Venezuela has been trying to be in its own way a “watchdog” of international politics with its own successes, failures and biases. Venezuela chose to be on its own after many years of coexistence with the capitalist policies and nations. It could afford to decide it because of its oil resources and its capacity to convince its neighbours and friends in Latin America.

Thus Hugo Chavez, the charismatic president of Venezuela tried to incarnate the dream of Latin America being independent of all “evils” especially from the right-wing. Though President Chavez was elected again in the year 2006, people did not give him the full freedom to change the country’s constitution according to his will, mainly because of the fact that he tries to impose socialism in all domains of lives of Venezuelans.

The Refresher Programme in Venezuela was conceived to understand the realities of this nation on the vanguard of Latin American Politics, listen to experts from both sides, and spend time with the country’s non-governmental and governmental institutions so that journalists and media experts can be enlightened to prepare their stories.

2. Theme and Keynote Speakers

Therefore, it was natural to go for a highly relevant theme “Venezuela beyond Politics and Media: Future, Scopes and Expectations” and find expert speakers from Venezuela and Latin America.

The theme was debated from three angles: (1) Where is Venezuela heading? (Electoral process, Simon Bolivar’s concept of politics and religion, human rights) (2) Media and Politics in Venezuela (Concept of media under socialism, press freedom, foreign media) (3) The Latin American Situation (Impact on Latin American countries, movement of majority of Latin American nations to the left including the traditional right-wing nations such as Argentina, Uruguay, Chile as well as the recent victories of left-wing politicians in Bolivia, Brazil, Ecuador, Nicaragua and so on).

The keynote speakers and resource persons included Luis Ugalde, university rector and political analyst; John Magdaleno, consulter in public and strategic issues; Luis Christiansen, director of the organisation “Public Opinion”; Tulio Hernández, sociologist and columnist in the El Nacional daily; Elías Pino, director of the university Institute of Historical Investigations and the author of the best seller book “Divino Bolívar”; Carlos Correa of Espacio Público; María Gabriela Cuevas, university Human Rights Centre; Carlos Ayala, former president of the Inter American Commission of Human Rights; Javier Perera, journalist at Radio Caracas; Javier Conde, general manager of evening newspaper “Tal Cual”; Luz Mely Reyes, Director of newspaper “Últimas Noticias”; Javier Barrios, co-ordinator of independent national radio network; Andrés Cañizález, university Department of Investigative Journalism; Mabel Calderín, investigative journalist; Miladys Rojano; journalist; Leopoldo Tablante, media expert; Caroline de Oteyza, director of university Department of Communications; Rosa María Alfaro of Peru, director of Veeduría Ciudadana de Medios; Erick Torrico of Bolivia, president of the Latin American Communication Investigators; Fernando Ruiz of Argentina, director of Observatory for Journalism and Democracy in Latin America; Tanius Karam of Mexico, professor at Autonomous University of the City of Mexico.

The participants of the Refresher Programme visited various media institutions especially “Radio Caracas and Television” (RCTV) whose licence was to be revoked by the government on 28 May 2007. The RCTV president and the directors of the other media received the participants and debated the challenges of the media in Venezuela.

3. Major Findings

Though a real experience in Venezuela cannot be substituted, we can bring to you some major findings of the debates, visits, exposures and encounters with keynote speakers, resource persons as well as facilitators:

3.1. A divided Society

The Venezuelan society is divided. The root causes of division are in the policies of the capitalists who were always in power until the socialists took charge in the year 1998. But the socialists were not able to unite the country either. There is a real need for finding true alternatives that can bring peoples together rather than dividing them.

The majority poor supports the Venezuelan president and his plans for establishing a full-scale socialist state without submitting the nation to one-man controlled state. They do it because of the long and continuing devastating effects of the implementation of wild capitalistic policies and its consequences such as poverty, arrogance of the elite, intervention of capitalistic nations, globalisation and concentration of wealth. The position of the poor is that they have nothing to lose and why not try the socialist or Chavist method.

The elite violently opposes any attempt by the government to go ahead with socialist plans for Venezuela. They even tried with the external forces and staged a military coup against President Chavez in the year 2002. The coup did not last more than two days, as Venezuelans came in large numbers in support of the return of Chavez. The government of USA and the US newspapers supported the coup saying it was a democratic step.

Because of the conflicts on all levels, a true socio-economic system cannot be established; even food products are sold at double the price compared to the official price.

The success of President Chavez is guaranteed by the poverty the capitalist policies institutionalised in the past decades. And Chavez has been using the support he gets from the poor to construct his own empire making a new class of rich people who gets everything from the government. He uses country’s rich resources like petrol to make alliances with other nations.

Everyone recognise that there is a problem in Venezuela: both capitalists and socialists have not find a problem to bring more justice and welfare to the people of Venezuela. As the real fight is to get there, the majority of the Venezuelans does not mind whoever is the captain of their ship.

During the week of the Refresher Programme, the Caracas stock market fell deep down on the news that President Chavez was continuing his nationalisation of telecom, utility and energy suppliers. Those who suffered from the stock market’s double-digit percentage slump were less than 8 per cent of the rich Venezuelans and a lot more foreigners. Therefore, the stock market fall was big news but the majority of the people in Venezuela were not aware of it, as they had nothing there and they do not have sufficient access to media. That gives an idea of the real economic gap of the rich and the poor in Venezuela.

3.2. Chavism or 21st Century Socialism

Under the Chavist socialism, the government would be the educator, regulator, approver, moral authority and the giver of all permissions. And many believe that for Chavez, he is (I am) the government. As the socialism advances, the government consolidates all political and Bolivarian projects; replaces traditional elite with new elite; promotes charismatic, impersonal and authoritarian leadership; and shapes a new political identity killing political opinion and parties.

The main features of Chavism as presented by some of the resource persons are: use of military regime in civil society; personification with Christ as one leader, one model and one saviour; desire to die in power; and use of vulgar and aggressive language to establish the other is bad and immoral.

There is no dictatorship in Venezuela but control of all social structures. It is neo-authoritarianism learned from capitalists and applied in socialism. It is rude, it neutralises all initiatives for assembly, all legislative powers as Fujimori did in Peru. Chavez is a combination of Fujimori, Hitler, Mussolini, Menem, Bush, Kadafi, Castro and so on.

One of the resource persons said the following: “I am more than 60 years old. I have lived under dictatorship, wild capitalism and under Chavez. Nobody has helped me become rich. But, if I have to vote again, I will vote for Chavez thinking that he will bring good to the nation in the long term. As a good Christian, and Venezuelan, I do go to the Church, but I take orders from Chavez”.

3.3. Impact on Latin America

According to some analysts, Chavez has all the signs of the Cuban leader Fidel Castro and he seems to be even more powerful than Fidel Castro in imposing his style and ideas. He has successfully advocated his vision of self-reliant Latin American countries even among his neighbours, which Cuba did not succeed.

Thus he could influence elections in several Latin American countries and get his favourites to win the elections there. Thus he helped nations like Bolivia and Ecuador recapture the ownership of national resources such as oil and gas. He continues to prove that Chavism is exportable not only throughout Latin America but also to other parts of the world.

The new risks in Latin America are related to the extreme personification of individuals and emotionalising of issues. Authoritarianism follows the failure of institutions. And opposition is seen as devil; it is logic of war, elimination of pluralism and promotion of apartheid politics. And like in some religions, supreme authority and authoritarian projects are celebrated; tyranny is made popular.

Chavism is presented across Latin America as a novelty, as a technological novelty, though Chavism is autocracy and it is easy to do this Latin America, as majority of them are subdued to religious authorities without questioning. For Bolivia, Chavez is the model to get out of all evils. Chavez is anti USA, protector of national resources and Venezuela according to the Latin American democracy index is the second democratic country in Latin America after Uruguay.

Chavez sponsors many community radios in Bolivia. He also pays for conscience formation in Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Peru and so on to establish the Chavez imperialism like the US imperialism promoted by Bush. Now journalists are controlled in Bolivia not only by US agents but also by Venezuelan and Cuban agents. In the past USA and its policies were omnipresent in all fields, now Venezuela is taking over. Chavez’s preventive politics attracts also media, as it is something new and scoop-worthy.

As there is no stable and healthy field for democracy to grow in Latin America, Chavez proposes himself as the solution. Democracy is historical construction. It is the pre-requisite for elections. It does not come after elections. Lack of democracy is the result of styles of life based on submission like in some religions or military. Some religious influences and traditions never built true democracies.

3.4. Media

The Refresher Programme observed that there is no real neutral media in Venezuela. They are either anti-Chavez or pro-Chavez. There is no media that really champions the causes of all Venezuelans. The big media houses with investments from outside clearly supported the military coup against President Chavez in the year 2002 and the media is still to recover from its bad consequences.
In addition to the damages media suffered after supporting the coup against Chavez, the media in general have fundamental problems. They are either right or left without the capacity to analyse, judge and propose. As there is no strong media and journalism, individuals and institutions are paralysed. And Chavez won, because there were no good journalists in Venezuela.

The media under socialism is semi-public; they theoretically belong to all but not at the service of all.  And there is no criticism, debate and responsibility, which form the three pillars of democracy.

Chavez has a great presence in the media. He is simply very popular. It is clear Chavez communicates better and those people who are afraid to speak out very often want to be in the winning party, or on the winning side of the stock market.

The private media except one concealed the failure of the coup, and went on transmitting soap operas and entertainment programmes. It was a self-censorship of the media owned by capitalists and their allies abroad. This brought deep divisions between the majority poor and the minority and rich owners of the private media.

3.5. Opposition

The opposition is completely disunited and destroy itself in public. Pedro Francisco Carmona Estanga, the man who became Venezuelan president for less than two days after the military coup has been the president of Venezuelan Federation of Chambers of Commerce (including independent media); now he is in the safe havens of Miami in the USA.

His support for and involvement in the opposition in Venezuela do more damage and do not help form a credible opposition or a united voice of people who want freedom and decent life. During the 2006 elections the opposition party leaders Manuel Rosales signed a declaration together with Pedro Francisco Carmona Estanga. It not only discredited the whole opposition but also gave greater credibility to Chavez.

3.6. Religion

The major religion of Venezuela is Christianity and many of its leaders, are at odds with the Venezuelan government. Many poor people think that these religious leaders have already joined hands with the Capitalistic nations such as the USA. Instead of making religion a force for inspiration and values, both the right and left wing parties uses religion and its symbols to promote their own ideas. Thus the place where the statue of Virgin Mary stands at the centre of the Caracas is the place for the opposition to come together. When people asked where the ruling party meets, the answer was with Christ at the government palace!

Religion is criticised for big problems in Latin America: There has been a strong cult of persons in Latin America. It was not invented by Chavez or Bolivar, but inherited from the personal cult and authoritarianism of some religions. The problem in Latin America is that you are not allowed to see, as some one else has seen it for you and you are supposed to follow. Venezuela has committed a sin, Franco in Spain completed the Bolivarian revolution and nobody is in a position to say it is madness.

And the religious leaders failed in convincing people about the true problems of the nation as many of them took sides. The religious leaders too pay a big price, as they did not condemn the military coup.

4. Major Recommendations

The journalists and media experts gathered for the Refresher Programme proposed the following recommendations in order to respond to the info-ethics and exigencies of this noble profession that has been losing its mission as it is more and more entangled in the fight and rush for money and power.

The journalists in Venezuela and Latin America should be above politics and partisan reflections and activities. Only by staying above these sectarian affiliations, they can serve the common welfare and public good.

The media men and women should have the possibility to listen to all people especially the suffering ones in a nation like Venezuela or in Latin American nations. What people needs are results.

Media is still people’s most wanted and trusted tribune and all journalists and media people should be able to behave up to the expectations of these public forums. It is the media where people turn to when they lose trust in all leaderships.

Private media’s silence on the victory of the peoples against a military coup and the willingness of the majority of the military to support President Chavez was tragic and counterproductive, and this silence contributed to losing trust in the private media.

Criticism through journalism is not an opportunity in a democratic society, but obligation. There are six irreplaceable functions in the noble profession of journalism: 1. Give voice to all people. It is a professional principle. 2. Work more on information based on sources and not on opinion. 3. Treat polarisation as social epidemic. 4. Editorials should be healthy spaces to illuminate conscience. 5. Journalists have to work in heterogeneous group to avoid emotionalising and taking sides. 6. Opinion comes after information that leads to formation. It is necessary to reinvent information and to search information.