BY JUAN VíCTOR FAJARDO

In print | Published November 20, 2008

Obama’s electoral victory was a motivation for celebrations all over the world. Recent conversations with friends in Caracas and Paris have left no doubt in my mind as to how the world experienced the latest presidential elections. Young people in Venezuela and France celebrated Obama’s victory as if it had been their own — and perhaps it was. One could argue that in today’s globalized world, the American electorate did a service to world citizens in electing Obama.

As it stands, the call for change goes beyond US borders. It is change on a global scale that we should aim for. Having a young, black, intelligent and progressive leader in the White House is a hopeful sign that the world is moving in a positive direction. “Change has come to America,” he said in his victory speech. What he meant was that the possibility for change has come to the world and to America, if not the obligation.

What is it about this man that makes him the source of hope and inspiration for young people around the world? There are many ways to answer this question. I would say, however, that Barack Obama embodies the revolutionary spirit inherent in young generations. What happened on November 4 was indeed a revolution of sorts. Not one rooted in social hatred and revenge, but instead a revolution deeply committed to democracy and existing institutions. Obama’s message of change is above all a message of unity. That’s what distances his revolution from the antiquated radicalism of armed revolutions.

The electoral euphoria that dominated the press around the world is far from being over in Venezuela. The stage is set for our regional elections. The Ministry of Education has decided to suspend classes starting on Wednesday so that on Sunday, November 23, the nation’s schools can serve as voting centers for this important electoral contest. What are officially at stake are no less than 22 governorships and 328 mayoral positions. More importantly, these upcoming elections will determine the political panorama of a nation struggling with its revolution.

Chavez has spent the bulk of this past month campaigning for his party’s candidates. He has traveled the country to make public appearances with the candidates for governors and mayors he openly supports. Along the way and in his singular style, Chavez has threatened to incarcerate candidates of the opposition and to mobilize troops and tanks if the Revolution loses its stronghold in several states. Needless to say, a tense political climate reigns in Venezuela.

Political analysts have compared Chavez’s attitude toward these elections with the way he acted last December. Almost a year ago, he presented a series of changes to the national constitution that were vetoed by the Venezuelan electorate. At the time, his strategy was to equate the constitutional changes with the Revolution. Voting against them meant betraying the whole of the revolutionary project. For these elections, he seems to have embraced a similar strategy. Broadly speaking, the merit of most of his candidates lies solely in their alliance with President Chavez.

A similar trend holds true for the candidates of the opposition. Their political platforms are almost entirely based on the fact that they are the anti-Chavez alternative. Some of the candidates that are up for election are the same corrupt politicians that ruled the country before 1998. They stand strong only in opposition to Chavez, if at all. Wide-spread political amnesia and dissatisfaction with the Revolution might be just what it takes to put them back in power. Such is the tragic story of radical politics in Latin America.

Whatever happens this Sunday will, without a doubt, determine the immediate future of the Bolivarian Revolution. The Chavez administration must recover from a transnational corruption scandal concerning Cristina Fernandez’s presidential campaign in Argentina, and an almost $90 decrease in the price of Venezuelan oil in only six months.

The goal is not for the opposition to gain political ground, per se. That is, the opposition is by no means an ideal political alternative. What we need at this point is political diversity and dialogue. We need “to reach across the aisle,” as some would say, to mend the ideological gap that Chavez has both created and fed upon. The dream is to walk together as a nation and to have projects in common as a people. We are far from that dream in Venezuela. Only if the Revolution loses these elections in several states can we even hope to begin our walk towards this goal.

Juan Victor is a senior. He can be reached at jfajard1@swarthmore.edu.

« RETURN TO OPINIONS

« PREV ARTICLE | NEXT ARTICLE »