Paraphrasing Paul Ricoeur, we can say that when a society faces disorder, ineffectiveness and incommunicability of values and a lack of horizons, due to the lack of common objectives, the symptoms of an identity crisis become evident, which manifests itself in the culture and in all its daily activities. This is not about going into the identity of the Venezuelan being, that is a matter for sociologists and anthropologists. We are the product of a cross between three cultures and we cannot erase the fact that we are children of an institutional order created by Spain over three centuries, after which other considerations come.
The idea of these reflections out loud is to ask ourselves about the narrative of young people born during the Chavez regime and why we are late in reaching modernity, which in the last twenty-five years under a militaristic and pro-communist regime called 21st century socialism, has manifested itself as a vigorous rejection of the modern values of Western culture, reason, republican democracy and the rule of law. In the same vein expressed by Ricoeur, we ask ourselves: Is the inability to advance in development a consequence of a crisis of identity of the Venezuelan? According to García Canclini (Hybrid cultures1990), the uncertainty about the meaning and value of modernity derives in part from the sociocultural links in which the traditional and the modern mix, giving rise to a cultural hybridization. “This hybridization is the way in which both the popular classes and the elites combine modern democracy with archaic codes and power relations that combine liberal institutions and paternalistic regimes, democratic traditions and authoritarian governments, seasoned with electoral systems to elect leaders. They are hybrid cultures that are interwoven in the causes of the contradictions and failures of our modernization.”
Although segments of the population have developed knowledge, reason and act according to Western values, we cannot say that we have achieved a sustainable development model, much less that we have aligned ourselves with the trends in knowledge that are currently exploring new paradigms for a future that left us behind 25 years ago.
Amid deep social inequalities, in Venezuela Magical visions such as that of the benefactor oil state coexist with bad copies of development models that have not yet managed to position the country with effective objectives. Proof of this are the forty years of democracy under the premise of the oil-based rentier state. Added to this are the twenty-five years of caudillismo and Chavista militarism that have only exacerbated the same model, although theatrically managed by Chávez, combining the exaltation of anti-imperialism and Cuban communist ideology with enormous corruption. This is part of this hybrid culture that has only been able to produce corruption, destruction, uncertainty, detachment, exodus of millions of people and insecurity in every sense, which contradicts any possible feeling of identity. Identification with what? We ask ourselves after 25 years of failures.
Octavio Paz (Overcast weather1998), makes history by addressing this issue, arguing that in Latin America (we could say the same of Venezuela), after the fall of the Spanish empire, economic power was concentrated in the native oligarchies, and political power in the military. While in Venezuela, the regime concentrated military and economic power, first in Chavez and then in Maduro, creating an infrastructure of corruption that swallowed up the multi-million dollar income of the boom In the oil sector, the Creole bourgeoisie, with few exceptions, has been dedicated for generations to producing wealth and extracting and investing it outside the country. The industrial development that had begun in Guayana during the democratic period failed due to a lack of vision, improvisation and corruption. The same happened with the oil industry, the public health system and, unfortunately, the destruction of the educational system. Let us not forget that the powerful business and intellectual elites, despite ample warnings, helped to catapult Chavez, thinking of preserving and increasing their businesses. In the case of the left-wing intellectuals, they saw the “Beautiful Revolution” come true, a revolutionary utopia of “anything goes.”
Another cause of the failure or weakening of Latin American democracies, according to García Canclini, is precisely the lack of a critical and modern intellectual current, without forgetting that immense mass of beliefs that form the tradition of the peoples. As Perez Galdós said: “It is easier for a true idea to triumph over a false one in the sphere of thought, than for ideas to triumph over customs.” From the “New National Ideal” (Pérez Jiménez), passing through “Democracy with energy” (CAP), “The Great Venezuela” to “Fatherland, socialism or death” (Chávez), we continue in the same, that is, backwardness, poverty, exclusion, plundering of the country’s wealth by a minority that, since the fall of the dictator Gómez changes its political color or military uniform, but entrenches itself in power with the same voracity, whether by electoral simulations or by force.
What is the vision of nation and identity of those born 25 years ago?
The hybridization of magical thoughts with failed ideologies has been the trend imposed by Chavez for the last 25 years, which has not only caused the ruin of the country and the loss of ethical values, but something even more terrible, the destruction of political language, replacing it with vulgar, onomatopoeic, perverted, unworthy and dehumanized language, where violence, subjugation, hatred, disrespect and indignity constitute the structure of a reductionist discourse that daily attacks the construction of social truth and the identity of the Venezuelan, in the midst of colossal corruption and impunity.
We then wonder, after all this time, how do these young people tell their story? Because, according to Ricoeur (The construction of identity through narrative1984), the story is a producer of meanings. What at first sight seems real or not, becomes necessary for the understanding of one’s own personal history. By telling, the person retakes his decisions and initiatives. Thanks to the story, his whole life is outlined together with the necessary conditions for its transformation, whatever the event recounted. So, what language do they use in their story? Language acts as a common denominator of any identity, that is, it is the indispensable instrument to build a vision of the world and guide the future of a nation. What is the identity of these young people? These are certainly disturbing questions.
National identity is built when the individual feels part of a community that shares the same references, the same values and the same destiny. On the latter, Hubert Peres, from the University of Montpellier, reaffirms the importance of participating in “a community with a destiny”, shared by its members beyond political disagreements and social diversity. The feeling that individual destiny can only be fulfilled in union with that of others, even if they think differently, is part of the construction of a nation, which in the end is nothing more than the sum of the contribution of the convictions, loyalties and solidarity of each of its citizens. Can we say that this is happening in Venezuela? The answer is that, recently, we are witnessing the beginning of the construction of a discourse that seeks to unify the people in a common destiny of nation. On the latter, Benedict Anderson (The national imagination2006), provides a concept that offers hope in the midst of the chaos we suffer: “A nation is an imagined political community.” This means that a nation is not something already consummated, but a dynamic and permanent human construction.
Rather than complaining and blaming our ills on history, fate, or past and present actors, we must concentrate on defining our identity as Venezuelans and once and for all positioning ourselves as a nation in the global context. Venezuela is a country brimming with human and natural resources, where democracy has emerged and survived despite formidable obstacles. Its citizens fight tirelessly for their fundamental rights and all converge in a single democratic direction. Politicians must urgently take the positive values of Venezuelans and translate them into a proposal that allows them to establish a model for young people to follow and reaffirm them in an idea and identity of a nation, in “a community with a destiny.” Since Venezuela is the country where the unexpected is the everyday, its rebirth could surprise the world again.
(email protected)
