visiones tradicionales en términos de políticas y la forma en que las burocracias enfoque de servicios, problemas y cambios. Es un tiempo para evitar las políticas estáticas y en su lugar la participación de nuevos sectores y allanar el camino para nuevas formas de colaboración reinvención.

Las redes sociales son más eficientes que las políticas públicas. Los gobiernos y los estudiosos han estado trabajando en la idea de que la tecnología de la información transformará la forma en que opera el gobierno, gran parte de las tecnologías de reproducción de los valores culturales. Hay una oportunidad para mejorar la política pública y generar eficiencia en el gobierno, abrir el proceso a una participación más amplia o en otros casos, las agencias son capaces de tomar ventaja de las tecnologías sólo para mantener el control social y mejorar la capacidad de gobierno 's de vigilancia. Los gobiernos no sólo tienen que utilizar las tecnologías de la información para mejorar la recaudación de impuestos, vigilancia, cambiar la forma de manejo de casos y facilitar el acceso a la información, que necesitan un enfoque más inclusivo.

Dado que las redes se han vuelto más comunes en la administración pública debido a los esfuerzos interinstitucionales y la participación de organizaciones no lucrativas y de los beneficios los nuevos enfoques de las redes sociales pueden tener un rápido impacto en las políticas públicas, pero el gobierno tendrá que adaptar las estructuras. Por supuesto que la innovación tendrá un papel importante en el proceso de cambio de los marcos actuales.

Habermas llamó a esto la posibilidad de la razón, la emancipación, y la racional-crítico latente de comunicación en las instituciones modernas y en la capacidad humana para deliberar y perseguir intereses racionales y la vida pública democrática sólo prospera cuando las instituciones que los ciudadanos puedan debatir asuntos de interés público, por lo que contar con una herramienta en nuestras manos para una sociedad más democrática. Así que el reto es abrir la participación y reducir el control social con las tecnologías. Se requiere la cooperación para ayudar a crear las condiciones en las que los innovadores puedan prosperar y eliminar los obstáculos. Hasta ahora, el primer obstáculo a la innovación son los gobiernos y sus burocracias.

La arquitectura de poder existente y las políticas de puerta cerrada, son reliquias de la base de las relaciones de poder del siglo pasado, pero los nuevos retos y nuevas redes sociales requieren nuevas políticas y nuevos enfoques. El colapso económico actual fuerza de mejores políticas públicas y que ayudará al político a abandonar algunas de sus ideas más arraigadas y disfuncionales. Nuevos paradigmas requieren nuevos tipos de formas institucionales de las políticas públicas y nuevos enfoques a los cambios sociales a tomar ventajas de las tecnologías de una manera que aumenta la participación y mejorar las políticas públicas.

Los manifestantes en Túnez, Egipto y otros países, coordinado sus acciones con tweeter e internet "e-contra-revolucionarios" nos mostró cuán eficaz es la red social incluso en contra de los regímenes más terribles. Es un momento de replanteamiento y un tiempo de transformación, hay que aprovechar la crisis de liderazgo para avanzar en un cambio del paradigma actual y crear un nuevo paradigma.

[1] Musgrove, Mike. 2009. Twitter is a player in Iran’s drama. The Washington Post, Wednesday, June 17, 2009. Pg. A 10.
[2] Cardoso, Fernando. 2009. Do’s and Don’ts for Policymakers in the midst of an Economic Crisis. Americas Quarterly, Spring 2009. Pg. 70
[3] Ward, Colin. 2004. Anarchism. Oxford University Press. New York. Pg. 53

Is Ollanta Humala the New Autocrat Apprentice?

Venezuela's Autocrat, Ollanta Humala and Nadine Heredia

Politics
Opinion: Is Ollanta Humala the New Autocrat Apprentice?

By Carlos E. Ponce

Published July 20, 2011| Fox News Latino

Though Latin America has changed from a continent once plagued by violent dictatorships and a seemingly unending series of military coups, the region is still not democratic. The dictatorship in Cuba remains a shame for the region while dictatorship has been replaced by electoral authoritarianism whereby the “military boot” has been replaced by the “electoral boot.” Governments might be popularly elected, but that does not mean they are properly liberal and democratic.

Latin America has changed in the past 20 years. Whereas many countries have reached levels of democratic stability rivaling European countries, others continue to lag behind. Economic stability has come to Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, Panama, Costa Rica, Uruguay, Peru and Argentina, and after a long period of unrest, even El Salvador is emerging as a democratic and economic success story. Yet Venezuela and Nicaragua are increasingly autocratic countries while Bolivia and Ecuador are drifting that way.  

There are two realities in Latin America—one consisting of countries that have forged a forward-looking view and others who are still tied to a past defined by a dangerous mixture of ideological visions, fake revolutions, and inescapable violence.

A democratic Latin America is also not a question of left and right. Common to all the leftist successes in the region is that they have broken free of this dangerous second reality. Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff has carried on former president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s respect for the rule of law and institutions. Unlike Castro’s regime in Cuba, Rousseff left is pursuing a social democratic agenda consistent with liberal democratic norms.  This is also true for President Funes in El Salvador. There are plenty of other examples as well from former presidents:  Chile’s Michelle Bachelet, Uruguay’s Tabare Vazquez, and of course, Brazil’s Lula. Some center-right presidents have also demonstrated respect for the rule of law, liberty, and democracy as key elements for progress—for example, Costa Rica’s Laura Chinchilla, Chile’s Sebastian Pinera, and Colombia’s Juan Manuel Santos. In Mexico, even with the terrible crisis due to the drug related violence, we can see progress.

On July 28^th the new president of Peru will enjoyed his presidential inauguration with a big question mark in his future. Peruvian president-elect Ollanta Humala faces a critical test. What reality will he embrace? Will he break with the authoritarian past and become a democrat or will he be a force for  the second reality—the Chávez-style electoral authoritarianism that has so greatly setback the region. Humala has said he wants to follow Brazil’s lead and time will tell if the new president can continue to grow Peru’s economy while also providing for a “social face.” He will always have the temptation and he can fail the test if he decides to take the road to Cuba.  Open economic systems are important but so also are social policies, human rights, democracy and liberty. Striking the right balance is not always easy, but it is doable, as evidenced not only by Brazil, but also El Salvador, Chile, Panama, Costa Rica, Colombia, and Uruguay.

Humala already faces terrible critics from the right and from the left. Some “left-fundamentalists” has been critics of his negotiations with Toledo, his lack of attacks against the mining industry and the selection of non-left advisors and potential technocrats as ministries. These groups are ready to push the radical indigenous agenda, pressure for extreme government-base programs and fight against any type of market approach. Some of these groups, supported by Chavez, organized the fall of Lucio Gutierrez in Ecuador because he didn’t followed the script.

The Americas doesn’t need heady ideology. What is needed is pragmatism. What is needed is sound policy and efficient administration. We need opportunities for all—stronger economies that eliminate rent-seeking and corruption, provide social services, and reduce the size of government while providing for a proper amount of regulation and social welfare. The continent needs to move beyond old conceptions of “left” and “right” and simply adopt democratic practices and policies that deliver. Further, democracies must evolve beyond elections to become fully participatory—systems in which decisions are actually made my people.

Regional leaders must continue to distance themselves from the tyrannies from Havana and Caracas, and this is the test before President Humala. He will have the opportunity to resist the temptation of the “love” and advisory from Cuba or Venezuela and show the world that he is committed to his 5 year presidential term, not a single day more, and he will not trick Peru supporting his wife for the continuation of this term.

He comes from the military and he has no government, business, academic or administrative background, so for him the democratic game will be really hard to play. Humala will try for sure to change the constitution in two years to seek for social changes (maybe reelection) and he will be also tempted to reduce the influence of other political parties, including Toledo’s, in his administration. He will have the inclination, as Alberto Fujimori did, to instigate a confrontation with the Parliament to gain control. He will need the strength to fight against the temptation and the inclinations and rule as a democrat. It is indeed a major dilemma for Ollanta, fall in the temptation of power or be the president that Peru needs and rule for all the Peruvians.

Peru requires an ongoing negotiation of the exercise of power, and this is where Humala will prove whether he is a democrat. It is also up to Peruvian civil society, which should pressure Humala not to abuse his power or to copy the bad examples from Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador and Nicaragua and unduly extend his term in office.

Civil society will be a key factor in controlling Humala’s behavior, but it is also time to motivate youth movements to participate in politics and in civil society organizations. Youth will continue to be a countering force in Venezuela and other Alba Countries. Young people are also a critical force in countries on the fence between the two realities, and they will be important to keeping Peru free and democratic and force Humala to keep his promises of a true democratic ruling. Youth movements can become a force for positive change—a voice to hold Humala to his promise that he wants more freedom and democracy, not less.

Given that Peru has experienced exponential growth and a level of economic stability previously unknown to the country, the opportunities for Humala are endless. Humala will also have the opportunity to manage a small but important oil and gas industry.  Plus, Peruvians want democracy. Economic success under democratic rule has strengthened support for democratic values among Peruvians. If Humala decides to change the constitution or to extend his term limits or authority, we will see a major confrontation in Peru and it will be his fault to generate a social confrontation and a crisis in a peaceful country.

One of the advantages of the latest election is that no single party obtained a majority of the Congress and so Humala will have to co-govern with former president Alejandro Toledo and other democratic forces. For Toledo, this will be a major challenge to build a real political party and contribute his experience to building a more socially just Peru while at the same time helping to prevent Humala from becoming Chavez’s puppet.  

The Peruvian elected president had a meeting with President Barack Obama and promised to respect free trade, now he will have the challenge to fulfill his words. But his actions distanced himself of such promises when he also visited the long lasting tyranny of the region. When Ollanta Humala made a suppressive trip to Habana to meet Raul and Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez he is just mapping his way to a new autocracy in the Americas. He is supporting tyranny and autocracy in Cuba and Venezuela. He is just trying to play a game of power, but it is not a good game for an apprentice.

Humala is faced with the choice of deciding which Latin America Peru will fall into, the one of progress or the anachronistic one. Will Peru be like Brazil or will it be like Venezuela/Cuba? Will Peru be independent or will it fall victim to Chavez’s regional games—a mere puppet state of Caracas tyranny. His visit and support to the autocrats of Cuba and Venezuela shows lack of criteria and send a bad message to the ones that trust him and believe that he will be a democrat. He will try to change the Constitution and if he fails his wife, Nadine Heredia, will take the lead for the 2016 election to continue the new hegemony in power of the Humala’s clan.

It is time to support Peru, but not with a blank check. Observers should keep an eye open to authoritarian temptation in and leader’s appetites to seek unending presidential terms or to follow the example of Cristina and the late Nestor Kirchner of Argentina. His trip to Cuba is a strong message of the new times for Peru.

Same old Chavez

By Carlos E. Ponce

In the United States the government and the people celebrate independence with barbecue and fireworks. In France people celebrate with band music and political festivities. In most democratic countries where independence means freedom, celebrations occur and are regarded as opportunities to reflect on the virtues of their political systems.

However, in authoritarian countries like North Korea, Syria, Belarus, Cuba, and of course, Venezuela, independence celebrations are instead a chance for autocratic regimes to show their new toys. Regimes show how they wasted millions on weaponry to defend their countries against foreign intervention. Instead of health and education, these regimes spend their money on means to consolidate their own power and defend against often imagined schemes to ouster their government. Some countries celebrate with fireworks while others do so with tanks and repression.

Venezuelans celebrated 200 years of independence under Chavez tyranny and Cuban control. Hugo Chavez was so proud of his Russian purchased weapons, which he tweeted about with great joy—like a kid playing war games. Even though it is impossible for me as a democrat and a human being to rejoice at someone’s health problems, what we saw in Venezuela last week was the same old Chavez but under recovery.   Even with cancer Chavez remained the same cruel and despotic autocrat. During his almost three weeks in Cuba, Chavez still managed to keep up the repression.  When he arrived in Venezuela the police forces repressed a group of youth activists and the president’s “followers” threw rocks at one of the main opposition figures in the National Assembly and some students invited to the TV program “La Hojilla” (favorite and supported by Chavez) in the Government TV channel (VTV) were beaten until the bodyguards of the conductor of the program, Mario Silva, and the SEBIN (Government Police forces) were tired, the kids ended in the hospital. Chavez’s judiciary showed no sympathy toward political prisoners also facing health problems such as former judge Maria Lourdes Alfiuni.  It is the same bad government of the same autocrat.

Though Chavez amended the Constitution to suit his own interests, consolidating his power over the country, the leader does not know if he will last six months, let alone the 20 years he could still rule under the constitutional changes. He will try to stay in power until his death and he will do whatever is in his hand to do that. But Chavez has been always been driven by power. The president has been controlling institutions, repressing activists and opposition figures, and using his corrupt authoritarian base to remain in power whatever the costs to the country.

President Chavez has the ability to turn all the bad situations to his favor. He was a mediocre military officer who took advantage of the failures in the institution to rise to power.

A mediocre in the military decided to join the left tendencies and then he got a free ride and support from an inner logia in the army, a failed coup d’état "leader" who said the right words taking advantage of a mistake from former president carlos Andres Perez inner circle and turned him in a celebrity, failures of former president Rafael Caldera, blind political elite and the ambition of business sectors allowed him to win the presidency, major riots and public demonstrations on April 11, 2002, took him out of power and then Pedro Carmona’s coup d’état against the country and civil society and a failed “national” strike produced massive reactions which empowered Chavez and allowed him to return “victorious” and helped him to destroy any opposition allowing him to learn from his mistakes and rule for the following years , when he saw that he lost popularity he changed the electoral rules at the last minute so he kept control of the parliament; so he always wait until the right time to take advantage of any bad situation.

Chavez’s first two weeks in Cuba were the best opportunity for the supposed “external” and “internal” enemies to oust his regime. However, Chavez held his ironclad grip on power even from his hospital bed. Now that he is returned to Venezuela, Chavez is likely to take advantage of his health problem to curry sympathy, increasing his popularity with Venezuelans and the international community. He is manipulating his own health problem to gain more power.

After 12 years of intense micromanaging, his recovery from the operation and treatment will give an opportunity to rest and plan his next move. An invigorated Chavez will fight for his reelection while the opposition will be thinking that he is just a sick opponent.  They will remain fighting for an empty bottle instead of planning accordingly and joining forces against the leader.

As soon as the media attention shifts away from his illness he will change only the key elements of his cabinet to include his loyal inner circle in key positions. He extended the retirement date of his corrupt military commanders and he will appoint the vice president, among the most loyal followers and of course with a pro-Cuba orientation.  He will use his fight against cancer as an epic battle for consolidating his political control over Venezuela, a campaign to be played out as a great “soap opera” aimed to recover the love of his followers.

Chavez is a fundamental piece of the Castro regime’s efforts to maintain power. Chavez provides Cuba more than five million  regime provides more than 5,000 million dollars per year in direct subsidies, as well as several additional incentives, contracts, oil allowances, and payments. He is also a fundamental tool for other authoritarians in the region. The end of the Chavez era will be the end of Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua, the Castro Brothers in Cuba, and Evo Morales in Bolivia. Rafael Correa in Ecuador will stand alone as the only Latin American autocrat.

The bad news for Chavez is that he will not be here forever. He has an expiration date, measured in months or years—not in decades. Chavez’s revolution is self-centered, and when he leaves power, there is no one to replace him. Chavez’s political party consists of rent-seekers, criminals and groupies who will easily fracture once his party leaves power. There is no alternative leader to take up his revolution. There is no contingency plan. His international revolution is a mixture of low life autocrats like Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua and violent radical movements. His intellectual contribution is minimal, comprised only on old dogmas, quoted phrases, and fascism dressed-up to look like socialism. Noam Chomsky, his last intellectual supporter, has finally denounced Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez.

Perhaps Chavez will change, but I doubt it. History has shown that when authoritarian leaders get sick their repressive tendencies increase. They become more obsessed with power and less willing to share it. This was the case with Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe,  Ali Abdullah Saleh in Yemen,  North Korean autocrat Kim Jong-il and even Fidel Castro, who has been fighting for his life for decades. They don’t have anything else to do and the best alternative is to die in power.

Only time will tell if Chavez will be able to continue micro-managing the country from his bedside to orchestrate a triumphal return at sometime in the future. If the opposition doesn’t react, even in the worst of scenarios we will see another five or six years of Chavez rule. In the meantime, the opposition assumes real leadership, plan for all possible scenarios, and keep up the fight for democracy. The worst mistake of opposition forces could make is to believe that the Chavez’s means he will be weaker in the next election cycle. For Chavez, there is no tomorrow after the presidency. His only alternative is to fight with all means to remain in power. His only option is to remain in power, but Chavez owns words predicted his destiny when Venezuela’s Cardinal Ignacio Velasco died due to Cancer: “I’m sure that I will see you in hell Cardinal,” that is the respect from Chavez to another human being, which is the respect that Chavez deserves.   

Where's Venezuela's Hugo?

Politics
Opinion: Where's Venezuela's Hugo?
By Carlos E. Ponce
Published July 06, 2011

He can be dead or alive, but the truth is that Chavez has been out of the spotlight for more than three weeks with almost total secrecy. In spite of news conferences, photos and videos, nobody knows for sure about his health condition, nobody knows for sure about what kind of health problem he has aside from cancer. He just went to Cuba and then he was in intensive care.

For anyone as vocal as Chavez, it is hard to think that he will be out of the media for so much time without a serious illness. But so far if it is “pelvic abscess”, prostate or colon cancer, massive infection or other disease, and only the Cuban doctors and his friend Fidel Castro know for sure. It can also be part of the theatrical manipulation of Chavez, and he is just waiting to return to Venezuela as one who fought for his life and defeated the ultimate Opposition -- death.

This situation really just proves the various aspects of Venezuelan “Democracy.”

The first one is that, historically, only the worst dictatorial regimes have kept the health of their leaders hidden from the general public, because “the leader is the leader”.

It is also a common strategy from traditional tyrannies worldwide to keep people afraid of revenge from the leader should someone "take advantage" of his absence -- that is now the case in Venezuela. Chavez is so obsessed with power that not even in intensive care in Cuba will he appoint a temporary president.

According to his ministers, he has been “in control” from Cuba. This only happens in “Banana Republics”, a president in surgery and intensive care in another country for over three weeks and he continues in full control of his country?

This is just another bizarre Venezuelan style authoritarian showcase. That means that for Venezuela, it doesn’t matter if a president is out of his country for several weeks; he can rule from there without any constitutional or legal boundaries from Cuba. Maybe Chavez will now begin to rule permanently from Havana in the upcoming future.

For twelve years Chavez and his followers have been telling the world that the US government, the extreme right and Venezuela’s opposition have been planning to kill him or to take him from power with a coup d’état. After three weeks of his “vacation" in Cuba, nothing has happened. It is time for Chavez and his followers to cut that charade, because this was the perfect time and no one "took advantage" -- mainly because nobody was planning to. It is also an opportunity to prove that there is no “Chavismo” without Chavez, all his ministries and paid-military were so afraid without him in power and his potential revenge that no one wanted to talk or do anything. So Chavez is indeed the strongman from Venezuela.

In the case of the opposition in Venezuela, this case proves that their leadership remains fragmented. We have no signs of clear leader and they were not able to put together a response for a government from Cuba and "rule by twitter." Any serious opposition will have at least a plan to request valid information about the “precious” leader and if he is alive, dead or exactly what kind of sickness he has. Chavez seems to control the country and the opposition even from his hospital bed.

In the end, it doesn’t matter where Chavez is or exactly what kind of illness he has. What matters is that his autocracy has left Venezuela without leaders both in the opposition and within Chavez's party. In terms of strategic planning, this health issue has been proving that Chavez doesn’t want to leave power, even with a serious or critical health problem. And that he doesn’t trust anyone in his government. Planning accordingly will require the opposition and democratic forces to know that even if they win in next year's election, Chavez will not give away power as easy as people think.

Even if Chavez returns to Venezuela he will remain sick, but sick of power and cruelty, he will be continue his path of destruction.

Latin America, Not a Free Territory for Civil Society

Politics
Opinion: Latin America, Not a Free Territory for Civil Society
By Carlos E. Ponce

Published June 04, 2011| Fox News Latino


Freedom of association is not only a fundamental right, but also facilitates citizen’s ability to have a say in how government works. One of the first things authoritarians do when they take power is to exercise undue control over unions, media, and civil society.

Respecting freedom of association is not something governments do out of good will or charity. Rather, freedom of association is a right—and, as every right implies a duty, governments are obligated not to violate the right to association.

Further, states are obligated not to unduly interfere with the freedom of civil society organizations to operate and also to do their best to protect civil society organizations, activists, and human rights defenders from harm that might befall them when effectively exercising their right to association. This means freedom from intimidation, coercion, and physical harm as the freedom to associate without being guaranteed this security is not freedom at all.

Few publicly question the necessity of a vibrant, organized civil society in terms of ensuring responsive and effective democratic governance. However, both the public and the private sector frequently see non-governmental organizations (NGOs) as serious threats to their interests. Governments often restrict civil society to prevent public oversight while private sector groups often fear NGO’s criticism of their business practices.

Civil society in Latin America is under serious attack—part of the wider backlash against democracy and liberal institutions that has caused many countries to return to authoritarian pasts rather than look ahead to the future. Keen to develop institutions that suit their own power-hungry purposes, the backlash against democracy, and especially against civil society, is all about power.

In recent years, authoritarian leaders have decided to create their own rules for government, often hiding behind the mantle of democracy or, in many cases, incorporating populism and common demagoguery to further a majoritarian conception of democracy that could just as easily be termed electoral authoritarianism.

And, what do these leaders do when they enter power? They crackdown on individuals and groups who challenge their “popular” conceptions—their understandings of what the people—at least in their minds—want. And, further, how do they do this? They do this by cracking down on democracy promotion efforts inside their countries.

Though this crackdown is sometimes obvious and brutally obvious, it can also be subtle, disguised in ostensibly “democratic language” but ultimately just—if not even more—dangerous than the obvious and brutal approach.

These less direct, less loud authoritarian actions by governments in recent years give us a cause to worry, eating slowly at democratic governance by gradually and ever-so-quietly restricting the space in which civil society organizations, activists, and interest groups operate.

Article VI of the Inter-American Democratic Charter provides that citizen participation is an essential right and responsibility for achieving the full exercise of democracy. However, in Latin America, some governments repeatedly violate the right of association—not only the more obviously authoritarian countries of ALBA (Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador and Nicaragua), but also supposedly more democratic countries like Honduras and Costa Rica.

Now as a Reagan-Fascell Democracy Fellow at the National Endowment for Democracy, I have just finished a study that includes an assessment of the right of association of civil society organizations in all Latin American countries. According to quantitative data I generated, Brazil and Chile lead in terms of respecting the right for freedom of association. Argentina, Mexico, and El Salvador also scored relatively well.

These countries have fair systems for registration and operation, online access to information, and can register in less than 6 months. Their operations are free from intrusive government control and the government itself has an effective system in place for providing NGOs with tax exemptions.

In my study, Cuba fares by far the worst in terms of freedom of associate, no doubt a function of its overall failure to provide for human rights and fundamental freedoms. Even when Cuban law allows for the registration of a civil society organization, its freedom to operate is severely limited. Another serious case is Venezuela.

In December 2010, Venezuela adopted the Law on Political Sovereignty, grossly impeding the activities of human rights and democracy organizations to associate, assemble, and speak on issues of public importance. The government also extra-legally restricts the registration of civil society organizations, as well as persecutes and attacks civil society leaders.

Significantly, the law restricts the ability civil society organizations to collaborate with foreign partners and receive funds from international donors. Honduras, Ecuador and Nicaragua did not rate well either. This April, Honduras passed an association law that places extraordinary controls on civil society groups, including limiting the number of members an organization need to register to a minimum of 25.

Which is a prohibition on family members’ participation in the board or administrative functions in the same organization restrictions on how organizations manage funds, and an allowance for the government to close an organization with which it disagrees. Ecuador has also increased controls, regulations, and limitations on civil society. In the case of Nicaragua, civil society organizations face direct and indirect persecution from the government.

Costa Rica, a country that would seem amenable to civil society, also has problems. Legislation requires hindering civil society organizations ability to register by mandating that a government official be involved in the board of directors. Meanwhile, in Peru, a strong regulatory system tightly controls civil society, and government officials are intent to pass even more restrictions.

After various analyses of legislation and regulatory structures, as well as the ways in which laws are implemented in reality, I found the situation of civil society in most countries quite disappointing. Countries with greater economic and political stability seem to have the highest respect for the civil society organizations.

Aggregating data I collected in my research, the above graph reveals that democracy and transparency correspond with freedom of association for civil society organizations. From 0 to 50 the numbers indicate the fulfillment of several indicators to measure the level of freedom. The most advance countries in the region in terms of democracy, social development and economic improvements are the ones with better environment for civil society to operate.

The Alba countries fared worst in terms of having fair mechanisms for registration, as well as in respecting freedoms of operation, of assembly, and of expression. So, we can say that there is a direct relationship between socio-economic development and freedom of association. It is the case of the two Latin Americas again, one with open a fair rules of the game for COS to operate in Mexico, Colombia, Brazil, Chile and Uruguay and the other with restrictive environment and persecution in the Alba countries.

It is not only the case in Latin America, if we evaluate some of the most progressive countries we can see that civil society organizations are able to operate without major restrictions. Even in China, the most awarded mayor due to her innovation and efficiency, Ms. Ma Hong, pointed out that the key of her success as government official in the city of Shenzhen (across the border of Hong Kong) has been dismantling most of the controls, regulations and restrictions for NGOs to operate and create partnerships with civil society leaders.

Freedom of Association and Assembly is a fundamental right in every country of the Americas at the regional level. To help to raise consciousness of the importance of civil society in the Americas and also commence regional cooperation aimed to support freedom of association and assembly for civil society organizations, the United States, with the sponsorship of Canada, Mexico, Panama, and others, has presented the Organization of American States (OAS) with a draft resolution on “Promotion of the Rights to Freedom of Assembly and of Association in the Americas.”

The resolution will be discussed at the OAS’s Forty-First General Assembly Meeting next week in El Salvador, and is open to amendment. Even though the resolution is far from perfect, it is an opportunity for the region to acknowledge the challenges with which civil society is confronted and begin looking for solutions.

Regrettably, in recent years the OAS has failed to live up to its potential to lead on expanding space for civil society. This is due to a lack of leadership (in my view Mr. Jose Miguel Insulza is the worst OAS secretary-general in its history) and lack of commitment from democratic countries like Brazil, Mexico, Chile or Uruguay to do the right thing and be effective in a South-South diplomacy to export democracy at the regional level.

However, the organization has great potential, and though it is what it is, it's the only regional mechanism that includes a wide swath of countries in the western hemisphere. Of course, some authoritarian leaders want to dilute the OAS or turn it into another handy inter-governmental organization to lend false legitimacy to internationally unacceptable actions, (think Unasur, the Union of South America Nations or the proposal of a OAS-like organization without Canada and the US) and thereby weaken the efficacy of the Inter-American Human Rights System.

While they continue this effort, our challenge as Democrats is to find a way for the OAS to become relevant again. In this regard, the General Assembly meeting next week provides not only an opportunity for civil society to gain some protection at the regional level but also a chance for the governments and the OAS to show that they care.

Sandra, True Love for Guatemala Looks Different

By Carlos E. Ponce

This piece originally appeared in Fox News Latino on May 20.


The Guatemalan presidential election, set for September 2011, has heated up with the presence of unlikely contenders vying to hold that nation’s highest office. The most controversial of these is the current shadow president of Guatemala and “former” wife of President Alvaro Colom. The problem, the Constitution expressly prohibits close members of the president for running themselves for the presidency. Not to be stymied by rule of law, the populist “former” first lady filled for divorce just five months before the elections in a maneuver of dubious legality which would allow her to run for. Queried by the press, Sandra Torres “de Colom” explained her decision was taken because of the first family’s immense love for Guatemala.

What kind of love is this? The substitution of social and economic development for populist programs to purchase political patronage? A bag of food instead of sustainable jobs? Ideological rhetoric instead of education? And drug cartels instead of private sector growth? Sandra, true love for Guatemala looks different.

It is hard to see how an inefficient government that has allowed violence to spiral out of control while pursuing personal power is in the best interest of the Guatemalan people. When the violence, carried out by a group called the Z-200 – a drug-trafficking group affiliated to the Zetas of Mexico – manifests itself by the murder and decapitation of 27 workers in retaliation against a farm owner, it is not difficult to realize that Guatemala has been accelerating its path down the wrong track.

It is an insult to see such an elaborate and expensive political campaign, paid out of the public coffers and illegal donations from abroad, while the ordinary Guatemalan people suffer an unending spiral of violence and unemployment. I remember, as I’m sure do all Guatemalans, that only a few short years ago I could walk through the Guatemala City without concern for personal safety; now kidnapping, robbery and violence are the norm.

Despite this, the truth about Guatemala is elusive. Nobody wants to talk about how drug cartels have penetrated politics and society in Guatemala. It is the drug-trafficking industry that supports the majority of political campaigns, some social programs in the country-side, and which effectively runs the country. The response from the current government to this ever-increasing reality has been simply “see no evil”, while their popularity has been lubricated by populism.

Of course the alternatives for the Guatemalans (as in too many countries in Latin America) are limited; to vote for the former wife and shadow president (former Guerrilla comander) or to vote for a hard-line former general who doesn’t seem to possess the skills (or desire) of public dialogue.

This begs the obvious question, where are we going as a region? It’s painful to watch the resurrected phantoms of a brutally violent past come again to haunt this marvelous Central American country. It is equally difficult to witness how the drug cartels and violent “Maras” have been extending their grip through Mexico and El Salvador. And It is hard to see how a great country like Peru is forced to chose between a dictatorial past and an authoritarian future; the choice between the terrible legacy of Fujimori and the Chavez style regime of Humala. It is also a shame how the new king of Ecuador, Mr. Rafael Correa, has with relative ease used the electoral processes against the people of that Andean country in his attempt to control the media and the judiciary and silence the democratic forces crying out to be heard. Finally, in Nicaragua an unconstitutional president violates the law at will to run again.

Latin America seems to have only two options; to fall into the hands of the populists who believe that with ideology and propaganda they can solve the very real problems of the people, or working together in real representative democracies to solve the crushing challenges of our region. This is not a discussion of “left” versus “right”, it is about pragmatic work in freedom to solve the terrible problems of violence, drug-cartels, poverty, exclusion and the need for coherent governments that respect rule of law, human rights and true democracy.

No, Sandra, don’t say its love of country. The people from Guatemala may be poor people, but they are not so easily fooled.

“Socialism of the 21st Century”: Venezuela's Populist Propaganda

This piece originally appeared in the Latin American Herald Tribune on May 10.

Class struggles and oil-based growth have helped populists like Hugo Chávez in Venezuela to export their “ideologies” and increase their power at the regional level. Chávez, as well as Rafael Correa from Ecuador, Daniel Ortega from Nicaragua, and others, have been using a socialist revolution to frame their fight for power in the region. Their “Socialism of the 21st Century” is just populist propaganda. The political character of Chávez and his regime is state-capitalist, fascist, and specifically populist. This “New” Socialism, instead of advancing towards something new, is repeating the worst faults of the most perverse authoritarian models of the 20th century.

If we take Karl Marx and Antonio Gramsci views, a socialist regime must focus on empowering the working class and civil society to achieve power. According to Gramsci, civil society -- rather than the economy -- is the motor of history, for this is where the meaning and values that can sustain or transform society are created.

In the “Socialism of the 21st Century” model, the basic function of populist leadership is to prevent the working class from developing a full understanding of their role in society with false rhetoric. Chávez, like other populists, makes a rhetorical claim to represent the ‘people’ against the ‘elites,’ in order to pre-empt the development of class-consciousness and instead maintain the majority of the population surviving from the governmental “charity”.

Chávez’s regime persecutes civil society and at the same time created a new elite caste, which is corrupt, arrogant, and rich. This new caste of leaders (with their families and close partners), within the huge government bureaucracy, is worse than all the rich classes from the past. The new elite are getting richer and richer, supposedly on behalf of the people. For Chávez and his accomplices, it is not a matter of empowering the lower classes or even engaging in a class struggle. The key for the regime is to keep working-class struggles under control and to create a false social-revolution.

False socialism promoted by Chavez, Ortega and Correa, according to Bernard-Henri Levy (Left in Dark Times: A Stand against the New Barbarism), is sick because it adopts the worst features such as fascination with nationalisms, anti-U.S., anti-liberalism, anti-Semitism, and a fascination with radical Islamism.

The extreme Left sees in people like Chávez the money that they need and the false discourse to maintain false dogmas. The result is a false progressivism without progress. In this case, social-revolution has been the flag used by a group of neo-populists to gain power in Latin America and impose a new tyranny with false social goals.

While Chávez from Venezuela, Correa from Ecuador and Ortega from Nicaragua were democratically elected, they have ruled by decree, modified the law to fulfill their desires, concentrated power in the executive branch of government, eliminated any form of accountability, manipulated the elections which no longer can be considered free, and greatly enhanced the role of the military as their chief power base.

They have violated human rights and eliminated the rule of law and any democratic principle or institution. Instead of seeing new socialists, we are witnessing the resurgence of radical populists in Latin America. The nationalist and anti-imperialist rhetoric of Chávez, Correa, and Ortega is a rebirth of a radical-nationalistic populism from the past. We cannot call those countries democracies.

Eduardo Galeano, one of Chavez’s favorite authors, wrote in Open Veins of Latin America (1973): “The ghosts of all the revolutions that have been strangled or betrayed through Latin America’s tortured history emerge in the new experiments, as if the present had been foreseen and begotten by the contradictions of the past”. Chavez and Ortega just betrayed their own revolutions.

What Galeano (1973) wrote about Venezuela years ago applies to the false socialist regime of Chávez: “nationalization of basic resources doesn’t in itself imply redistribution of income for the majority’s benefit, nor does necessarily endanger the power and privileges of the dominant minority. In Venezuela the economy of waste and extravagance continues intact."

Chavez “extravagance” is just one of the ghosts hunting his fake revolution, it is just a matter of time and the right democratic wave for his sand-built regime to fall.

Effective South-South Diplomacy against Authoritarians

This piece originally appeared in the Latin American Herald Tribune on April 19.

Numerous Latin Americans have developed a bizarre love-hate relationship with the United States, most of them populists who tend to blame the American government for all that is wrong with their lives, even if these faults are the product of their own mistakes. As a result, the United States has become an easy excuse for bad government, repression, and restrictions on freedom of expression and association in recent years.

In some cases, actions taken by the United States that are intended to sanction repressive regimes actually have the opposite effect — for example, the American embargo on Cuba. Similarly, the confrontational rhetoric exchanged between former President Bush and President Chavez allowed the latter international leverage to persecute civil society activists and curtail fundamental freedoms.

The United States’ reciprocal response to the expulsion of American ambassadors to Bolivia, Venezuela, and most recently, Ecuador, has unfairly provided populist authoritarian leaders valuable political capital. It is all too easy to just blame the United States. It is also too easy to keep old memories of the cold war alive for “ideological” reasons.

And, it is not just the authoritarians who blame the United States. Extremists in the opposition, those who have campaigned for the United States to more actively involve itself in Latin American regime change á la military intervention, also s blame the US for being too soft. The United States just can’t win. It is true that the United States doesn’t have a good policy toward the Western Hemisphere, but that is part of another history.

Last week I wrote of two Latin Americas: one, comprised of countries with effective policies that balance the utility of free markets with the necessity of social justice, and another, consisting of countries stuck in the past that leave their citizens poor and ignorant in order to control them.

The first has experienced tremendous advances in terms of equality, evidenced by countries like Brazil, where more than 20 million people have moved from poverty to the middle class thanks to an effective social program that has motivated parents to bring their kids to school and ensure they receive medical services. In these countries, presidents from the right and left have brought political stability, democratic governance, and economic development, and have done so with a social face.

We can include countries like Chile, Uruguay, Argentina, Costa Rica, Brazil, Peru, Colombia and Panama on this list. It looks like El Salvador—despite its problems with violence and economic limitations—is also headed in this direction. On the other hand, there is Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua and Ecuador, all of which are going backward.

The success of the first set of countries did not involve blaming America. Instead, these countries found their own way. Latin Americans must work as citizens of their countries and region to solve their own differences, reduce the inequality between them, and eliminate social exclusion by effectively balancing market forces and social justice. There is no magical solution that will come from the north. The people must do this work themselves.

In terms of how to deal with elected authoritarians, those who persecute opposition and violate democratic values human rights, the best solution is effective South-South diplomacy — for governments like Brazil, who have been successful, to positively engage countries like Venezuela and Nicaragua on issues of human rights and democracy.

We need governments that have carved out democratic paths to assist in exporting democracy to this “other” America so that it too can share in the prosperity. Democratic countries in Latin America have tremendous potential when it comes to sharing democratic stories and lessons with their more authoritarian neighbors, and it is exactly this, as well as holding the feet of leaders in this other Latin America to the fire.

Civil society organizations in countries like Brazil, Chile and Uruguay should working in conjunction with civil society groups in Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua. These groups should share experience , an effective tool building healthier opposition politics and stronger civil society. In addition to civil society development, democratic governments in Latin America should align their foreign policy with their expressed domestic commitment to democracy and human rights. Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Uruguay and Panama, among others, have been consolidating their democracies internally and have thus increased the opportunities for their civil societies to advance democracy and human rights in other countries.

However, despite enormous potential for cooperation of civil society groups across borders, we too often witness a lack of solidarity between civil society organizations, most importantly between civil society organizations in countries with authoritarian regimes and those with consolidating democracies. Not only this, but some democratic countries have seemingly loaned support to the repressive countries.

It is important that newly emergent democracies do not forget their global commitment to democracy in the tranquility that has corresponded with their political and economic success. Further action is required to promote an awareness of the status of democracy in countries outside one’s own — to more actively engage civil society organizations and diplomats to further democracy across borders, to consolidate democracy in Latin America as a whole rather than leaving the continent to be divided in two, one democratic and successful and the other not.

The voting record of Brazil at the UN Human Rights Council and its support of authoritarians in Venezuela, Iran and Cuba should bring shame on a country that has managed to achieve such a vibrant democracy and fervent respect for human rights in such a short period of time.

Effective diplomacy is possible. For example, look at how the Czech Republic has engaged Cuba, allowing Cuban civil society leaders to use computers in its embassy to blog free from the Castro regime’s usual controls and leading efforts to strengthen and inter-link civil society groups. Czech and Cuban civil society groups have worked with each other on numerous projects.

Democratic countries in Latin America are not without similar examples. For example, look at the effective role Conectas, a small civil society organization in Brazil, has had in promoting responsible diplomacy in the south. There are positive examples of South-South diplomacy. We just need more of them, and we need them to be consistent.

My view of South-South Effective Diplomacy requires responsible governments to facilitate the sharing of best practices among civil society organizations, youth groups and other social, political and economic actors, support the construction of civil society networks, educate civil society leaders on the use of new tools and technologies, promote democratic solidarity across the continent, and promote awareness of what has been accomplished in much of the continent.

Countries like Venezuela, Nicaragua, Bolivia, and Ecuador should not be left behind. Instead, they should have their eyes opened to the successes experienced in other countries so that they too may build such democratic foundations.

North-South diplomacy has its place, but South-South diplomacy also has an important role to play. The United States is not all-powerful, and it is time for democrats in the region to come to together to strengthen regional and sub-regional bodies, to adopt country-to-country initiatives, to level the playing field between authoritarians and democratic forces in the countries left behind.