Mariela Ramírez, architect, social activist, and member of Movimiento Ciudadano Dale Letra, reflects on the situation we are experiencing. There is not a trace of victimization in her words. She questions the political parties seeking to direct the destiny of Venezuelans why they have failed to present a clear consensual strategy to the country, aimed at overcoming the crisis. The blank checks have expired and the time for imposition is over.
The petrostate has created a structure of subordination and control over civil society. There is a rift at the core that subordinates any form of autonomy and independence. That inertial force continues to be distinctive in Venezuelan politics. Can we change it?
According to history, our forms of social organization were created and directed by political parties and no parameters were conceived other than subordination to political parties. Our conception is very different. The social fabric must be built autonomously, bringing together the greatest diversity of actors and regions. We have proposed such an articulation process for social dialogue. Therefore, it is not a platform at the service of political parties, but a dynamic relationship between the different elements of organized society. And the lessons from past experiences make us believe it must be done that way: whenever the political parties dispute and dissolve their agreements and platforms, they run over social organizations. Diálogo Social (Social Dialogue) does not aspire to be a platform with a single vision and a single image, but rather the sum of the diversity of social factors in the country. We propose an open and inclusive process to bring together the greatest number of voices, which ensure the grassroots construction of a new social pact.
Opening up a space for coexistence after 20 years of extreme polarization and the binary vision of politics is not a small thing. What obstacles do you see in this process? What must be done to open channels for your proposal?
Our vision points towards the medium and long term. The effort has been for citizens to recover their voice as subjects of critical thinking in social matters, empowered to work on ideas and projects that make the transformation of the country possible. For this to happen, each citizen, sector, and community must understand their value as agents of change. Diálogo Social has worked on 10 sectors so far, including the spiritual leadership, which can contribute to values, principles, and ethical leadership; We also proposed the integration of the Interreligious Social Forum of Venezuela, which brings together the different Churches and the Jewish community, to show that it is possible to work from plurality and diversity. We have also worked on the social sector with the participation of several civil and sectoral organizations from the fields of health, education, communications, and trade unions.
I would like to insist, perhaps rephrasing the question. How can the discourse of polarization be deconstructed? That binary scheme that places us either on one side or another. Is this Mr. Hugo Chávez’s greatest achievement?
I do not believe that this binary culture is exclusive to Chavismo. It takes two to tango. Nor do I think that is the feeling of most of the people in Venezuela. Perhaps you mean the discourse of the highest-profile actors in the country. But that is not necessarily the dynamic that you encounter within society or in the spaces for discussion that we propose. How can we circumvent it? If we take your premise as true, I believe that the majority at the core, which is not so strident, is strengthening its voice through the autonomous experiences of social organization. We try to strengthen them through several mechanisms, precisely because they are not within that binary scheme. But the fragmentation that we are experiencing and the stridence make them invisible.
Certainly, there is a sector of the population that – from a discursive perspective – is fed up with polarization or remains at the sidelines of the conversation. But there is another factor, social control imposed through public policies, with a direct effect on diversity and autonomy.
It seems too categorical to me to say that “social control impedes diversity and autonomy.” I would say that social control is an obstacle for the forms of social organization we propose and the work that we do. Of course, it has implications of all kinds. We know that social organizations cannot be registered at the moment, they cannot update their payroll and face harassment and persecution in the communities. But I defer from you. Diversity does exist. We exist in this country and we have an autonomous position concerning the actors in the conflict, beyond social control. Is social control an obstacle? Of course. It is a barrier that slows down the process and, therefore, more in-depth work must be done to overcome, for example, the manipulation that may exist in many sectors concerning access to food. But diversity is latent in society. It does exist. The fabric strengthens through organization, creating bonds of trust and safety mechanisms, shaping a stronger voice that will have to be heard eventually.
This Government not only resorts to social control but instills fear as a policy. It represses, imprisons, carries out mass raids in neighborhoods, and makes arbitrary arrests aiming to create an atmosphere of fear. What is your perception of the effect of fear and how can it be overcome?
Fear is one of the instruments within the pattern of repression implemented by authoritarian regimes in any country. Without a doubt, Venezuelan society is being subjected to this situation. There is a great fear of participating and assembling, because of the loss of benefits, persecution, or any of the reasons that you have indicated. How is fear overcome? To the extent that citizens group and organize themselves, creating bonds of trust. I believe that the keyword in Venezuelan society is trust. There is a generalized state of suspicion, where nobody trusts the other because they presume a second intention. And that can only be overcome in day-to-day collective action. It is not something that is decreed but rather built on collective work, under the form of social dialogue that we propose, where people can express their ideas, concerns, aspirations, and desires. As the social fabric is strengthened, that atmosphere of trust is created and displaces the fear that dominates or exists in the Venezuelan imaginary as a result of our recent experiences.
I have the impression that you have the urgency to defend the autonomy of social organizations against political parties. Certainly, that relationship has been imperfect throughout history. What attitude do you expect from the political parties on this issue? Do you notice a change in attitude?
In our daily activities, we continue to feel that the political parties fail to break that logic. For this to be an inclusive movement, civil society cannot be at the service of any political bias in the country. We have been invited to participate in several alliances and fronts, and we have told them (the parties) that we do not work that way. We do not believe that supporting a specific political actor can help build a broad social movement because there are different views among the citizens who participate in this effort. We have exhorted the political parties represented in the National Dialogue Table – precisely because of the logic that prevails in them – to open up spaces for consultation with the different sectors of society for the construction of agreements. Those spaces have not been opened up. Other parties, which have a different position – they refuse to participate in the elections – have not opened up those deliberative spaces either. Under their logic, the decisions are made and then validated by society. Furthermore, they expect a positive response to those decisions.
The policy of a fait accompli. Some decisions are made, which modify the political picture, and people simply find their way around it. It happened during the oil strike; it happened on April 30 and more recently with the notorious Macuto incursion. They did not consult anyone. How are we going to fight the model implemented in Venezuela if the logic continues to be one of imposition?
For us, there is a very important semantic difference between unity and union. Unity, perhaps, leads us to think that we are all one, and that is where the logic of fait accompli works. It is then conceived that unity consists of abiding by that assumption. We, on the contrary, claim the word union, which speaks of being united in diversity. When I speak at Diálogo Social, I always use the example of set theory in mathematics. The union of set A and set B is not a new unit, say, set C, but set A united with B, where each of the elements that make up this other set continues to be identifiable in its autonomy. How to build a new logic? We need to build it with a robust voice that makes it clear that we take part in the construction of our desired fate. That we want to be part of the agreement that must be reached in the country to move forward. The logic of autonomy, which we defend, will also create a new relational logic with the political parties. We are not abiding by orders, we are asking for deliberative spaces. We are not in the logic of confrontation but in the search to build something that guides us.
20 years have passed and Chavismo has been very consistent with the practice of ideological conformity, social control, and fear, while the political parties in the opposition have failed to change the way they interact with society. They should be rebuked for this. What do you think?
This is what we have been doing all this time, even though I want to insist on something I said at the beginning: It takes two to tango. Of course, Chavismo has shown great coherence in the issues you mention, but it must be said that this has also permeated the political imaginary of the opposition parties. I will give an example. Chavismo designed a mechanism to prevent the election within the political parties, and the leaders used this as an excuse to cling to power inside the parties, instead of creating novel election mechanisms to exercise democracy within their organizations. So, unfortunately, that imaginary has permeated our ruling class. Again, the role of citizens is to break that logic. We have raised this issue several times during our meetings, but many of the leaders do not attend. But we insist on deliberation and plurality as the means to build the country we want. It is not a confrontation, it is a constant interpellation. If that call falls on deaf ears in the leadership of both Chavismo and the opposition, we do not doubt that Venezuela will eventually give birth to new leaders who conceive the relationship with civil society under a different logic.
Don’t you think that this could be a reason why the dictatorial model has been installed and strengthened in Venezuela?
Absolutely. The logic of ideological conformity has permeated, and any criticism is assumed as a confrontation, a way of saying “you are not on my side.” This has changed the nature of the social dynamic. We need to soften it until we can transform it, and we believe this is done day by day: questioning politicians and firmly defending autonomy and critical, reflective thinking, prevalent in the diversity of actors who take part in this effort of social construction. This movement is growing little by little and it is modifying that dynamic of subordination.
Chavismo governs without a parliament. The Supreme Tribunal validates the decisions that are made in the National Dialogue Table, where some politicians claim to belong to the opposition, but they do not. Every decision is tailored to the Government’s interest. Is it worth going to vote? Are we the prey of the democratic dogma? Have we given a sacred meaning to voting?
Some parties consider it necessary to participate and others warn that there are no conditions for that participation. Our role is not to disqualify or delegitimize the political forces that propose one option or another, because we believe that these forces are necessary for the formation of a social and political movement to transform the country. It does not make sense to blow up those bridges. We invite those sectors, once again, to open up deliberative spaces and present their strategic vision. The dilemma is not voting or not, because we consider that the core of the conversation is the defense of the civil and political rights of Venezuelans. We believe that participating is more than voting; it is a comprehensive process that includes building the capacities and conditions necessary for Venezuelans to regain their sovereignty and exercise a vote with the true power to elect. For that, we are active not only in the defense of human rights but in a permanent work of documentation, reporting, and dissemination of human rights violations, to compile an archive that can account for the irregular and illegal conditions surrounding the exercise of political rights in the country. That is the objective of our struggle. Our role is not to tell people whether to vote or not. That is a personal decision of citizen consciousness.
There will be elections on December 6, and that day we will have to make a decision. It is not exclusively a matter of citizen consciousness. Looking back, we remember the opposition calling to vote for a morally questioned Francisco Arias Cárdenas. Who are the candidates this time? The politicians from a so-called opposition loyal to the regime?
For us, the dilemma is not voting or not. The important thing here is to build a joint strategic vision, in which both scenarios can be valid. The bottom line is: what strategy is associated with that particular event? This is the question we raise to the political parties, whether they are in favor of going to the elections or not. To those inviting us to vote, we ask under which conditions are you inviting us? What strategy are you considering to defend the rights of the citizens? How is the electoral process being built? There must be answers to these questions so that each citizen makes the decision he or she considers appropriate. The answer will come to the extent that these political actors can tie the fact of voting in the elections to a broader strategy that none of them has presented to the country so far. Hopefully, that strategy can be presented from a vision of union that can be built through a process of agreements and concertation in which everyone participates.
At this point, we have an opposition leadership that does not have a strategy, as you just said. One is perplexed. Where do these politicians lead us? To a slaughterhouse, as it happened in 2017?
If we are talking about autonomous associative fabrics, we cannot wait for a third party to give us orders as to where to go. Instead, we have to participate in those decisions. The construction of concerted decisions is the challenge we have in the future. Venezuelan poet Rafael Cadenas once wrote: “Cuanto he tomado por victoria ha sido sólo humo” (All I have taken for victory has been vain). We hear the political actors, whatever their location, talking about past, present, or future victories over their adversary. I wonder how we can speak of victories amid a colossal collective failure. I believe one must take a single strategy, a single path. The solution must be peaceful, electoral, and constitutional. Only through a comprehensive political agreement can we overcome the crisis.
Translated by: José Rafael Medina
