Hospitals running of medicines, queuing for food, an opposition leader in jail….a real chaos that is leading the country into a humanitarian crisis. However, responses from the government come in the form of “calling for rebellion” if the opposition succeeds in ousting him from office in a referendum. How could a leader deny a cruel reality that is sinking their population? How could a democratic government response in a so simple and absurd manner, avoid taking responsibility by seeing this situation as a result of “imperialism”?. Indeed, any attempt of aid from the international community is considered an affront to national sovereignty and must must be considered an “invasion”.
Instead of calm this “turbulent sea” from the population by an active and effective action plan, Nicolas Maduro choose to call for demonstrations “against the imperialism”. What does it mean? What is Maduro trying to hide? Which is the political goal?
Since Chavez ‘management there were many references and solid information of the economic-financial failures on establishing a prosper country based on democratic roots. A constant and firm political message against the “American imperialism” helps them avoid the reasons for a dangerous lack of transparency and accountability of their management. It´s clear, for populism a leadership based in being “against” is always profitable in electoral aspects. Now, examples of Latin-American populist leaders are many but that doesn’t mean lack of content, avoid applying democratic principles or a unique anti-America message as the leading line of analysis. Castro brothers have used but in a more justifiable form, as the embargo was more than a reason to be anti-America, although working in shaping a new and sustainable Cuba. Jose Mujica is another example that populism not necessary could be wrong if it´s focused and with a clear ideological basis and criteria. Populism doesn´t mean “show” and when political marketing is taking seriously with long-term and systemic proposals with the sense of belonging to a global world, it coexists with all ideological forms of governments with success.
From Chavez to Maduro the attitude of being “on the stage” all the time seems to be the only political marketing strategy and best weapon on this imaginary war that have created and fuelled with a constant Anti-American message. However, is it now when all the forecasts of a falling empire surrounded with shortsighted political vision and anti-democratic and anti-global strategies take form and lead the country into an unfocussed mission and irrelevant goals.
Is it also true that raise the voice against American foreign policies is fair and needed. On the last 50 years U.S leaders have shown to be mistaken and by the contrary to their own message, they have promoted more violence and a financial crisis that has hurled the world into instability. However, American leaders acknowledge this and many of the new focus is to work against that status quo. This is the main reason that is no needed to monopolize a unique political speech against them just to gain leadership in a global debate.
Trying to be transformed in the Latin-Americans leaders of an Anti- America movement is not only unnecessary but also unprofitable in a world with global rules and in constant change. Not even Cuba has shown to have this strange and not updated agenda by the contrary, the vision of belonging to a global world is what is leading them to negotiation, searching for joint efforts and a common agenda.
In the end, Venezuela´s strategy has resulted not in Anti American’s leaders but just a government with shortsighted vision not able to face crisis and give effective and alternative solutions to their main asset an now their main obstacle: oil. Indeed there were not prepare in case of a fall in prices and their devastating impact on the economy. With an inflation of 270% the country is submitted in a complete chaos having the same tool for both, campaigns and public management: a complot from U.S. Is it not.
From Chavez to Maduro a personal, egocentric and shortsighted vision leadership style has dominated Venezuelan political stage, turn it all attempts for structural changes in useless. Instead of turning the country into prosper socialist system it becomes a fake of a populist model with individual projects with no sense of a political-economic-social system. As a consequence, a strong marketing that hide the real lack of content and a weak strategy that lead the country into a no sustainable path. The fall of oil prices were just the tip of the iceberg.
The lack of leadership is what marks the difference and in this case marks the crisis.
Maduro calls for a rebellion, and he´s right….. their own population needs to make a revolution and raise their voices against a system that doesn´t been able to be resilient in foreseeable situations, exposing that they do not have a national strategy with vision.Just individual successful projects that works well as social work but not as the global project. Is precisely this project that ought to be designed to create a country with focus towards safety and sustainability.
Mr President: “if you want to lead them you must place yourself behind them” and not call for a “rebellion” to hide failures that become exposures in a so obvious and devastating way: hunger and lack of medicines for your people.
The same populist speech that took him to power is the same that must guide them to get a way out to this humanitarian crisis that is not finding a national solution because of mismanagement and shortsighted political vision.
 Lao Tzu