I know this post comes belayed, way too much out of time. I know I should be speaking about Japan' earthquake or at least about something new or not, happening here. And I will, when time allows me next week. In the meantime, this post got almost lost in one of my endless "future posts" drafts and I realized that I should publish it, that it is now or never. It's about Mubarak, and Egypt, and Libya and why we don't want to look at ourselves in that mirror. A commenter stated something quite similar in my previous post on the subject. Consider this an extension
The day Mubarak left power was a good day for us. Many did not have a clue about Mubarak' existence before January but to just see that it was somehow possible for common citizens to pressure enough to end a dictatorship gave us hope; no matter how far the events took place. My boss arrived at the office later than usual, because he stayed a bit longer at home, watching Egypt' celebrations on CNN. Carrying a huge enthusiastic smile, told me the news and even allowed me to interrupt my job to read and watch everything I could about it online.
Egypt' events were the main conversation topic with my co-workers at lunch, and with my family at dinner.
But same as we were trilled about the end of Mubarak' regime; we were cautious on desiring the arouse of something similar here. Recent Arabic world events' give us a nice glimpse of people' desire to move to more democratic, less restrictive regimes. Democracy has proof there to be not an accidental value, but an universal one despite of its origins. Dictators across the globe have been left with less philosophical arguments to justify their atrocities. And that is definitely a great gain for the human kind.
But every coin, like every event, has two sides. Recent revolutions in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya... have show us that people still lack power to fulfill their desires. Without international pressure and a favorable army; protesters are left alone in their claims because it is never the dictator the guy who'll hear them. Those government are first interested on keeping their position, their power; and then, maybe, anything else including their people. Protests are thus made to be heard by others: army, international community, government allies and opponents, reporters... and only through those "others" pressure; that a change could be pursuit-ed.
Among those "others", none is as important as the army. Those revolutions always hold the potential of becoming a civil war; and those who win a civil war are rarely the ones who are right; but the ones who are stronger (in the sense of a stronger army, stronger strategy). In Egypt' case, the army decided to take a step back, to stop shooting at the protesters and to pressure for a convenient solution to the crisis. At Libya, army has acted quite different and thus a civil war has erupted. It is not likely that rebels will win without foreign support so we can expect a long conflict; that will bring nothing but grief, pain and devastation. All due to the stubbornness of a man; and his loyal army. A president who has mistaken their own people for enemies. So I wonder: Isn't with that idea (the idea of an enemy rather than a legitimate opponent) that Chavez has treated his opposition?
In short words, I don't want this regime to come to an end under similar circumstances. I fear, in best case scenario an army achieving yet more power than what it already has. In the worse- and more likely to occur, I'm afraid - a civil war. Let's face it: Chavez' friend is Qaddafi (spelling?), not Mubarak. He admires Qaddafi greatly and to our embarrassment, he has defended or denied his genocide acts over and over again. We have all reason in the world to believe that if a similar revolution takes place in Venezuela; Chavez will act just like Qaddafi is acting.
This is why I would rather change the stamina of a revolution for a safer - and slower transition without a major rupture of our incipient Constitutional order. Maybe it's elections. I'm still not sure if my short experience even allows me to think on Venezuela ruled by anyone else. Either way, you can't blame me for looking for solutions that imply less violence, less waste of human lives and less dependence of the military caste. Those roads are not fast, not glamorous enough to make headlines, nor even as effective; but I trust that in the long term, they will bring better results.
The day Mubarak left power was a good day for us. Many did not have a clue about Mubarak' existence before January but to just see that it was somehow possible for common citizens to pressure enough to end a dictatorship gave us hope; no matter how far the events took place. My boss arrived at the office later than usual, because he stayed a bit longer at home, watching Egypt' celebrations on CNN. Carrying a huge enthusiastic smile, told me the news and even allowed me to interrupt my job to read and watch everything I could about it online.
Egypt' events were the main conversation topic with my co-workers at lunch, and with my family at dinner.
But same as we were trilled about the end of Mubarak' regime; we were cautious on desiring the arouse of something similar here. Recent Arabic world events' give us a nice glimpse of people' desire to move to more democratic, less restrictive regimes. Democracy has proof there to be not an accidental value, but an universal one despite of its origins. Dictators across the globe have been left with less philosophical arguments to justify their atrocities. And that is definitely a great gain for the human kind.
But every coin, like every event, has two sides. Recent revolutions in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya... have show us that people still lack power to fulfill their desires. Without international pressure and a favorable army; protesters are left alone in their claims because it is never the dictator the guy who'll hear them. Those government are first interested on keeping their position, their power; and then, maybe, anything else including their people. Protests are thus made to be heard by others: army, international community, government allies and opponents, reporters... and only through those "others" pressure; that a change could be pursuit-ed.
Among those "others", none is as important as the army. Those revolutions always hold the potential of becoming a civil war; and those who win a civil war are rarely the ones who are right; but the ones who are stronger (in the sense of a stronger army, stronger strategy). In Egypt' case, the army decided to take a step back, to stop shooting at the protesters and to pressure for a convenient solution to the crisis. At Libya, army has acted quite different and thus a civil war has erupted. It is not likely that rebels will win without foreign support so we can expect a long conflict; that will bring nothing but grief, pain and devastation. All due to the stubbornness of a man; and his loyal army. A president who has mistaken their own people for enemies. So I wonder: Isn't with that idea (the idea of an enemy rather than a legitimate opponent) that Chavez has treated his opposition?
In short words, I don't want this regime to come to an end under similar circumstances. I fear, in best case scenario an army achieving yet more power than what it already has. In the worse- and more likely to occur, I'm afraid - a civil war. Let's face it: Chavez' friend is Qaddafi (spelling?), not Mubarak. He admires Qaddafi greatly and to our embarrassment, he has defended or denied his genocide acts over and over again. We have all reason in the world to believe that if a similar revolution takes place in Venezuela; Chavez will act just like Qaddafi is acting.
This is why I would rather change the stamina of a revolution for a safer - and slower transition without a major rupture of our incipient Constitutional order. Maybe it's elections. I'm still not sure if my short experience even allows me to think on Venezuela ruled by anyone else. Either way, you can't blame me for looking for solutions that imply less violence, less waste of human lives and less dependence of the military caste. Those roads are not fast, not glamorous enough to make headlines, nor even as effective; but I trust that in the long term, they will bring better results.