Nicolas Maduro of Venezuela claims to have won an election that he didn't.
Venezuela was a reasonably stable democracy at a time when military dictatorships were common in South America. Now it lives under an autocrat. A fair percentage of the country, though not a majority, seems to appreciate the so-called strength of a dictator. Enough at least to keep one in power for now.
Maduro is sending the military to arrest opposition leaders and protesters. People who fail to fall in line signal to autocrats that they fail the test of true leadership—attracting followers. Coercion follows.
Coercion is the antithesis of freedom. It is a sure sign of authoritarianism. Sometimes it is brutal. Often it is more subtle. If you don't join the party, your job options are limited. If you don't support our candidate, your own candidacy is in jeopardy. If you don't tailor the news to fit a certain narrative, your news agency is shuttered.
At one time, I thought this sort of thing, common in poorer nations, would not happen here. Now I know better. A whole party (or what once was one) clamors for a big man.
In a wealthy democracy we are currently enduring a campaign based on the lie that our last one was stolen, while in a country beset by problems and poverty, a sitting president has graciously conceded a close election.
When Nixon's demands for loyalty were exposed, as a nation we were disgusted. We haven't lost that disgust, but the forces that counteract it are stronger now. The Supreme Court, once a venerated institution, has decided that it alone can arbitrarily decide who can get away with what. Republican politicians fear for their families and their jobs if they voice an opinion based on conscience. Excessively wealthy people have publicly declared their allegiance to ending democracy in favor of the "freedom" to take advantage of the rest of us.
From a distance, we could always view tyrants with disdain. Look how they oppress! Look how they cheat! Look how they purge their own ranks! All because they can't get sufficient grassroots support for their policies. Without public support, which might actually make them great, they reduce themselves to schemers and thugs.
I spent time in Africa, where this substitute for leadership is common. But I don't recall any of those heads of state standing by and cheering as a mob tried to murder their own hand-picked vice president.
That is about as small as it gets.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Your thoughts are welcome! I'll try not to flinch if there are nasty ones, which I understand are fairly common nowadays.