Breve ante el anuncio del sucesor

El descenso al vórtice del caos continúa. El señor que no quiero nombrar acá hizo su testamento político en TV, ante el futuro cierto que no evade a nadie. Sin humildad, sin arrepentimientos por las daños infligidos con o sin intención, por los muertos en las intentonas, por los muertos por la negligencia y descuido de nuestra seguridad ciudadana, por los llamados a guerra y confrontación, por los llamados a odio y resentimiento, por todo lo que pudo haber hecho con tanto dinero que le entró al país y no hizo, por todas las familias y patrimonios que arruinó con expropiaciones, por toda la cultura irremediable de merecidos que creó en base a la pobreza, porque es ventajosa para recibir lo que sea.

Tú, a quien no quiero nombrar, no dejarás obra, sino des-obra, deconstrucción para dejar escombros solamente. No serás recordado en medio de las dentelladas por el poder que tus acólitos se darán ahora libres de tu dominio carismático y narcisista, tratando de ser tú. No hay otro como tú, y lo agradecemos. Requerimos de uno que sencillamente quiera este país sin su propia efigie impuesta en vallas y altares, y entienda que los que están con él y los que no, comparten una misma tierra, una misma querencia de país y que aunque tengan todos faltas estas pueden superarse para vivir en concordia. El destino te ha traicionado y te quedó grande, porque tú te traicionaste. El tiempo de Dios no fue perfecto para ti en vida, lo será en muerte sin duda, porque serás la leyenda de lo que pudo ser para los que se han beneficiado de ti. Te usaron. Pero también los usaste. Para otros serás la farsa y también lo que pudo haber sido porque no lo fue desde el principio, sino una distorsión que devino en desastre. Ellos serán los que desprecien tu leyenda y tratarán de borrar el vacío de lo que no dejaste. Pero no se puede socavar una leyenda fácilmente. Habrá que vivir con la tuya hasta que el destino también nos alcance. Sólo una era sin nosotros será el olvido para todo. Mientras, lo que viene sin ti será peor por un buen largo tiempo. Habrá que ver si aprendimos algo.

Y si es que nos has mentido, o al final el universo decide darte más chance, será igual lo que aquí digo, para cuando te llegue la hora, porque sin duda, en algún momento te llegará, como a todos.

Autocracia vs. Democracia en las elecciones presidenciales de Venezuela

Edificio de la Asamblea Nacional de Venezuela. Foto: Luis Carlos Díaz

El próximo 7 de octubre, tendremos elecciones presidenciales en Venezuela.

No es una elección más. Para mí, como para un porcentaje considerable de la población votante se trata de una elección decisiva en establecer si somos un país democrático y progresista o uno sumergido en el culto a la personalidad y el poder autocrático.

No es discutible que tenemos una nación diferente desde que Hugo Chávez llegó al poder, pero la historia no es tan simple como un “antes y después”. Es compleja y controvertida y no es tampoco resumible en un breve artículo. Para algunos, estamos en el momento justo de lograr una utopía de igualación de nuestra sociedad a través de un estado socialista centralizado, para otros es la pesadilla de un caudillo que gobierna el país bajo su voluntad y carisma; y en ambos casos, con la aquiescencia y oposición de más o menos la mitad de la población del país.

Venezuela está completamente polarizada en contra y a favor de Chávez. La respuesta a él es más emocional que racional, y pone a una gran cantidad de personas al borde de las lágrimas -y no estoy exagerando-, pero si tomamos las emociones fuera de la ecuación, tenemos este hilo breve de hechos o síntomas si se quiere, que nos hará considerar si Venezuela tiene su democracia en peligro.

1. En la primera revisión de la constitución al inicio de su gobierno, en 1999, cambió el tiempo de servicio del presidente en su cargo público de 5 a 6 años y le otorgó posibilidad de reelección por un período constitucional más. Y así quedó en la constitución nueva. En la constitución previa, la reelección era imposible antes de 2 períodos más, bajo otros presidentes.

2. En un referéndum para aprobar modificaciones y enmiendas de la constitución en el año 2007, una de ellos era hacer la reelección presidencial ilimitada. La razón aducida fue que la revolución necesitaba más tiempo para alcanzar sus objetivos “bolivarianos”. La gente dijo que no. Sin embargo, en 2009, después de otro referéndum organizado específicamente para aprobar la reelección indefinida, la propuesta de reelección ganó. Las otras reformas negadas en el referéndum de 2007 se llevaron a cabo finalmente por los poderes especiales otorgados al presidente por la Asamblea Nacional, dominada por su partido (PSUV – Partido Socialista Unido de Venezuela). Así que ahora es candidato por tercera vez, tratando de estar en el poder por un total de 20 años y más “si Dios le da salud”.

3. Hugo Chávez está enfermo de cáncer. La naturaleza y el pronóstico de su enfermedad no han sido detallados al público, pero hay un sinfín de rumores, todos negados oficialmente. Sin embargo, las elecciones fueron adelantadas 3 meses antes de la que solía ser la fecha en diciembre. Ahora será el 7 de octubre. La razón oficial es porque se protege así la integridad de otras dos elecciones en Diciembre para alcaldes y gobernadores y en Marzo comicios locales. Las especulaciones de las “verdaderas” razones  varían: que está muy enfermo y tiene que garantizar la permanencia de su partido en el poder, o que perderá, pero el gobierno necesitará varios meses para borrar las huellas de la corrupción y los abusos, mientras la transmisión de mando se produce en febrero del 2013.

4. Últimamente Hugo Chávez dice que él debe ganar porque si no, Venezuela irá a una guerra civil, y que si él gana, la oposición va a clamar fraude. Es una advertencia y una amenaza, que cubre los escenarios de los que refutan dejar el poder y hacen trampa en las elecciones. No es ningún secreto que Chávez ha armado una milicia civil, y que bajo su gobierno ha resurgido y se ha consolidado  un grupo guerrillero bolivariano plenamente identificado con su gobierno, las Fuerzas Bolivarianas de Liberación Nacional.

5. Chávez desde 1999, ha erosionado la autonomía de los poderes del Estado. El Poder Judicial, Legislativo, Electoral, Militar y los medios de comunicación son dominados por sus acólitos. Él ha puesto generales y otros oficiales de diferentes rangos como jefes en ministerios y en embajadas. Él ha dado públicamente por TV órdenes para encarcelar a personas, expropiar propiedades, etc., sin el debido proceso. Ningún poder o arrepentido seguidor actúa o reacciona contra la voluntad del presidente sin sanciones como encarcelamiento o acusaciones de traición (Ej. Casos: Jueza Afiuni, General Baduel, Juez Aponte Aponte.). Oficialmente esto es negado y trata de justificarse aunque en la realidad, las violaciones al proceso de derecho son obvias.

6. Los partidos de la oposición después de cerca de 10 años de disgregación, reorganización en nuevos partidos, controversia, boutades e intervenciones asertivas, se unió en un frente, la Mesa de la Unidad Democrática (MUD) para combatir el poder autocrático de Chávez . Finalmente han llegado a un consenso mediante el cual el fin de restablecer una democracia dinámica, primero la persona pegada a la silla presidencial tiene que ser eliminado, lo cual sólo puede lograrse mediante públicamente la elección de un candidato de unidad y trabajar juntos para ganar las elecciones y evitar la violencia y la no sucumbir a la provocación. El candidato electo fue Henrique Capriles Radonski. Todavía hay luchas internas entre las personalidades menos importantes de la MUD, pero nada con impacto real en su cohesión general.

7. En julio, Hugo Chávez dio orden de abandonar la Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos de la OEA por un fallo contrario al gobierno venezolano. ¿Casualidad en fechas cercanas a las elecciones?

No tengo duda de que estamos en un clímax decisivo entre democracia y autocracia. No se trata de lo que ha logrado Chávez como presidente o no. Eso es discutible y puede ser argumentado como para cualquier otro gobierno entre seguidores y opositores, pero las señales están ahí, algunas más evidentes que otras, de que Chávez no es un político democrático. Y esa es la clave de estas elecciones. ¿Queremos alternabilidad de líderes, posibilidad de disensión sin represalias (léase Lista Tascón), autonomía de poderes? No hay garantía de que ello ocurra cambiando de gobierno, es una apuesta a una nueva generación de dirigentes. Pero si no cambiamos, será una seguridad que nuestra democracia se verá aún más disminuida por el continuismo de Hugo Chávez en el poder.

Este octubre habrá en Venezuela sentimientos encontrados después de conocer el resultado de la elección, sea cual sea el mismo. En ese sentido, la emoción aún es parte de la ecuación política. Lo que sí es seguro, es que el chavismo tendrá asegurada su supervivencia en el juego democrático si gana el candidato Capriles que hasta ahora centra su campaña en predicar el respeto y la inclusión. No así la oposición, que enfrentaría mayores reformulaciones constitucionales para profundizar el llamado Socialismo del Siglo XXI promulgado por Chávez bajo un mandato por 6 años más. En este escenario la democracia en Venezuela se debilitaría todavía más y podría desaparecer.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Más sobre la salida de Venezuela de la Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos:

1. http://www.eluniversal.com/nacional-y-politica/120818/chavez-against-the-court (inglés)

2. http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/7131 (inglés)

3. http://www.lostiempos.com/diario/opiniones/columnistas/20120915/venezuela-y-la-cidh_185574_393703.html (español)

Más sobre las eleciones presidenciales 2012:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuelan_presidential_election,_2012 (inglés)con detalles sobre la historias, encuestas, etc., actualizada.

2. Venezuela’s presidential campaign: Gaining ground | The Economist (inglés) http://econ.st/Sxdu2s

3. http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/regions/latin-america-caribbean/andes/venezuela/042-dangerous-uncertainty-ahead-of-venezuelas-elections.aspx

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Artículo publicado en inglés en el portal BertelsmannStiftung -  FutureChallenges.org

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Being at the Olympic Games against all odds

The semi-finals of the women’s 200 metres at the Olympic Games, London, 1948. Photo from the National Media Museum, The Commons on Flickr. Public Domain.

Every time the Olympic Games come round, we think about the inequalities of the world. It seems somehow immoral, that huge amount of money spent on infrastructure, advertising and so on when so much could be done with it for the poor in the country hosting the games or elsewhere. We also think about the poor or underdeveloped countries that send delegations which don’t perform as wished, overwhelmed as they are by the power of the Chinese, Americans, Russians, Australians, Germans and all the other big medal-winning nations. Not to forget about the politics and struggles surrounding the games.

But do we really think about this or is just the politically correct thing to do? It is indeed a fact that the inequalities of the world are in blatant evidence at the Olympic Games. We see how countries that value and support their athletes get the best results and the most medals. But this holds true not only for the Olympics but for all the other major sporting events across the world. This is surely an issue we should not lose sight of.

Only what to do about it? I believe nothing. The inequalities and unfairness in the world have nothing to do with the Olympics and everything to do with inefficient governments, lack of resources or resources misused, mismanaged or simply stolen. And yet somehow in the midst of this event there is always some unexpected hero who, beyond all odds, gets a medal or a place in the world’s ranking. They are heros because they’ve been through long years of after work or after class training in countries that don’t consider any sport a serious matter, a career choice, or a valid vocation but merely a distant dream.

Is being an Olympian a dream? Oh, yeah. It is for countless people. The message of fair play, team effort and individual achievement through honest work is so powerful that it makes doping a scandal, and cheating something horribly wrong. It’s a living spirit at the Olympics while in the rest of the world cheating, stealing, killing are so widespread they’re just numbers in statistics to which we have become numbed.

In Venezuela, sports are politics not policy – consider, for instance, Formula One Venezuelan star Pastor Maldonado who keeps praising and thanking president Hugo Chávez at each press conference for all the money spent on him. Our young at universities and schools don’t have scholarships or logistical support for their studies when they’re good at sports. Exams or classes do not get rescheduled for competitions or training. And there are always problems: insecurity and crime around the venues, not enough infrastructure, “missing” resources, internal quarrels in federations, inefficiency and no serious implementation of any comprehensive policy. In Venezuela it takes a truly “Olympic” effort for any person to achieve excellence in any discipline because everything is stacked against them.

I don’t believe this is any different in any other underdeveloped or poor country plagued with corruption and over politicised.  It is the effort and will of the athletes what makes the dream of the Olympic Games so valuable and precious because it represents hope and faith in the best human values.

So do we really think about how evident inequalities, etc. are at the Olympic Games? Maybe others do. I personally don’t. I enjoy the idea that for one moment, after many years of hard work and sometimes against all the odds, the best athletes in the world have a shot at coming together and pursuing the same dream. And that they are competing in a place where politics are left aside and the ugliness of wars and conflicts is banished. Or at least that is what we dream of – a sort of utopia, the one we seek as a civilization. That is inspiring. And in a world so broken, so unfair, we need inspiration.

……

Afterword:

Just 2 days after I submitted this article, Rubén Limardo won a gold medal in fencing for Venezuela. The last gold medal won by any Venezuelan was 44 years ago. It’s the first gold medal in the current Olympic Games for Spanish speaking Latin America, and the first in fencing for a Latin American country since 1900. Rubén says in various interviews that he has been dreaming about winning a gold medal at the Olympics ever since he was a child.

……

Artículo publicado el 01/08/2012 en el portal FutureChallenges.org en http://futurechallenges.org/local/being-at-the-olympic-games-against-all-odds/

Caracas: City of Contrasts

A view of the Ávila from the South of Caracas. Photo Kira Kariakin.

On the site worldviewcities.org, the teaser about Caracas says “Think Blade Runner in the tropics“. This might give you a sense of the chaos, the light and the darkness, and the contrasts of Caracas, capital of Venezuela, and my own home city. It’s difficult to talk about Caracas because more often than not we Caraquenians have a love/hate relationship with the city. As residents we know its chaos, light and darkness all too well.

We love the mountain that reigns over it, El Ávila, recently renamed after its indigenous name Warairarepano. We think is the city’s guardian and protector. It is our totem. We turn to look at it in awe every day, to observe its ever-changing colours as the day progresses, and to seek relief from the overwhelming frustration of traffic jams. It has been a source of inspiration for many artists and poets ever since the city was founded. We love the valley that enfolds Caracas, the wind in the afternoon that takes away the pollution from the air, the ready wit of the city’s inhabitants, and the constant surprises that the city’s synergies and dynamic landscapes spring on us.

We hate the traffic, the violence of crime that has taken over, the overpopulation, the dehumanization that urban chaos brings with it, the physical degeneration of the city spurred on by political polarization which makes any attemp to improve Caracas an issue of interminable discussions that always forget the priority of the greater good, and lead to no positive action whatsoever, just mere cosmetic measures.

Caracas is not an easy city. Mostly developed under unfinished and failed plans, modernity tried to take it over through the hand of the dictator Marcos Pérez Jiménez in the 1950s who wished to complete the old Rotival plan from the short lived democracy of the 40′s. Remarkable architects and planners tried to make the city one of the more modern on the continent. The highways, avenues and parks, the country’s Central University, the hospitals, and  other important landmarks of the city all date back to those times.

With the advent of democracy, after a period of struggle against the guerrillas in the 60′s, came the nationalization of the oil industry, industrialization and electrification of the whole country in the 1970s. Modernisation also brought waves of inmigration from poorer neighbouring countries and inner rural provinces which made Caracas grow explosively fast in the absence of any proper urban regulations. Squatters took over the mountains, crevices and water streams of the valley to build their “barrios” (favelas), while planning developers attempted to organise parts of the city with little success as with widespread corruption big buildings, shopping malls etc. were not so legally erected, housing zones were turned into commercial or industrial areas, and protected green areas were used for residential purposes. This sort of uncontrolled growth created synergies and particular dynamics between Caraquenians and Caracas dividing the city into East and West, not only geographically but socially speaking as well:  the upper classes live in the East while the lower orders populate the West. This division has been accentuated by the political polarization which has occured ever since the Chávez “revolution” of 1999.

But however debatable the democratic character of this 13 year old political process might be, no Caraquenian has any doubt that the violence is democratic, because it affects all of us, or that the traffic congestion, the delays on the subway, and the lack of open spaces like parks and squares are all the egalitarian circumstances of this city. It is not a city to be lived, just a city to live in.

In its history various plans have attempted to bring order and humanize the city, but one after another they were abandoned as an alternate government came to power. So we  have had the Plan Rotival (1939), the Plan Regulador General (1958), the Plan Rector Caracas 2000 (1978), the Plan Estratégico Caracas 2010 (1998), and lately the Plan Estratégico Metropolitano 2020 (2008).

Expropriation (without compensation) of land, buildings, semi-finished constructions for displaced people or institutions suddenly appearing in places they are not meant to be all put a big question mark of uncertainty over construction developers and any plans that could serve the city. Such expropriations are meant to push forward the “revolution” and thus cannot be contested nor is any discussion permitted by which some consensus might be reached on their impact on the urban landscape. This only gives the city a sense of emergency and of precariousness that is always spiced by the threat of political confrontation.

At this point in time it is almost impossible to talk about any plausible alternatives or changes, not until the confrontational parties reach a degree of political maturity, put aside their pseudo-ideological quarrels and make common cause about what is needed to make Caracas a city to be more loved than hated. We remain hopeful, however, because we are cradled in this valley of sorrows and happiness by the sight of our big mountain that comforts us no matter what.

***

More reading on Caracas’s urban planning:

http://www.worldviewcities.org/caracas/main.html (English)

http://cav.org.ve/ site of the Association of Architects of Venezuela (Spanish)

The skyscraper slums of Caracas

Artículo publicado el lunes, 28 de Mayo de 2012 en Future Challenges.

Recordatorio en el día de la mujer

For me, the International Women’s Day, more than a celebration is a reminder.

Reminder that women who today enjoy education, a career, professional respect, access to services and media, as well as a life without physical or psychological abuse, have a responsibility towards women that don’t enjoy those privileges in a good portion of the world. In some cases, because cultural and/or religious reasons that sometimes transcend the legal frameworks of the countries where they live. But those countries, are not necessarily the object of obscure and retrograde governments, they are, actually, almost all the countries in the world and they are also the country of oneself where despite advanced legislation, decrees and policies, women still suffer violence against they genre not just through domestic abuse but also language, condescension, labor discrimination and social pressures.

The discussion of women’s rights is still on. Laws and paradigms are not enough, the commitment and responsibility are for those rights to not be anymore a matter of discussion in the future, but because they will be already assumed and tacit by then.

El día internacional de la mujer, más que una celebración para mí es un recordatorio.

Recordatorio de que las mujeres que hoy día gozamos de educación, carrera, respeto profesional, acceso a servicios y medios, así como una vida sin abusos físicos ni psicológicos; tenemos una responsabilidad para con aquellas mujeres que no gozan de esos privilegios en una gran parte del mundo. En algunos casos, por razones culturales y/o religiosas que a veces trascienden los marcos legales de los países donde viven. Pero esos países, no son una ficción por lo lejanos, ni son necesariamente objeto de oscuros gobiernos retrógrados, sino son casi todos los países del planeta y son también el mismo país de uno donde a pesar de legislaciones de avanzada, decretos y políticas, las mujeres siguen sufriendo la violencia en contra de su género no sólo a través del abuso doméstico sino de la palabra, la condescendencia, la discriminación laboral, las presiones sociales.

Mientras viví en Bangladesh, tuve contacto con mujeres admirables que hacían lo posible por darse mayores oportunidades a sí mísmas y a sus hijas. Las conocí a través de la iniciativa de la ong Nari Jibon, la cual por desgracia cesó de operar. Esa experiencia, me hizo apreciar por comparación la situación cotidiana para muchas mujeres en Latinoamérica, la cual en esencia no es tan diferente a pesar de obvias divergencias culturales y religiosas. El trabajo constante por tener voz, desarrollarse profesionalmente, cubrir las necesidades familiares, darle a los hijos educación, por ayudar a la comunidad, es intenso y cuesta arriba en cualquier parte. El sentido de propiedad sobre la mujer, su cosificación siguen presentes a pesar de los avances, pero es algo de esperarse cuando el cambio en referencia a su estátus legal y de derechos tiene apenas unos 100 años en el mundo occidental -desde que se le permitió por primera vez a la mujer votar- y en muchos casos menos dependiendo del país.

No pretendo, por supuesto, victimizar a las mujeres en este breve escrito. Las verdaderas víctimas son las que no pueden hablar. Y las mujeres que pueden hablar, actuar y superar obstáculos no son víctimas de nada ni nadie. Un buen número de mujeres lo hacemos porque hemos superado prejuicios, paternalismos, y condescendencias suficientes para entender que no podemos dejar de ser conscientes de que aún existen y de que no habrá verdadera igualdad y respeto hasta que sean erradicados. Los obstáculos culturales y/o religiosos se presentan en una cuesta empinada, pero no imposible de superar.

La discusión sigue al día. Son muchos los asuntos pendientes: derecho a decidir sobre la maternidad, derecho al divorcio, defensa frente a la violencia doméstica y social, discriminación laboral, acceso a la educación, educación sexual y anticonceptivos, legislación equitativa, entre muchos otros. Dentro del respeto y la diferencia de opiniones, la médula del asunto sigue siendo si la mujer tiene o no ciertos derechos. El recordatorio: que no son suficientes leyes y paradigmas, que el compromiso y la responsabilidad son contribuir para que esos derechos ni se discutan en el futuro porque ya serán cosa asumida y tácita.

Publicado originalmente en: http://futurechallenges.org/local/recordatorio-en-el-dia-de-la-mujer/

Democracy, Climate Change and Venezuela

The article by Ulrike Reinhard, Democracy’s Green Challenge, puts forword the premise that democracy has failed to tackle the pressing problems of climate change and that maybe – since climate change can almost be qualified as a “war” situation – the solution lies in a more authoritarian approach.

This just makes me wonder which authority is being invoked Who (which person, country or organization) would be responsible and accountable for taking decisions in the name of the whole world? And who would designate that person, country, or organization?

Democracy has failed globally in solving a lot of other pressing issues like poverty, hunger and illnesses such as HIV and malaria. But democracy is not a spirit or a mighty entity. Democracy is run by the will of leaders selected by the people to represent their interest. Are these leaders the best ones? Do they really have people’s interest at heart or are they only interested in being reelected?

Democracy might not be a perfect system, but it is the best we have. To consider the possibility that an authoritarian system may take better care of this or indeed any other problem is at the very least dangerous. An authoritarian approach has been used to manage immigration problems in Europe and countries like USA with the flagrant violation of basic human rights. How different would this be if applied to climate change? Can somebody guarantee that human rights won’t be violated under an authoritarian approach? I don’t think the answers would be positive.

Paradoxically, it is usually the most illiterate and poorest people on this planet that are the ones who raise their voices most to protect their immediate environment. They are the ones who understand that their very survival is in jeopardy if their natural resources are extinguished. So why is this idea so alien to governments and leaders elected to represent  these very same people? Yet even more interesting, why do the people keep electing leaders that fail to respond?

The answers to these questions can probably only be found in wide ranging extensive discussion – which only reinforces my point that no, the answer is not as simple as having one sole authority to take decisions for the sake of the planet’s  well being. At least not for me. It is not democracy that is failing; what is failing are the people, the leaders. I am sure that democracy is the best system we can have because it can yet be perfected. It has proven to work well when the population is better informed and more aware of its problems, when the powers of the judiciary are independent from those of government, and when leaders are held accountable.

So whether our will working through democracy can prevent climate changeis very much a bet. Maybe Lovelock is right when he says that humanity is basically stupid about its own self-preservation and well-being, but on the other hand it’s also amazing the way it has developed civilizations, languages, art, philosophy and a lot more in a relatively short time by planetary standards. Maybe humanity is just an infant, and democracy as a system needs to mature and become more … democratic.
Venezuela and Climate Change

My experience as a citizen of Venezuela has led me to disbelieve in any leader who offers an unilateral solution for our problems and equallz in the people which elects these leaders. The recent history of Venezuela has made me skeptical of authoritarian profiles as great solvers of any kind of problems a country may face. So, from the local perspective it is difficult to write about democracy and climate change as a Venezuelan as the present government has an authoritarian profile with several of its functionaries starting with the president being military or ex-military men.

Any problem that we face as a nation is either the fault of capitalism or the “empire” . Climate change is no exception, and is used as a tool for proselytism and propaganda promoting a socialist state. Any arguments against this position usually follow the objective of political confrontation. So it is a challenge to present any national approach to climate change without questioning  the hidden agendas behind any government position.

But historically, Venezuela always been committed to the environment. It was the first country in Latin America to have a environmental law and to penalize crimes against the environment.

Venezuela had subscribed to different treaties and environmental frameworks, like the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change that was signed in 1992, and ratified in 1994, as well as the Kyoto Protocol.

The government had promoted some missions towards reduction of CO2 emissions and energy efficiency, like The Tree Mission, which promoted the planting of trees all over the country from 2006 to 2008, when “over 18,000 hectares were cultivated, 65 percent for protective forest cover, 33 percent for agro-forestry, and 2 percent for industrial and commercial purposes. Over 29,000 people benefited – 40 percent of them women – and $93.3 million was invested”, and the replacement of around 100 million incandescent light bulbs for cfl´s (source: Bay view). Both these campaigns were criticized.

The first for its cost, the second for being a temporary solution that wouldn’t solve the power crisis we faced during 2010. An unprecedented drought affected all the dams and hydropower plants that supply 70% of the electricity to the country, creating significant power shortages for the first time in decades. While the government blames the phenomenon of El Niño, the opposition blames the government and has exposed faulty maintenance of all the systems of the state-owned electricity system as being responsible for the crisis. The reality seems to be a mixture of the two. In the case of the electricity sector, after that crisis in mid 2010 due to the drought, it recovered by the end of the year with the abundant rains – but we faced disaster and thousands of people lost their homes and were displaced. And the reason for this situation, was again signaled out as capitalism. The oil that Venezuela produces that contributes to global warming apparently doesn’t have anything to do with it.

With Us Or Against Us: Changing Perceptions of “The Other” after 9/11

When 9/11 happened, I was living in Uganda.

I was at the house of friends following the events when one of them arrived cheering. We were a multinational, multiracial and multireligious group. We watched live as the second tower got hit and like the rest of the world we watched as both buildings started to crumble down and disappear into the ground. When our friend cheered, most of us simply didn’t get it. He was an exiled Syrian, permanently outraged by the Israeli and Palestinian struggle and the continuous undermining of Palestinian dignity. When we told him that people were dying there, when we expressed our horror and grief, he calmed down but didn’t lose his feeling of being vindicated. At that moment I sensed a rift between us, because all of us had a different sense of what was happening.

Independently of the political and military consequences, the events of that day impacted everybody around the world on a human level. We were all caught in the contradictions and prejudices that bubbled up violently inside us, and suddenly the world turned from being a wonderful place to know and explore into a complex place of fear and anxiety.

That day was the day when people around the world began to regard “the other” not as a marvelous and interesting representation of the joy of living, diversity and knowledge, but as a source of threat and fear of the unknown. The “other” now became a menace: the other of the East, the other of the West.

I know that 9/11 had that effect on me personally. Until then in our group of friends religion was a topic that didn’t matter much. It was just an interesting thing to talk about; politics was a subject for after dinner conversations, race was a spicey mix of hues that made our gatherings of foreigners and nationals in Uganda interesting and vibrant.  Suddenly, after that day, all these things became extremely urgent and immediate,  not only for my group of friends but for all people around the world. The world started to ask each one of us to declare where we stood.  “You are either with me or against me” was the general sentiment which was also a threat, and it ran powerfully on each of side of the evident and seemingly irreconcilable cultural divide of the planet.

I feel that the identity of each of us was shattered at first by that day only to be reinforced later on as we had to have a position about what just happened, about who we were, what we believed in, where we belonged and what our values were. Political correctness was a must at that time and was scrutinized minutely under the microscope. Any diversity of views was stopped in it tracks by the weight of You Are Either With Me Or Against Me. I saw this happening everywhere,  and especially among my group of friends in Uganda. Even though we did remained friends,  we realized that the bonds of friendship had been weakened because of this.

I believe that even today this is still happening to some extent across the entire world, and the root of it is fear. Fear of the other,  fear to judge and be judged. To be categorized or cataloged. We live in times of a modern inquisition, in times of a  modern crusade – not necessarily a religious one – where the Powers That Be show us things in terms of black and white while, at the same time, they display themselves in a more crude way with blatant double standards. Nevertheless, the rift is closing with a new generational awareness of a global community. With the globalization of migration, the media, and a sense of human rights, we are now thousands of millions of shades of colors.

I believe that time taught everybody to become more conscious about what it means to belong to a culture. I believe it confronted us all with the options of rejecting, tolerating or embracing “the other”. I think my generation is still struggling with these options, and trying to mend its torn humanity.

Publicado originalmente en FutureChallenges.org: http://futurechallenges.org/local/fear-to-the-other-to-judge-and-be-judged/