Bad Times for Brazil

Brazil's Bolsonaro celebrates - but should Brazilians be celebrating?

One of the planet's largest, most multiethnic democracies will be governed by a racist, homophobic, misogynist with an admiration for dictators...and it's not the United States.

It's mind-boggling that a man who insults black and indigenous people could be elected president of a nation with a black and indigenous majority. But it's no more crazy than that a man who disparages women could be elected by a nation with a female majority.

Both of these things - as well as newly-elected Brazilian Pres. Jair Bolsonaro's endorsements of dictatorship and mass executions - should disqualify him from being president of anything but a neo-Nazi encampment in northwest Idaho.

Bolsonaro's presidency - part of an authoritarian wave across Latin America - will test Brazil's young and feeble democracy, already under huge strain because one former president is in prison for corruption and many other politicians are also under suspicion.

Brazil is far from the only nation in the region slipping into authoritarianism, or in danger of it. Venezuela and Nicaragua are ruled by self-described socialists who are really just authoritarians with plans for becoming presidents for life. Bolivia's Evo Morales appears to want to do the same thing. Many observers believe that Mexico's newly elected president, a leftist populist known as Amlo, believes more in himself than in democratic institutions. And Amlo will also enjoy majority support in Congress, giving him vast powers to reshape Mexico's institutions.

But if Nicaragua's Daniel Ortega is brutal and Venezuela's Nicolas Maduro is incompetent and brutal, both have at least preserved the forms of democracy in their nations. Bolsonaro, judging by his admiration for dictatorship, doesn't appear likely to do the same if he manages to consolidate power in Brazil.

Just a few decades ago, Latin America was emerging from a dark period of military strongmen into democracy. Today, many nations are electing authoritarians. Latin American democracy may have no more than a brief, passing phase.

Bolsonaro's victory is a massive tragedy for the environment, in a nation which is steward for most of the Amazon rainforest. And it will be a long-term tragedy for human rights and many young lives if Bolsonaro follows thru with his crackdown against criminals and popularizes gun ownership - a policy which has multiplied the U.S.'s homicide rate.

Perhaps Latin America's democracies suffered from a fatal error at birth by adopting presidential rather than parliamentary systems. In parliamentary systems the leader, or prime minister, must work his way up through the ranks, making compromises along the way. That process might produce predominantly mediocre, middling sorts of personalities. But, at least, the populists and extremists usually get filtered out.

By Mike Ceaser, of Bogotá Bike Tours

Latin American Democracy in Retreat

Authoritarian Venezuelan
Pres. Nicolas Maduro.

In the mid-2000s, Colombia's popular and hard-right Pres. Alvaro Uribe wanted to run for a third consecutive term. But the Constitutional Court ruled against the idea, saving Colombia's fragile democratic system from falling into the grip of a strongman. Uribe instead selected his defense minister, Juan Manuel Santos, to run as his succesor. Santos won - but rebelled against his mentor, creating a sort of alternation of powers.

Similarly, in Ecuador Pres. Rafael Correa tried to maintain power by selecting his own succesor. But that man, Lenin Moreno, also rebelled against his mentor, saving Ecuador's instituations from becoming puppets of a strongman.

But Argentina did appear to be falling victim to a personality cult under the corrupt Kirchner dynasty - until Argentineans finally voted against them and elected Pres. Mauricio Macri, who is trying to clean up the Kirchners' mess.

Nicaragua's authoritarian president-for-life Daniel Ortega
and his wife, who is also his vice president.

Other Latin nations, however, have been less fortunate. In Bolivia, Nicaragua and, most notoriously, Venezuela, leftist leaders are turning themselves into presidents for life, sometimes with disastrous results in corruption, human welfare and the economy.

Now, some fear that Mexican president-elect Andrés Manuel López Obrador, known as AMLO, a
leftist populist admirer of Cuba's ex-dictator Fidel Castro who will have few checks on his power and who appears to believe more in himself than in democratic institutions, will weaken Mexican democracy, which has just suffered through a presidential term marred by flagrant corruption and is under strain from chronic drug violence.

Jair Bolsanero, potential
dictator of Brazil?

But now the greatest threats to Latin democracy are coming from Washington D.C., where a leader
 who patently does not believe in democracy is setting a deplorable example for nations which once looked to the U.S. for democratic guidance, and Brazil, which is about to elect a racist, homophobic misogenist and unapologetic admirer of military dictatorship, as president.

Brazil's importance can hardly be exaggerated. It is the largest nation in Latin America and the world's fourth-largest democracy. It is also the protector - if it can be called that - of the Amazon, one of the planet's treasures of biodiversity and storehouse of carbon dioxide. And if virtual Brazilian Pres. Jair Bolsonaro is even more extreme than Trump, Brazil's institutions are much weaker.

It's all enough to make one wonder whether Latin America (and even the planet's) brief experiment with liberal democracy was only that, and experiment, which is failing.








By Mike Ceaser, of Bogotá Bike Tours

Duque, the Virtual President

Iván Duque, Colombia's
virtual president.

With 39% of the first-round voting, little short of a huge scandal or a heart attack can stop Ivan Duque from being elected Colombia's next president.

Duque will win, almost certainly, despite his youth and inexperience - he formally entered politics only in 2014 and has held no executive positions - and carries all the baggage of his political patron, ex-president Alvaro Uribe, whose political career has been scarred by severe human rights violations and who has been credibly linked to right-wing paramilitary groups. Just a few days ago, the New York Times reported that during the 1980s investigators collected evidence that Uribe's campaigns were financed by drug cartel money.

It didn't have to be this way. If only at least two of the centrist candidates, such as Sergio Fajardo and Humberto De La Calle had formed an alliance, the political center might have gained enough critical mass to give voters confidence that at least one centrist candidate had a chance. Instead, with the center fragmented amongst three candidates, voters polarized to the two candidates who seemed viable: Duque on the right and ex-guerrilla leader and Bogotá Mayor Gustavo Petro on the left.

As it was, ex-Medellin mayor Sergio Fajardo fell just over one percentage point behind Petro. With the support of De La Calle and the Liberal Party, he likely would have made the second round run-off, where he could have attracted both centrist and left-wing voters and realistically beaten Duque.

Instead, Duque will draw draw the lion's share of Germán Vargas Lleras' voters and many of Fajardo's, easily giving him the additional 11% support he needs to become president.

Duque was a leader of the 'No' campaign against the peace accord with the FARC guerrillas, so we can expect a President Duque to do all he can to sabotage it. And two of his key constituencies were conservative Catholics and evangelical Christans, so we can also expect him to try to reverse gains made for the rights of women, sexual minorities and Colombia's environment. Duque will instead favor big business and resource extraction.

This will test the principles and resilience of Colombia's judicial system.

Where's the hope? Duque is highly educated and evidently very intelligent. He's got lots of academic preparation, from Los Andes University and Georgetown and Harvard in the United States.

Perhaps Duque will turn out to be his own man, rather than Uribe's, as Duque has repeatedly promised. It's not impossible. After all, Uribe also chose Juan Manuel Santos, his defense minister, to be his successor, but Santos set his own course by talking peace with the FARC guerrillas and became Uribe's political enemy.

By the same token, Ecuadorean president and strongman Raphael Correa chose his vice president, Lenin Moreno, to succeed himself. But Moreno broke with the leftist Correa and the two have also become political enemies.

However, Santos had a long political trajectory and came from a family which had already produced several presidents and vice presidents, so he had the confidence and political base to hew his own path. Duque is still a neophyte.

As for second-place finisher Gustavo Petro, who will run-off against Duque, he has little chance. Petro received 25% of the vote, meaning that he would need all of Fajardo's votes and more to win a majority. And, if Duque is a polarizing figure, ex-guerrilla leader Petro is even moreso.

That said, it is remarkable that a nation which has for decades battled against guerrilla groups would even be willing to put an ex-leader of such a group one voting round away from its presidency. It deprives the FARC guerrillas of any arguments that they have been treated unfairly by the political system.






By Mike Ceaser, of Bogotá Bike Tours

Can Venezuela Pull a Malaysia?

Najib Razak, ex-Malaysian
prime minister, who lost an
election this month.

A notoriously corrupt strongman appears to hold a lock on his country's leadership. In the run-up to elections, he uses oil income to saturate the country with his campaign ads, controls most of the media and uses gerrymandering and other tricks to ensure his reelection victory.

The nation I have in mind is Malaysia, the southeast Asian nation which held national elections ten days ago. But I might as easily be talking about Venezuela, which is to hold a vote tomorrow in which its authoritarian president Nicolas Maduro is expected to use a rigged system to get himself reelected, despite running his oil-rich nation into the ground. In both nations, the government used legal charges and technicalities to bar opposition candidates from even running in the election.

To everybody's amazement, Malaysia's opposition party won the election, and the Barisan Nasional coalition, which had ruled Malaysia since independence in 1957 lost power.

That might provide a glimmer of hope for the opposition in Venezuela in tomorrow's voting. There,

Venezuelan president/dictator Maduro.

Pres. Maduro has taken control of nearly all the media and government institutions and is allegedly using payments and intimidation to win tomorrow's election.

Colombian Pres. Santos reported this week that Colombia had seized a big shipment of food allegedly intended to be used by the Venezuelan government to pay for votes, altho much of the food was already rotten. Santos also charged that the Venezuelan government planned to give Colombians Venezuelan ID cars and have them vote for the government.

But Venezuela differs in important ways from Malaysia, where the opposition candidate who won the prime ministryship had already been prime minister, and so many people had a positive image of him. On the other hand, Malaysia's economy was fairly strong, whereas Venezuela's is in free fall, potentially motivating many people to vote against the government.

But, barring a miracle, Mauro will win reelection tomorrow and continue stiffening his dictatorial rule and worsening his nation's economic disaster. And hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans will continue pouring into Colombia.

And the Malaysian election likely has redoubled Maduro's determination to win at all costs tomorrow. After all, Malaysian's ex-leader may now be put on trial for his alleged monumental corruption.

By Mike Ceaser, of Bogotá Bike Tours

The Price of Democracy

Humberto de la Calle celebrates victory.

The Partido Liberal, once one of the Colombia's two dominant political parties but now a minor player, held its presidential primary. Only 2% of eligible voters, and a far smaller proportion of Colombian citizens, participated in the election, which cost the nation 40 billion pesos, as well as subjecting the whole country to a dry Sunday and depriving tourists of public museums.

2% of the electorate participated.

But out of this exercise in democracy - which might have been better and more cheaply carried out by a phone survey or an internet vote - came the Liberal's presidential candidate, Humberto de la Calle, who defeated Minister of the Interior Juan Fernando Cristo. De la Calle headed the government delegation at the peace negotiations with the FARC guerrillas in Havana, Cuba, and would be a fitting succesor to Pres. Santos, who has made peace the centerpiece of his government.

Colombians will almost certainly face a choice between de la Calle and an anti-treaty candidate chosen by  ex-Pres. Uribe. The vote will become a referendum on the peace treaty.

If by next year, Colombians have accepted the peace agreement and want to move forward, then de la Calle will likely be the next president. But in the era of Brexit and Trump, there's no telling what might happen. The peace deal, after all, was narrowly defeated in a plebiscite.

It won't happen this time: A mural advertises the candidacy of Interior Ministry Juan Fernando Cristo.

By Mike Ceaser, of Bogotá Bike Tours

Adiós to Venezuela's Democracy

Maduro and followers celebrate their 'victory' in rigged voting in Sunday's election.

During the 1970s and '80s, when military coups installed right-wing dictatorships across much of South America, Venezuela maintained a democracy, if a very imperfect one. Now, ironically, democracy has brought a leftist dictatorship to Venezuela.

Perhaps the best evidence of Venezuelan Pres. Nicolas Maduro's anti-democratic intentions is the fact that he never permitted regional elections supposed to be held late last year - and which his party was sure to lose. Maduro claimed that the country, which has the world's largest oil reserves, lacked the money to pay for elections, and called democracy a luxury for the elites.

Yet, miraculously, Maduro had no trouble finding the money for Sunday's constitutional assembly - which he made sure he'd win.

The Maduro government has also packed the Supreme Court, done all it could to negate the results of unfavorable elections, shuttered hostile media, imprisoned political opponents - and even briefly dissolved the opposition-dominated National Assembly.

But none of the Venezuelan government's anti-democratic measures have come close to Sunday's election of a constitutional assembly, manipulated to ensure a pro-government majority, despite Maduro's extreme unpopularity. The assembly has apparently unlimited powers to rewrite the country's constitution and remake its government.

The voting for the assembly representatives included manipulations such as giving rural voters - who have remained loyal to Maduro - disproportional representation, while reducing representation for city dwellers, who overwhelmingly reject Maduro. (Come to think of it, that arrangement is a lot like the United States' unfair and illogical Electoral College - which gave us president Trump.) And the voting system also gave pro-Maduro social organizations preponderant weight in the voting.

Government workers were ordered to vote or lose their jobs. Even so, media observers reported that voter turnout was light.

What's more, many experts say that Maduro lacked the authority to call this vote without first holding a popular referendum. But Maduro knew he'd lose any such referendum.

The Venezuelan opposition boycotted the vote in order to not give it legitimacy. As a result, Maduro's victory will be close to 100%, whether votes are counted fairly or not.

The new Constitutional Assembly's powers aren't defined, and may be unlimited. Expect Maduro to order his minions to eliminate the country's hostile National Assembly and to remove the attorney general, Luisa Ortega, a courageous politician who stood on principle in the face of the government's violations of human rights and trampling of its own Constitution.

Ortega charged that Venezuela was turning into a dictatorship.

In fact, immediately after the vote, Maduro called for removing National Assembly legislators' legal immunity and for replacing Ortega. Two prominent opposition leaders were quickly arrested.

The travesty will continue as long as Venezuela's armed forces - the police and military - continue backing Maduro, and so far they show no signs of wavering.

Already, the governments of Colombia, Mexico and Panama have said they will not recognize the voting's results. But if not, how will they deal with a government they consider illegitimate?

The U.S. and other nations have threatened the Maduro government with sanctions for holding the assembly vote. But don't expect the Trump administration to make the single move which could topple Maduro - cutting off oil sales to the United States. That's because doing so would hurt too many big corporations and lose Trump popularity among drivers.

Maduro and Trump, two incompetent, populist leaders, are also co-dependent.

By Mike Ceaser, of Bogotá Bike Tours

On Clinton vs. Trump, it's No Contest

Clinton for president of the U.S.

Tuesday's U.S. presidential vote will be a monumental event for both the U.S. and for the world. El Tiempo's editorial section today is full of column's about the election - all warning about the dire consequences of a Trump victory. And anybody who's followed this blog has no doubt where I fall, for the interests of Colombia, the U.S. and the globe.

El Tiempo's editorialists point out the likeliest immediate consequences for Colombia of a Donald Trump victory: a reduction in aid and more barriers to trade and immigration. Trump's discourse is erratict and his policies unclear, but he speaks like an isolationist. That suggests that he'd cut back on the post-Plan Colombia aid programs and reduce support for any peace processes here. Trump might also kill free trade agreements with Colombia, as he's denounced such agreements with Mexico.

Trump's evident hostility to and even racism against Hispanics would not help relations, either.

El Tiempo's editorialists also point out that most economists predict a recession if Trump wins and

The dangers are endless.

imposes protectionist trade policies and slashes taxes for rich people like himself, which would balloon the U.S.'s budget deficit.

Trump's authoritarianess, as eloquently described by the Washington Post's libertarian Volokh Conspiracy blog  could not only endanger the U.S.'s constitutional system, but also set a terrible example for weak democracies in Latin America.

Trump "is thrilled by the kind of authoritarian government that the Colonists fought a revolution to end." writes Volokh. "His world is a world of conspiracy theories, not reason and evidence. It is a world of putting your opponent in a jail cell after the election, not peaceful transitions of power. It is a world of mob violence, not law. It is a world of crushing political dissent, not limited government."  

The Volokh writers compare the U.S.'s possible future under Trump to Venezuela, where democratically-elected presidents have trampled institutions, converted the oil-rich nation into a near-dictatorship and, along the way, also devastated its economy. 

Trump's ignorance and denial of reality on environmental issues, particularly climate change, is yet another disqualifier. Climate change is already affecting Colombia and would undoubtedly accelerate under Trump policies.

I could go on about Trump's misogyny and sexual predation, his lack of political experience, his rotten business ethics, his instability, his evident affection for violence and for authoritarian leaders such as Russia's Vladimir Putin, and perhaps most of all the danger of a man like him controlling nuclear weapons - but you get the picture.

Hillary Clinton certainly also has her ethics challenges. But, as an experienced politician she's performed competently and has generally respected constitutional norms, as Volokh, normally no friend of liberals, points out. And Clinton would undoubtedly continue the Obama administration's policies of engagement with the world and Latin America. And her economic policies would likely continue those Obama, who has shepherded the U.S. out of a deep recession into a slow but sustained recovery. Even with the rise of China, Latin America's economy still depends heavily on that of the U.S.

For Colombia, for the U.S., for the planet and for decency, support Clinton.

By Mike Ceaser, of Bogotá Bike Tours

Trumping Latin Democracies

Donald Trump, would-be strongman.

U.S. Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump and Venezuelan Pres. Nicolas Maduro may
seem like polar opposites. One is a wealthy conservative, the other a leftist who started out as a bus driver.

The two, however, do have at least one characteristic in common: Authoritarianism.

At the last U.S. presidential debate, Trump told Democrat Hillary Clinton that if he were president, she'd "be in jail," because of her mishandling of government e-mails. Evidently, Trump had forgotten that imprisoning people is the job of judges and prosecutors, not of presidents - at least in a democracy.

Nicolas Maduro, Venezuela's
authoritarian president.

But Trump might find a model in Maduro, whose government has imprisoned numerous opponents, most prominently Leopoldo Lopez, an ex-mayor and potential presidential candidate, whose trial was called a farce by many human rights organizations. Lopez is serving a 14 year prison term for supposedly inciting protests using subliminal signals.

Not satisfied with jailing opponents, the deeply unpopular Maduro has also used his puppet Supreme Court to declare Parliament, where the opposition has a majority, 'unconstitutional' and unable to issue legislation. Maduro also announced that he will instruct the Supreme Court to approve the national budget, even tho the Constitution explicits gives this job to Parliament.

Among Maduro's long list of authoritan, anti-constitutional actions is also using his puppet Electoral Council to put obstacle after obstacle in the way of a recall referendum the opposition wants to organize against him - another right provided in Venezuela's Constitution. And Maduro's government recently said that it won't hold governor and regional legislative elections this year because it can't afford to - this in an oil-soaked nation which throws billions of dollars away each year on corruption and giving away gasoline.

"The priority isn't to hold elections," Maduro said. "What is the country's priority? Fulfill the whim of the oligarchy or recover the economy?"

Leopold Lopez,
Maduro's political prisoner.

Under Maduro's incompetent mishandling, Venezuela's economy is sinking, it has the world's highest inflation rate and shortages of basic goods like sugar, flour, toilet paper and medicines. It also has one of the world's highest homicide rates.

What Venezuela needs most are elections, to throw out Maduro and his allies and restore sanity. understandably, Maduro doesn't want to permit votes he knows he'd lose.

Sadly, the story is not so different in nations like Bolivia, Ecuador and Nicaragua, where leftist leaders have entrenched themselves and are trying to become presidents-for-life.

In that sense, Brazil and Guatemala, both embroiled in corruption scandals, should be admired. There, at least, the democratic institutions have had the resiliency to remove flawed presidents and investigate their alleged misdeeds.

Would the U.S.'s own institutions be strong enough to withstand a President Trump?

Hopefully, we'll never have to find out.

Check out the excellent NY Times story about this.

By Mike Ceaser, of Bogotá Bike Tours

And They Should Know!

'To the streets to fight, to the ballot boxes to protest. Vote empty.'

They're telling you so themselves: Leave your ballot blank! And they are the Socialist Party, who should know very well what happens when people don't vote, or the vote is made irrelevent: Stalin, Mao, Castro and, maybe soon, Ecuador and Venezuela.

Bogotá is in the full swing of mayoral campaigning, and, as always, the options could be better: There's Clara Lopez, seen as a continuation of the current, unpopular Petro administration; Enrique Peñalosa, an ex-mayor with a personality problem, but who's remembered as a good administrator; and Rafael Pardo, a career politician with an erratic political history. And then there are others with no chance.

Do the Socialists have a better option? Probably not. But they do have a plan: Revolution! And while that may feel good, we know where it's taken us.

'Enough already! Vote blank.'

By Mike Ceaser, of Bogotá Bike Tours

Maduro in his Labyrinth

Venezuelan newspaper editor Teodoro Petkoff expects the
government to carry out elections, even tho they'll likely lose.
(Image: El Tiempo)

Venezuela's media is mostly controlled by the government; In the run-up to every election, the state oil company converts into a Chavista campaign machine; And many Venezuelans suspect that the government knows how they vote.

Nevertheless, Venezuelan voting has been called clean and its results accurate by international observers, enabling the government to boast about its democratic credentials.

Now, however, the government of Pres. Nicolas Maduro, successor to Hugo Chavez, may be nearing democratic breaking point.

Nicolas Maduro; struggling to hold on.

The uncharismatic Maduro's popularity has sunk to about 30%, and his country suffers shortages of milk, toilet paper and medicines. Electricity is being rationed. The rates of inflation and homicide are setting world records, and the economy is shrinking.

Under conditions like these, prospects look dim for the governing socialist party in the parliamentary elections supposed to be held in the second half of this year. Unsurprisingly, 10 of 11 opinion surveys published on Wikipedia show voters favoring the opposition over the governing party, in some with more than double the support.

A loss of power would not only halt the 'Bolivarian Revolution,' but could also put chavista officials at the mercy of opposition legislators eager to call them to account for years of corruption and alleged human rights violations.

What are Maduro and his party in the National Assembly to do to hold onto power?

Observers, particularly on the Caracas Chronicles blog, have made several speculations:

The government might postpone or even suspend elections, justifying the move by accusing the opposition of criminal plans to steal the elections or carry out a coup.

In fact, it appears increasingly as tho they are considering such a delay. After all, in previous elections, the government-controlled National Electoral Council (CNE) set election dates a year or more in advance. The 2010 legislative elections took place in September. September 2015 is now only four months away.

However, one Caracas Chronicles contributor expects the government to hold the elections - and, if it loses, strip the National Assembly of its powers, making Pres. Maduro dictator in all but name.

"I think chavismo will lose the election, after which the National Assembly will be stripped of all its powers and be given a ceremonial role, if any.

"There could be a Constitutional Assembly. There could be some sort of national emergency declared. Any and all acts coming from an opposition-controlled National Assembly will be deemed illegal. They will find a way to disenfranchise us. I’m sure they will think of something."

Such a move, however, would create their clearest break yet with the democratic system.

I rather suspect the government might find a way to redraw voting districts, and gerrymander the system to retain a legislative majority despite an overwhelming loss of the popular vote.

When officials in Washington D.C. criticize Venezuela for this fraud, the response response from Caracas will be simple: 'Look at the U.S,'s own unjust and undemocratic election system, which elected the second George Bush president in the year 2000, despite his losing the popular vote to Al Gore.'

But if such manipulations would also appear too shameless, then perhaps fraud, pay-offs and intimidation would work. The government notoriously instructs government employees to vote for chavista candidates, and in the past they have circulated lists of names of people who voted for the opposition, who were then blacklisted from employment.

Alternatively, following a legislative loss, the government could accuse the opposition of fraud, fascism or being golpistas and ignore the results. 

It's sad to assume someone's guilt before the act's happened. However, the chavista government's discourse and behavior - and I lived in Caracas for almost three years of Chavez - make it hard to believe release their grip on power voluntarily.

Let's hope I'm wrong, since Latin America doesn't need another generation of dictators.

By Mike Ceaser, of Bogotá Bike Tours

The Downfall of Democracies

University students from Venezuela protest crime, shortages and restrictions on free speech in their country this afternoon in front of Los Andes University in Bogotá.

Across the territory of the old Soviet Union, parts of Africa and right next door in Venezuela, democracy is being dismantled.

I know only the general outlines of what's going on in Asia and Africa, where numerous leaders, once elected, manipulate the rules to guarantee themselves perpetual reelection. And they use temporary majorities to issue laws giving themselves control of the legal system and repressing critical media.

But it's particularly sad for me to watch this happening next door in Venezuela, where I lived there for several years, and particularly because it's a nation with such tremendous potential, in ever way.

When Hugo Chavez was elected in 1998, many of us saw in him a hope for a change from the often corrupt and incompetent leaders who had preceded him, who had largely ruled for the benefit of the small wealthy classes.

But Chavez replaced one style of disfunctional government for another, even worse one. He eliminated checks and balances, used insult as political discourse and converted Venezuela's tremendous wealth into a huge machine for buying supporters and elections. Meanwhile, the government of Chavez and his hand-picked successor Maduro threatened private media and made it more and more difficult for independent newspapers and television to operate.

Venezuelan opposition leader Leopoldo Lopez
being arrested.

At the same time, the government's increasing attempts to control the economy only distorted it, shutting down businesses and causing shortages of basics such as milk and toilet paper. And - perhaps because of the leaders' aggressive, profane rhetoric, their creation of civilian militias, the corruption and lack of rule of law - or all of these things - violent crime skyrocketed.

A Ukranian protester throws a bomb.

Still, some elements of an open society survived, including some independent media and competitive elections - at least in some areas.

Meanwhile, naturally, students, the middle class and others felt increasingly frustrated by the government's steady strangulation of basic liberties. The Cuba-style shortages of basic goods in what should be one of the world's wealthiest nations seem to have been the needle which broke the camel's back. Three weeks ago, Venezuela erupted in protests.

A Venezuelan protester demands freedom of speech.

Such difficulties make no sense in what, by all rights, should be the region's wealthiest, most prosperous nation. It's not for nothing that Venezuela, an OPEC member, has been compared to Saudi Arabia.

But, rather than recognizing that his nation's heading down the wrong path, Pres. Maduro is using the protests as an excuse to increase authoritarianism. An opposition leader was arrested on evidently invented charges and sent to 'court' on a military base. Maduro yanked a Colombian news channel off of the cable TV systems without benefit of any sort of hearing or appeal process. And reporters in western Venezuela report that their cell phone service has been cut. Newspapers were already struggling with a lack of paper to print on.

Maduro is now threatening to expel CNN from the country "for making it appear that Venezuela is having a civil war." Watchers and readers can draw their own conclusions.

Venezuelan authorities are trying to divert the blame for their nation's multiple crisis by accusing Colombia and the United States - the perpetual whipping boys - of being behind the troubles. It's patently untrue. The sources of Venezuela's troubles are right at home: a wrecked economy, shortages of basic goods, galloping inflation, soaring crime and an increasingly authoritarian government. (In fact, Venezuela lives off of the U.S., which buys much of Venezuela's petroleum and sells it much of what Venezuela imports.)

In the recent protests six people have been killed, including a beauty queen and university student shot in the head after participating in an anti-government protest march.

But I'm not optimistic that these budding dictators will be forced out soon. It's tragic but true that both strongmen and full-fledged dictators have shown real staying power. Look at Chavez himself - and his succesor Maduro - as well as Russia's Putin and the leaders of Syria, Belarus and many of those ex-Soviet states.

I can't help observing the embarrasing behavior of some lefties, such as the folks at Democracy Now! You'd think that a program with a name like that would oppose autocratic strongmen, especially those which are strangling press freedoms. But the message I get from DN's coverage of the violence in Ukraine and Venezuela is that the bad guys here are the protesters, who are quasi-fascists pretending to be democrats, and that the real demon behind them is - as always - the United States, which is pulling the strings. 

By Mike Ceaser, of Bogotá Bike Tours

Dictator for Democracy?

Raul Castro: First Secretary of the
Communist Party of Cuba, Dictator, and
now pro-democracy leader.

Today, a supposedly pro-democracy organization appointed the hemisphere's only dictator as its president.

If that makes no sense, it just might interpreted thru the lens of hemispheric politics.

The organization in question, the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States, or CELAC, was founded in 2010 almost solely to defy the United States (and Canada) and to replace the Organization of American States, which is often seen as a puppet of Washington.

The CELAC is certainly not purely Latin. It has a dozen English-speaking member nations, albeit mostly tiny ones, and one Dutch-speaker, and 18 Spanish-speaking ones. Culturally, ethnically, linguistically or economically, these 33 nations with five official languages, lots of religions and varied economies and histories, have little in common.

So, nothing in particular ties the CELAC's members together, except one thing: they aren't the United States.

The CELAC's reasons for being are to exclude Washington and promote Hugo Chavez's ideas about socialist revolution. It was not by chance that Chavez was a co-chair (along with Chilean Pres. Piñera) of the committee that drafted the CELAC's statutes, or that its first summit was held in Caracas and its third is scheduled for Cuba.

Sure hope Raul's not too busy jailing journalists and
arranging one-party elections to promote democracy?

At the CELAC's second summit, held today in Santiago, Chile,  Chilean Pres. Sebastian Pinera handed the organization's presidency to Cuban dictator Raul Castro.

The vice president of Venezuela also read a letter supposedly written by Hugo Chavez, the Venezuelan president who has held power for some 14 years and recently began yet another term even tho he's been out of sight for more than a month in a Havana hospital suffering from cancer. The letter called for unity among the organization's members and denounced the U.S. blockade of Cuba.

Are Venezuela and Cuba the CELAC's models for democracy?

It's healthy to have a counterbalance to Washington-driven policies. But nobody should deceive themselves that an organization evidently directed by Cuba, a dictatorship which permits no free press, and by increasingly authoritarian Venezuela, will promote democratic values like free speech and the right to vote.

Miami Herald columnist Andres Oppenheimer got it right in this quote in a Washington Post article: “it’s hard to take the CELAC seriously when in their foundational charter they put that they’re going to defend democracy and then they elect a military dictator as its president.”

Oppenheimer observes that the CELAC has no headquarters. I couldn't even find a website for the organization. Perhaps the CELAC will do nothing more than organize meetings and issue statements, as leftist demagogues are so fond of doing.

On the other hand, the CELAC might do some good if it makes some think skulls in Washington D.C. realize the imbecility of the embargo against Cuba, which succeeds in giving Cuba a moral standing it didn't earn and generates responses like the CELAC.



By Mike Ceaser, of Bogotá Bike Tours

Re-Inaugurating an Un-President

All for the invisible leader! (Photos from the Agencia Venezolana de Noticias.)

Venezuela's supposed President Hugo Chavez missed his own re-re-reinauguration today. The trouble is, as he begins yet another presidential term, that he's lying in Havana, Cuba hospital bed, apparently near death from cancer. But don't you worry, Chavez is still president.

These things don't happen in a normal country, where the laws apply and the Constitution matters.

Ordinarily, Chavez can't keep quiet, but he hasn't been heard from for a month, since traveling

'Now, more than ever, with Hugo Chavez.'

to Havana for his fourth cancer surgery. Venezuela's Constitution says the president is to be sworn in on Jan. 10, but Chavez's yes-men and women in the National Assembly and on the Supreme Court used technicalities and loopholes to conclude that Chavez can continue being president even tho out of commission and outside the country, and that he can take the oath whenever he wants before the Supreme Court.

And, since the Chavez government has eliminated all checks and balances, they decide.

Even if this un-presidency doesn't violate the letter of the law, it sure does violate its spirit. The Venezuelan people have no more evidence than the word of a few top officials who've visited Havana that their president is even alive, much less that he'll someday recover. And, isn't a president supposed to be in his nation's capital, not on an island ruled by a dictatorship? The word 'president' comes from 'to preside', which is difficult to do from an overseas hospital bed.

But that's Venezuela, a land which Gabriel Garcia Marquez's magical realism could have created if it didn't already exist.

This travesty is yet more proof that Venezuela isn't ruled by a normal government of institutions, but by a personality cult. Venezuela's top officials seem very aware that their 'revolution's' main appeal lies not in any accomplishments, but in the charismatic personality of the comandante presidente, who's held power for about 14 years. Without him as figurehead, the public's loyalty would waver and the opposition might win any elections. Trials of the Chavez administration for corruption and human rights violations would likely follow. So, the Chavistas believe, it's better to hold out the possibility of Chavez's return, even if everybody knows it's a fantasy.

Behind the scenes, a power struggle's likely already going on amongst Venezuela's top officials in preparation for the inevitable end of this charade. Will Chavez's succesor be able to consolidate power and maintain at least a semblance of democracy? Will a desperate strongman emerge who'll rip away Venezuela's weak institutions and rule thru the military? Or, will the chavista leadership permit fair elections and hand power if the opposition wins?

Chavez lastyear, showing the effects of chemotherapy.

In any case, Chavez seems to have chosen a convenient time to bow out of the political scene for the sake of his legacy. During Chavez's three presidential terms, Venezuela's poverty rate has dropped, literacy has improved (tho much less than the government boasts) and they've done things like expand the capital's subway system.

But they've accomplished that thanks to high prices for oil, on which the economy increasingly depends, as well as huge deficit spending. A hard economic landing looms. The government will be forced to devalue the bolivar currency and reduce or remove destructive but popular subsidies such as the almost-free gasoline. That belt tightening could trigger violence similar to the 1989 Caracazo riots, which helped create Chavismo in the first place.



A sea of red for Chavez.



But if Chavez departs the scene before that, all of that pain will be blamed on his succesors. Chavez the legend will rest peacefully, probably alongside his idol Simon Bolivar in the gigantic mausoleum which Chavez built for El Libertador in the center of Caracas.

Once again, for all of Colombia's defects, the contrast in terms of rule of law couldn't be stronger. In 2010, Pres. Alvaro Uribe wanted to run for a third consecutive term. He was very much alive, healthy and popular. But the Constitutional Court nixed the idea as unconstitutional. Grudgingly, Uribe accepted the verdict, and is now a private citizen tweeting criticisms at the Santos administration.




By Mike Ceaser, of Bogotá Bike Tours

Chavéz's Latest Re-Re-Re-Reelection

Chavez's re-re-reelection victory in Venezuela is no surprise.

Chavez is undoubtedly popular, even after 14 years in power. But it's still an open question whether he would have won reelection yet again if not for his ability to convert the whole mechanism of government into a Chavez campaign machine.

I lived in Venezuela during several years of Chavez's presidency, and I left convinced that he wasn't doing much that was constructive in the long term for his country. Another six years of Chavez, which would total 20 years of Chavez presidency, will be disastrous for Venezuela's economy and democratic institutions. Chavez already dominates the judiciary, bureaucracy and legislature. The independent media has been severely weakened. And the state has expanded its control over more and more of the economy. All of these damaging trends will likely only increase.

But Chavez may very well not complete this latest six-year term, since there are persistent questions about his health. And if Chavez dies or is unable to rule, no clear succesor exists to govern the country.

In the meantime, however, Chavez's victory means continuity, if not perhaps stability, in Colombian-Venezuelan relations. It also improves prospects for Colombia's negotiations now just beginning with the FARC guerrillas, where Chavez can be a key mediator.

But all of this depends on Chavez's health holding up, and that's the great unknown.

Incidentally, Chavez idolizes revolutionary leader Simón Bolívar, who famously said this:


"...nothing is so dangerous as allowing the same person to remain in power a long time. The people become accustomed to obeying him, and he becomes accustomed to commanding them, from which comes usurpation and tyranny."

"The perpetuation of authority in the same individual has frequently been the end of democratic governments."

Chavez loves to quote Bolívar, but I've never heard him repeat those lines, for some reason.

By Mike Ceaser, of Bogotá Bike Tours

So Long to Democracy in Venezuela

All Vote Together, in Venezuela's National Assembly

With the seating of a new Venezuelan National Assembly, with only a slim Chavez majority, imminent, Chavez has found a way to be rid of that nuisance while retaining democratic appearances - made it irrelevent.

In the past days, the outgoing parliament has given Chavez power to rule by decree for 18 months, further restricted the media, including the internet, neutered the university's political power and, most dramatically, slashed the frequency in which the new Assembly will meet. To minimize annoyance from any local anti-Chavez politicians, the government has created pro-Chavez 'communes', and transferred much of the budget to them.

Is Venezuela still a democracy? Well...it does hold elections - but then so do Cuba, Iran, Belarus and lots of other dicatorships, which also happen to be Venezuelan allies.

Why should Colombia be concerned? Historically, authoritarian governments are much more inclined to launch military attacks, and Chavez constantly seeks external demons to blame domestic problems on. More authoritarianism in Venezuela also means less oversight from the media or opposition political parties - and so more opportunity for Chavez to support Colombia's guerrilla groups, which are considered terrorists by Colombia's and many other governments.

It's quite sad, since Venezuela had South America's longest tradition of democratic government. But those governments were corrupt and did not solve the country's poverty, despite its great petroleum wealth and other resources.

It will be sad watching Venezuela's likely accelerating slide into a dictatorship resembling Cuba's.

However, as in North Korea, Belarus, Cuba and Zimbabwe, the rest of the world will do (and can do) little to rescue democracy. In any case, the U.S., which did so much to prop up authoritarian right-wing governments when they served its interests, will also tolerate left-wing authoritarianism when the alternative would mean higher gasoline prices.

By Mike Ceaser, of Bogotá Bike Tours

Democracy Holds on Next Door

Democracy has new life in Venezuela. Despite Pres. Hugo Chavez's efforts to rig the election system in his favor, to muzzle opposition media and to turn the government into a chavista election machine, the opposition obtained about half of the vote. Unless Chavez manages to solve during the remaining two years of his presidential term those huge problems like crime, inflation and an economic malaise which he's failed at during his last 11 years in power, then it appears likely he'll lose his reelection - in a fair vote.

But, from my three years living in Caracas and observing the country since, it sure appears to me that in his heart Chavez does not believe in democracy. He certainly does want to be legitimized by democratic means, but to make sure he wins elections he's used authoritarian methods, such as shutting down opposition media, controlling the court system and employing public institutions to electioneer for him. And, just look at democratic credentials of the sorts of folks he buddies up with - the leaders of Cuba, Iran, Libya, Belarus....

I suspect that, in Chavez's mind, the opposition's success is not democracy but interference by the 'empire' - just as his friend and advisor Fidel Castro stated.

Venezuela's weakened democracy was strengthened by this Sunday's vote, but it's still a close bet whether or not it will survive.

It is certainly important to Colombia that its neighbors have stable democracies with democratic and rational leaders interested in improving the lot of their peoples, not amassing power and spouting obsolete ideology. The evidence is clear: Neighbors Brazil and Peru have healthy functioning democracies, and neither has talked about war against Colombia or threatened to start an arms race. Neither has harbored Colombian guerrillas or closed down its borders. Venezuela, and to a lesser degree Ecuador, (which at this very moment looks like its government may fall) has done all that and more.

Blog written by Mike Ceaser of Bogota Bike Tours