By Edward Kafita
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” – Extract from the Declaration of Independence (USA)
Every people in every nation has the right to protest and like any nation the Venezuelan Constitution grantees this and other Democratic rights, however, this must be done in a peaceful manner. Violence against any elected government and its people is considered terrorism in most if not all the parts of the world. Yet it seems those who have different views and opinions as opposed to the United States and its cohorts on how to make their country more competitive on the global market have been labelled as oppressors, anti-democratic and violators of human rights (Russia and China are no exception to these accusations). The question then is who defines who is democratic and upholds human rights? If a government elected by the people, is brought to chaos by inciting a wave of violence from the minority and extremist section of a country by those who claim to be the champions of democracy and human rights?
Firstly the government in Venezuela came about through a democratic process, thus it is the will of the people that the current government under the leadership of President Nicolas Maduro should defend the “unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” The current government has received the constitutional mandate to govern the people of Venezuela and this mandate ends in 2019. La Silda (the ousting) is led by Loepoldo Lopez and Maria Corina Machado who in 2002 were both implicated in trying to oust the elected government by unconstitutional means after losing the elections. Depending on who is one’s source of information, either one leans towards the current government or stands alongside the opposition and those protesting.
Unfortunately the Western media’s negative portrayals often distorts reality and overlooks information of events actually taking place on the ground. The media often zooms into a country only when there is chaos and often has little consideration of how things were prior to the current state of affairs. The political framework of Venezuela is a participatory democracy and not only representative. According to reports on the ground people of humbler social classes are not protesting because they have jobs, their children have access to free schooling, general access to health care and their voices are heard by those in authority. Just as any nation has its challenges so too the people of Venezuela and just as any nation it is the people of the that country who are to decide on how to solve or tackle these challenges without the influence of outside forces. “That whenever any form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,…”
The United States has said that it is willing to change its tense relationship with Venezuela, however, in the words of the US Secretary of State John Kerry, the US will not sit around and be blamed for things they have not done. This came after the Venezuelan government expelled three American consular official from Caracas after accusing them “for actively being involved in the organization and promotion of the groups who are trying to generate violence,” in Venezuela according to the Minister Foreign Affairs, Elia Jaua Milano. It is believed that the three diplomats from the Embassy of the United States visited various private universities and incited students to protest in the western states of Tachira and Merida demanding increased security and also to complain about inflation and shortage of staple items and soon the protests spread to other parts of the country.
The Swapo Party Youth League (SPYL) is in agreement with the statement released by the Union of South American Nations violence that seeks to overthrow a constitutionally elected government is unacceptable and strongly condemns the use of violence to express opinions and differences. The SPYL would like to encourage the Namibian youth to be vigilant and not to be used to bring their own homeland into chaos. According to reports from Venezuela, the United States of America “the champion of democracy” through its embassy in Caracas targeted university students to be the agents of La Silda. No doubt they painted a picture of despair and doom, and that unless the current government is removed there is no hope for the Venezuelan youth. In our own country prophets of doom have already begun prophesying the hopelessness of the Namibian youth by comparing what the average graduate earns per month, the average cost of living and the rising cost of housing. True, these challenges are real and if one is uninformed may be easily misled into believing that the current government is doing nothing to tackle these challenges. In Venezuela it is those youth who are misinformed and choose to be ignorant of the journey that Venezuela has made under the Chavez leadership.
Firstly the social unrest in the late eighties and early nineties was as a result of increases in bus fares, access to education and health care. These are issues that the Chavez-led government improved on and like our own country education is universal. Lessons the Namibian youth can learn from the chaos in Venezuela include the following:
As Namibian youth we should never be deceived into believing that an outsider can solve our problems adequately. This is also the problem with Africa as a whole, that we let the United States and the West sit around a table and discuss solutions to our problems when chaos best suites their economies (DRC’s minerals, especially coltan).
As long as there is conflict and chaos, the mining industry and other natural resources are not regulated and it is the West that benefits from the cheap raw materials. Violence should never be the first option to express opinions and differences but rather constructive and factual dialogue and presentation of one’s views and opinions. Our own history tells us that going to the bush was the last resort that our forerunners resorted to. Egypt has seen two presidents ousted by violent protests, the question remains is Egypt better off three years since Mubarak stepped down? Is the economy better off, is the tourism sector still growing, is the national security stable and basic general services such as water and electricity still easily accessible? Therefore, the question is, who does regime change benefit, those who claim to liberate or the so called liberated? “Countries such as the USA and Britain have taken it upon themselves to decide for us in the developing world, even to interfere in our democratic affairs and to bring about what they call regime change.” – President Robert Mugabe. A man who cannot make rules in his own house, but relies on another to dictate the affairs of his household cannot be considered a man. Advice should never be overlooked but one has to learn to resolve conflicts in his house. As Namibian youth the challenges we face are many and sometimes they look insurmountable, however it is up to us to come up with constructive and sustainable ideas on how to resolve these challenges. Criticism ceases to be constructive when it is not done out of the desire to see the one in the wrong improve. Therefore let us not only criticize for the sake of criticizing but present ideas and ways to resolve these challenges and prove our detractors wrong.