Today, General Raul Baduel, Chavez’ buddy and former Minister of Defense published an Op-Ed piece
in the New York Times, copied below, in which he goes far beyond the
criticism of the upcoming referendum and presents a strong and sharp
criticism of Chavez and his Government during the last nine years. The
piece in fact sounds like something written in any of the opposition
blogs and is a devastating criticism of Chavez’ revolution by one of
its founders and one of its loyal participants.
The
question is why does Baduel have to go today and publish an article in
English in such a newspaper the day before the Venezuelan referendum on
Constitutional Reform? To me the answer is simply the same as to why
Baduel decided to jump ship a month ago and completely distance himself
from Chavez.
question is why does Baduel have to go today and publish an article in
English in such a newspaper the day before the Venezuelan referendum on
Constitutional Reform? To me the answer is simply the same as to why
Baduel decided to jump ship a month ago and completely distance himself
from Chavez.
First of all, while Baduel claims
to have been with Chavez through “thick and thin”, this is not
precisely the truth. At key moment Baduel played his cards just right
in order to survive and proved in two instances to have done precisely
that.
to have been with Chavez through “thick and thin”, this is not
precisely the truth. At key moment Baduel played his cards just right
in order to survive and proved in two instances to have done precisely
that.
The first time, was in 1992 when
despite Baduel’s role as a founder of the Bolivarian movement he failed
to participate in the bloody coup in February 2002, which failed mainly
because Chávez did not achieve his military objective. Baduel was
supposed to participate in it and there has never been a clear
explanation of why.
despite Baduel’s role as a founder of the Bolivarian movement he failed
to participate in the bloody coup in February 2002, which failed mainly
because Chávez did not achieve his military objective. Baduel was
supposed to participate in it and there has never been a clear
explanation of why.
The second time was during
the events of April 2002, when Baduel did not participate in the group
of military that asked Chavez to resign, did not show up at Fuerte
Tiuna once Chavez had left and waited until the Carmona Government
unraveled to single handedly bring Chavez back to the Presidency. This
act, in the end guaranteed that he would end his military career as a
three star General and Minister of Defense.
the events of April 2002, when Baduel did not participate in the group
of military that asked Chavez to resign, did not show up at Fuerte
Tiuna once Chavez had left and waited until the Carmona Government
unraveled to single handedly bring Chavez back to the Presidency. This
act, in the end guaranteed that he would end his military career as a
three star General and Minister of Defense.
An
ambitious man, Baduel seems to once again be playing his cards right.
Early in November he saw the weakness in the proposal for
Constitutional reform with voters and within the military and saw his
opportunity to play a role if the No vote won. Baduel clearly
understands that Chávez will not recognize a No victory. Chavez is no
democrat and has never been, he has used democratic votes to his
personal advantage, no more no less. If the No vote wins, Baduel has
played his cards right to be a possible acceptable transition figure
should Chavez not recognize the vote and be forced to leave in the
upcoming days, weeks or months after Sunday’s referendum. He is an
acceptable figure to Chavismo, he has tried to present himself as an
alternative to the opposition and now he wants his position to be well
known internationally before the events of tomorrow may unravel as a
way.
ambitious man, Baduel seems to once again be playing his cards right.
Early in November he saw the weakness in the proposal for
Constitutional reform with voters and within the military and saw his
opportunity to play a role if the No vote won. Baduel clearly
understands that Chávez will not recognize a No victory. Chavez is no
democrat and has never been, he has used democratic votes to his
personal advantage, no more no less. If the No vote wins, Baduel has
played his cards right to be a possible acceptable transition figure
should Chavez not recognize the vote and be forced to leave in the
upcoming days, weeks or months after Sunday’s referendum. He is an
acceptable figure to Chavismo, he has tried to present himself as an
alternative to the opposition and now he wants his position to be well
known internationally before the events of tomorrow may unravel as a
way.
I have no idea whether he is right or will
succeed, what I do know is that I don’t like the man. From being
military, to his strange beliefs in his past lives, to his silence
while he was Minister of Defense, to his ability to survive by walking
a very fine gray line, I certainly don’t want to see this man in any
position of power in my country. Ever.
succeed, what I do know is that I don’t like the man. From being
military, to his strange beliefs in his past lives, to his silence
while he was Minister of Defense, to his ability to survive by walking
a very fine gray line, I certainly don’t want to see this man in any
position of power in my country. Ever.
But he really does…
Why I Parted Ways With Chávez
By RAÚL ISAÍAS BADUEL
Published: December 1, 2007
Caracas, Venezuela
ON
Dec. 17, 1982, three of my fellow officers in the Venezuelan Army and I
swore our allegiance to the Bolivarian Revolutionary Army 2000. We
considered ourselves to be at the birth of a movement that would turn a
critical eye on Venezuela’s troubled social and political system — and
formulate proposals to improve it. One of the officers with me was Hugo
Chávez, the current president of Venezuela, whom I have known since I
entered the military academy 35 years ago.
Dec. 17, 1982, three of my fellow officers in the Venezuelan Army and I
swore our allegiance to the Bolivarian Revolutionary Army 2000. We
considered ourselves to be at the birth of a movement that would turn a
critical eye on Venezuela’s troubled social and political system — and
formulate proposals to improve it. One of the officers with me was Hugo
Chávez, the current president of Venezuela, whom I have known since I
entered the military academy 35 years ago.
Hugo
Chávez and I worked together for many years. I supported him through
thick and thin, serving as his defense minister. But now, having
recently retired, I find myself with the moral and ethical obligation
as a citizen to express my opposition to the changes to the
Constitution that President Chávez and the National Assembly have
presented for approval by the voters tomorrow.
Chávez and I worked together for many years. I supported him through
thick and thin, serving as his defense minister. But now, having
recently retired, I find myself with the moral and ethical obligation
as a citizen to express my opposition to the changes to the
Constitution that President Chávez and the National Assembly have
presented for approval by the voters tomorrow.
The
proposal, which would abolish presidential term limits and expand
presidential powers, is nothing less than an attempt to establish a
socialist state in Venezuela. As our Catholic bishops have already made
clear, a socialist state is contrary to the beliefs of Simón Bolívar,
the South American liberation hero, and it is also contrary to human
nature and the Christian view of society, because it grants the state
absolute control over the people it governs.
proposal, which would abolish presidential term limits and expand
presidential powers, is nothing less than an attempt to establish a
socialist state in Venezuela. As our Catholic bishops have already made
clear, a socialist state is contrary to the beliefs of Simón Bolívar,
the South American liberation hero, and it is also contrary to human
nature and the Christian view of society, because it grants the state
absolute control over the people it governs.
Venezuelan
society faces a broad array of problems that have not been addressed in
the eight years Mr. Chávez has been in office, even though the present
Constitution offers ample room for any decent, honest government to do
so. Inflation, threats to personal safety, a scarcity of basic
supplies, a housing shortage and dismal education and health care are
problems that will not be resolved by approving this so-called reform.
society faces a broad array of problems that have not been addressed in
the eight years Mr. Chávez has been in office, even though the present
Constitution offers ample room for any decent, honest government to do
so. Inflation, threats to personal safety, a scarcity of basic
supplies, a housing shortage and dismal education and health care are
problems that will not be resolved by approving this so-called reform.
How
is it that we, the people of Venezuela, have reached such a bizarre
crossroads that we now ask ourselves if it is democratic to establish
the indefinite re-election of the president, to declare that we are a
socialist nation and to thwart civic participation?
is it that we, the people of Venezuela, have reached such a bizarre
crossroads that we now ask ourselves if it is democratic to establish
the indefinite re-election of the president, to declare that we are a
socialist nation and to thwart civic participation?
The
answer is that all Venezuelans, from every social stratum, are
responsible for the institutional decay that we are witnessing. The
elite never understood — and still fail to understand — the need to
include, in every sense, the millions who have been kept at the margins
of the decision-making process because of their poverty. At the same
time, President Chávez led the poor to believe that they are finally
being included in a governmental model that will reduce poverty and
inequality. In reality, the very opposite is true.
answer is that all Venezuelans, from every social stratum, are
responsible for the institutional decay that we are witnessing. The
elite never understood — and still fail to understand — the need to
include, in every sense, the millions who have been kept at the margins
of the decision-making process because of their poverty. At the same
time, President Chávez led the poor to believe that they are finally
being included in a governmental model that will reduce poverty and
inequality. In reality, the very opposite is true.
In
recent years, the country’s traditional political parties have come to
see the Venezuelan people as clients who can be bought off.
recent years, the country’s traditional political parties have come to
see the Venezuelan people as clients who can be bought off.
During
the economic boom years, ushered in by a sustained increase in oil
prices, the parties dispensed favors, subsidies and alms. In the end,
they taught the people about rights rather than obligations, thus
establishing the myth that Venezuela is a rich country, and that the
sole duty of a good government is to distribute its wealth evenly.
President Chávez has been buying and selling against this idea,
continuing to practice the kind of neopopulism that will reach its
limit only when the country receives what economists call an “external
shock.”
the economic boom years, ushered in by a sustained increase in oil
prices, the parties dispensed favors, subsidies and alms. In the end,
they taught the people about rights rather than obligations, thus
establishing the myth that Venezuela is a rich country, and that the
sole duty of a good government is to distribute its wealth evenly.
President Chávez has been buying and selling against this idea,
continuing to practice the kind of neopopulism that will reach its
limit only when the country receives what economists call an “external
shock.”
Exorbitant
public expenditures, the recurrence of government deficits even at
times of record-high oil prices, the extreme vulnerability of foreign
investments, exceedingly high import tariffs, and our increased
domestic consumption of fuel at laughably low prices are all signs of
what lurks on the horizon. It now seems that, even without an
appreciable dip in global oil prices, our economy may well come to a
crashing halt. When it does, it will bring an end to the populism that
the government practices and has tried to export to neighboring
countries.
public expenditures, the recurrence of government deficits even at
times of record-high oil prices, the extreme vulnerability of foreign
investments, exceedingly high import tariffs, and our increased
domestic consumption of fuel at laughably low prices are all signs of
what lurks on the horizon. It now seems that, even without an
appreciable dip in global oil prices, our economy may well come to a
crashing halt. When it does, it will bring an end to the populism that
the government practices and has tried to export to neighboring
countries.
Venezuela
will thrive only when all its citizens truly have a stake in society.
Consolidating more power in the presidency through insidious
constitutional reforms will not bring that about. That’s why the
Venezuelan people should vote no tomorrow, and prepare to pursue a
political culture that will finally be able to steer our beloved nation
toward true economic and social progress.
will thrive only when all its citizens truly have a stake in society.
Consolidating more power in the presidency through insidious
constitutional reforms will not bring that about. That’s why the
Venezuelan people should vote no tomorrow, and prepare to pursue a
political culture that will finally be able to steer our beloved nation
toward true economic and social progress.
The Devil's Excrement 
Leave a comment