Latin American Liberation Philosophies:
Analyzing Hugo Chávez’s Bolivarian Revolution
A thesis submitted by
Amy Spelz
amyspelz@hotmail.com
to the European University Center for Peace Studies
Stadtschlaining/Burg, Austria
In partial fulfillment of the requirements
for a Master of Arts Degree in Peace and Conflict Studies
Word Count: 23,456
Date: January 2007
Thesis Advisor: Andria Wisler
Spelz
ABSTRACT
Twentieth century Latin American thinkers have developed philosophies
concerning the process of liberation. Specifically, the Brazilian Paulo Freire and the
Christian religious movement Liberation Theology have proposed libratory visions of
inclusive processes and societies. Freire bases his ideology on an equal and dialectic
relationship among all people in the state and, by extension, on the global stage.
Liberation theology emphasizes the necessity of a just and inclusive society in the light of
faith based on the model of Jesus. Both hold many similarities and come from a shared
historical experience of colonization.
From these two philosophies, the modern day liberation movement in Venezuela
will be analyzed. The movement, led by President Hugo Chávez, is known as the
Bolivarian Revolution. Inspired by the 19th century revolutionary Simón Bolívar, Chávez
is attempting to liberate Venezuelans from poverty and economic dependence on
developed countries and institutions, specifically, the United States and the International
Monetary Fund. In this quest, many initiatives, containing both positive and negative
aspects, have been created. This thesis examines the legitimacy and effectiveness of
Chávez’s Bolivarian Revolution to liberate the people of Venezuela.
2
Spelz
TABLE OF COTETS
Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION............................................................................................ 4
Chapter 2: PAULO FREIRE.............................................................................................. 6
Conscientization.......................................................................................................... 7
Education .................................................................................................................. 11
Praxis......................................................................................................................... 13
Participation .............................................................................................................. 15
Chapter 3: LIBERATION THEOLOGY ......................................................................... 20
Background of Liberation Theology............................................................................. 20
Liberation Theology’s Development, Theory, and Practice......................................... 24
The Foundation ......................................................................................................... 25
Christian Base Ecclesial Communities ..................................................................... 28
Marxism .................................................................................................................... 30
Solidarity................................................................................................................... 31
Chapter 4: REVOLUTIONARY, SIMÓN BOLÍVAR.................................................... 34
Chapter 5: VENEZUELA AND HUGO CHAVEZ......................................................... 36
Brief History of Venezuela ........................................................................................... 36
Analyzing Hugo Chávez and the Bolívarian Revolution.............................................. 37
The 1999 Constitution............................................................................................... 39
Chávez’s Popularity: Elections And Coercion ........................................................ 41
Social Programs ........................................................................................................ 45
Corruption ................................................................................................................. 47
International Cooperation ......................................................................................... 48
Dialogue And Communication ................................................................................. 51
The Chávez Personality ............................................................................................ 53
Chapter 6: CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 55
3
Spelz
Chapter 1: ITRODUCTIO
The proverb, “power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely”1 seems to
be constantly proven true in Latin America. In the early 19th century, Latin American
revolutionaries defeated colonial powers and established independent states only to have
dictators and coups become the next oppressors. Today, revolutionaries come to power
touting change, yet, find themselves in power initially changing things for their
constituencies but later creating oppressive structures in order to maintain their power.
They become the oppressors of whom they hoped to rid their countries. The despotic
dictators, with their killings, torture, and strict rules, often have been more repressive
than the colonial tyrants they condemned.
This political war-zone has pushed Latin American thinkers and activists toward
philosophies of liberation. When lofty goals of revolutionaries combined with
impassioned action repeatedly did not net the results and universal prosperity promised,
the need for a new approach became apparent. Attention turned to the processes of
oppression and liberation. Educated Latinos joined in solidarity with their poor and
oppressed to learn from them and create a liberation process. Theoretically, the
movement has expanded to include roles and dignified places within society for all
people. The goal of liberationists is no longer just to obtain power, but to transform the
structures of society along the way – in the words of Gandhi, to “be the change you wish
to see.”
One of the first people to develop an extensive plan for the liberation process was
Brazilian Paulo Freire. His acclaimed and ground-breaking book, Pedagogy of the
Oppressed, was first published in 1968.2 As an educator, Freire suggested education was
being used as a mechanism of the dominating group to socialize the oppressed into docile
compliances. Freire proposed that education be part of the solution for liberation. His
work influenced a body of religious thought known as Liberation Theology. Liberation
Theology, scholarly articulated in the 20th century, preaches faith and action in light of
Jesus’ ministry to the outcasts of society and his challenge of the prevailing, oppressive
societal paradigm. While Freire and liberation theology use different perspectives, one
educational and one religious, both arrived at similar conclusions and results for creating
their processes.
As modern philosophies developed in the “Third World,” Freire’s and liberation
theology’s ideas understand the needs and desires of oppressed people. The ideas are
organic, learned from the common people of Latin America, not normally considered part
of the “Free World.” The emancipation3 of the oppressed is not divorced from the
1
It comes from an 1887 letter that Lord Acton wrote to Bishop Mandell Creighton: “Power tends to
corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.”
The Phrase Finder, [cited 23 January 2007], http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/288200.html.
2
“Paulo Freire, Chronological Facts,” Paulo Freire Institute at UCLA, [cited 24 October 2006],
http://www.paulofreireinstitute.org/PF-facts.html.
3
I will be using emancipation and liberation interchangeably.
4
Spelz
oppressed. They are integral to their own liberation – in the creation of the process, the
process itself, and the subsequent society which follows. Freire and liberation theology
are not imposing liberation methods from foreign middle- or upper-class intellectuals;
they are Latinos who live in solidarity with the poor of Latin America. They have refined
and elaborated on what they learned from the poor. Additionally, the methodology of
both philosophies employ techniques such as praxis and inclusive dialogue to prevent a
liberation movement from being corrupted by power or being lost in its own vision,
forgetting the present and only seeing the future end result. These practices are methods
as well as devices for assessment. The philosophies’ grassroots creation and
comprehensive methodology makes them the best measures for Latin American
liberation, unlike older liberation philosophies that concerned themselves more with
achieving an end goal as opposed to living a liberation process. The old philosophies did
not achieve liberation for all people, thus new philosophies need to be used.
Along with these two philosophies, many revolutionary heroes continue to inspire
and influence liberation movements in Latin America. These worshiped figures
frequently become a battle cry of revolution and change, for liberation or for power
consolidation and control. One such leader is Simón Bolívar; his life and writings have
assumed the role of a liberation philosophy for many people in Latin America.
Following this model, Hugo Chávez, the President of Venezuela, is currently leading an
initiative for liberation in his country. Known as the “Bolivarian revolution,” he uses
Bolívar for his inspiration and vision. Venezuela, as a Latin American country, comes
from the same cultural context as Freire and Liberation Theology. Additionally, Chávez
has a profound respect for Jesus “Christ” of Nazareth, whose teachings are the center of
liberation theology, as a revolutionary committed to the liberation of all people. In his
opening speech to the 2006 World Social Forum in Caracas, Venezuela, Chávez said, “I,
a Christian like I am, I also believe that Christ and the authentic Christian tendencies
have much to contribute to the socialist project of the 21st century in Latin America. The
true and authentic anti-imperialist Christianity. Christ was an anti-imperialist, he fought
for the poor, for equality . . .”4 It is appropriate that a Christian liberation philosophy
should be a means for evaluating his revolution. This thesis explores Paulo Freire’s and
Liberation Theology’s philosophies for emancipation. Using them as a benchmark, I will
examine Chávez’s programs for liberation within Venezuela in order to analyze their
effectiveness and legitimacy as movements advancing their societies and the world
towards peace.5
4
Hugo Chávez, “World Social Forum 2006 Speech,” trans. Dawn Gable, (27 January 2006), cited on:
Hugo Chávez in English, [20 January 2007], http://www.chavezinenglish.org.
5
Throughout this thesis, peace is understood in the manner of Johan Galtung’s “positive peace,” whereby
physical, structural and cultural violence do not exist within society. This means that there is social justice.
Every person has equal opportunity, legally and practically, to participate in society and its governance, and
each person’s basic needs (physical, spiritual, and psychological) are met. Problems are worked out
through dialogue. Physical violence is not a legitimate means of problem-solving, power acquisition and
retention, or economic enhancement. The dignity of each person must be acknowledged and respected.
Liberation movements, if truly attempting to liberate, contribute to peace by transforming a society from
dependency on an unequal class and economic structure based on oppression, to an inclusive, equalopportunity society based on justice.
5
Spelz
Chapter 2: PAULO FREIRE
Born in 1921, Paulo Freire, began his career teaching at a high school in Recife,
Brazil. Freire’s life work became the development and implementation of his dialectic7
education. As a government official, he and his first wife Elza, traveled around Brazil
meeting with groups of peasants about adult literacy and popular education.8 These
meetings taught Freire about the oppressive nature of education and helped him refine his
theories and techniques for liberating education.
6
Later, Freire fled Brazil and its new militant oppressive government, which took
power in 1964. He lived in three countries while in exile: Chile, U.S.A., and Switzerland,
and visited many others. Continuing to teach, Freire met with groups to discuss libratory
education. He met with people wishing to discuss his work and to gain advice on setting
up their own education programs. He died in 1997 at the age of 75, having
revolutionized education and liberation thought.9 Through a critical analysis of education
(societal and formal), Freire created a philosophically principled plan for liberation,
organic and indigenous, not an imposed regimen formatted to liberate.
To understand Freire’s liberation philosophy, a couple of key terms need to be
defined. He calls those people marginalized, impoverished, dejected, and cheated of
social justices, the “oppressed.” Those in power, or the powerful class, who have wealth
and legal protection, are the “oppressors.” While not all oppressors have direct contact in
the mistreatment and dehumanization of the oppressed, they are gears within the social,
economic, and governmental machine, which structures and perpetuates a system of
domination and abuse. “An act is oppressive only when it prevents men from being more
fully human.”10 Societies based on poverty, cheap exploited labor, discrimination,
unequal education, and unequal health care rely on some people (men and women) being
treated as partly human and, thus, are oppressive.
It is this oppression that Freire hopes to change. His work is primarily directed to
the oppressed so that they can become aware of their oppression and realize it is not
imperative or inherent in life – only in the system in which they live. With this
knowledge, the oppressed can act to liberate themselves. Freire’s theory is to illuminate
how the liberation should work, not create a political program to follow. Analysis of
6
Peter Lownd, “Freire’s Life and Work: A Brief Biography of Paulo Freire,” Paulo Freire Institute at
UCLA, [cited 24 October 2006], http://www.paulofreireinstitute.org/PF-life_and_work_by_Peter.html.
7
For the purposes of this thesis, dialectic means an ongoing exchange of ideas, methods, etc., among all
participants for the purpose of learning and refinement of ideas and practices. This uses critical analysis
and assumes no predetermined answer to the problem or question posed.
8
Paulo Freire, Pedagogy of Hope: Reliving Pedagogy of the Oppressed, with notes by Ana Maria Araújo
Freire, trans. Robert R. Barr (New York, NY: Continuum Publishing Company, 1994), pp. 19-30.
9
“Paulo Freire, Chronological Facts,” Paulo Freire Institute at UCLA, [cited 24 October 2006],
http://www.paulofreireinstitute.org/PF-facts.html.
10
Paulo Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, trans. Myra Bergman Ramos (New York, NY: Herder and
Herder, 1970), p. 42.
6
Spelz
Freire’s theories will be discussed in four broad categories: conscientization; education;
praxis; and participation.
Conscientization
“Conscientization” is translated from the Portuguese word “conscientização.”
Akin to consciousness-raising, conscientization is “the deepening of the attitude of
awareness characteristic of all emergence.”11 Emergence is when a person is able to
discard his/her submission to the oppressive person, structure, or system. From this
conscientization, the subject has now “acquire[d] the ability to intervene12 in the reality as
it is unveiled.”13 Freire’s translator explains it as such: “The term conscientização refers
to learning to perceive social, political, and economic contradictions, and to take action
against the oppressive elements of reality.”14
Like consciousness-raising,
conscientization allows the person to see reality and the way different systems and
structures affect his/her life. With this awareness and insight, the person is then able to
act to change any undesirable aspects and not be a pawn to oppressors.
Awakening to the oppression to which they are subjected and by which they are
dominated, the oppressed must develop their own method to unlearn the system of
domination, to teach themselves, and to liberate themselves. Freire explains:
And those who recognize, or begin to recognize, themselves as oppressed
must be among the developers of this pedagogy. No pedagogy which is
truly liberating can remain distant from the oppressed by treating them as
unfortunates and by presenting for their emulation models from among the
oppressors. The oppressed must be their own example in the struggle for
their redemption.15
The oppressed must lead their own way to liberation. Only through them can the extent
of the domination be revealed. They best see how they are restrained by the oppressors
and the system. The oppressors who desire liberation from injustice need the help of the
oppressed. “Only through comradeship with the oppressed can the converts understand
their characteristic ways of living and behaving, which in diverse moments reflect the
structure of domination.”16 The system of domination is so complex that careful analysis
and reflection by all are essential to unearthing the entirety of it.
In his book, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Freire claims that for the oppressed truly
to liberate themselves and their country, they must break free of the paradigm into which
they were educated. It is this education system which molds society into resigning itself
11
Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, p. 101.
For the purpose of this thesis, any emphasis which appears within a quote has been added by the author
of the quote.
13
Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, p. 100.
14
Ibid, p. 19.
15
Ibid, p. 39.
16
Ibid, p. 47.
12
7
Spelz
to the structure and integrating into the oppressive system. Through this education,
society is taught to accept the rules as the dominating class has established them. Even
when the injustice of the system is realized, without understanding the manner in which
one has internalized this system, one cannot be liberated and one cannot liberate anyone
else. The oppressors teach everyone, themselves included, that this is the way of the
world. They take away hope: things cannot be changed, they can only be conquered.
The only hope is to beat the situation by climbing the ladder. The only lot in life that one
can change is one’s own. This realization, this hope, is the first step, essential to enabling
liberation to begin:
This solution cannot be achieved in idealistic terms. In order for the
oppressed to be able to wage the struggle for their liberation, they must
perceive the reality of oppression not as a closed world from which there
is no exit, but as a limiting situation which they can transform. This
perception is a necessary but not sufficient condition for liberation; it must
become the motivating force for liberating action. Nor does the discovery
by the oppressed that they exist in dialectical relationship to the oppressor,
as his antithesis – that without them the oppressor could not exist – in
itself constitute liberation. The oppressed can overcome the contradiction
in which they are caught only when this perception enlists them in the
struggle to free themselves.17
The awakening to this mutual dependency and to the oppressive structure which has
permeated all aspects of life is Freire’s conscientization of the students. With this
cognizance, the oppressed become more free. They no longer are manipulated by unseen
forces in insidious methods. Ideally, this realization will provoke action to change the
system.
Freire offered an interesting insight into liberation: the oppressors need liberation
from their own system as much as the oppressed do. Both are victims. A person’s
vocation is toward humanization18 and humanity is based in the dignity innately
possessed by all humans. When an oppressor uses such violence against the oppressed,
that person loses his/her humanity and dignity.
This, then is the great humanistic and historical task of the oppressed: to
liberate themselves and their oppressors as well. The oppressors, who
oppress, exploit, and rape by virtue of their power, cannot find in the
power the strength to liberate either the oppressed or themselves. Only
power that springs from the weakness of the oppressed will be sufficiently
strong to free both.19
Whereas the violence of the oppressors prevents the oppressed from being
fully human, the response of the latter to this violence is grounded in the
17
Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, p. 34.
Ibid, p. 28.
19
Ibid, p. 28.
18
8
Spelz
desire to pursue the right to be human. As the oppressors dehumanize
others and violate their rights, they themselves also become dehumanized.
As the oppressed, fighting to be human, take away the oppressors’ power
to dominate and suppress, they restore to the oppressors the humanity they
had lost in the exercise of oppression.20
People are rarely only oppressors or oppressed, perpetrators or victims. Victims
frequently become perpetrators. They use the violence they have learned to lash out
against others. Without conscientization, the oppressed are attracted to the lifestyle of the
oppressors; they aspire to imitate their oppressor because they want to be free from the
poverty that they are experiencing.21 They do not realize that they will still be oppressed.
They are not free to choose the violence that they will have to inflict on others in order to
rise out of their class. Stressing the importance of conscientization, Freire provides an
example:
It is not to become free men that they want agrarian reform, but in order to
acquire land and thus become landowners – or, more precisely, bosses
over other workers. It is a rare peasant who, once “promoted” to overseer,
does not become more of a tyrant towards his former comrades than the
owner himself. This is because the context of the peasant’s situation, that
is, oppression, remains unchanged. In this example, the overseer, in order
to make sure of his job, must be as tough as the owner – and more so.
Thus is illustrated our previous assertion that during the initial stage of
their struggle the oppressed find in the oppressor their model of
“manhood.”22
This violence, or dehumanization, transforms another person or people into
victims and oppressed. Likewise, perpetrators of inhumanity and violence dehumanize
themselves. They are subjects of their own system, which may allow them to be wealthy
or powerful, but they live dehumanized in fear and pain – they are no longer free, but
oppressed by these emotions such that they become victims. Love and reason to make
informed choices are two of the things that make humans more advanced than animals.
Under such an oppressive system, people quit these human attributes, rescinding their
right to choose, and react in a learned behavior – dehumanized. Like a circus animal,
people act as the masters, the oppressors, have trained them. Sometimes a violent
reaction might occur but it is based on sheer emotion, not choices. All are oppressors
when they allow an unjust structure to remain; all are oppressed when they are trapped in
an unjust structure. None are truly unscathed. According to Freire’s philosophy:
It is only the oppressed who, by freeing themselves, can free their
oppressors. The latter, as an oppressive class, can free neither others nor
themselves. It is therefore essential that the oppressed wage the struggle
to resolve the contradiction in which they are caught; and the contradiction
20
Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, p. 42.
Ibid, p. 49.
22
Ibid, pp. 30-31.
21
9
Spelz
will be resolved by the appearance of the new man: neither oppressor nor
oppressed, but man in the process of liberation. If the goal of the
oppressed is to become fully human, they will not achieve their goal by
merely reversing the terms of the contradiction, by simply changing
poles.23
This need for the oppressed to emancipate all of society stems from victimhood created
by the oppressors. In depriving the oppressed of their humanity, the oppressors lose their
own humanity in the process.
This is why the oppressor is dehumanized in dehumanizing the oppressed.
No matter that the oppressor eat well, be well regarded, or sleep well. It
would be impossible to dehumanize without being dehumanized – so deep
are the social roots of the calling. I am not, I do not be, unless you are,
unless you be. Above all, I am not if I forbid you to be.
This is why, as an individual and as a class, the oppressor can neither
liberate nor be liberated. This is why, through self-liberation, in and
through the needed, just struggle, the oppressed, as an individual and as a
class, liberates the oppressor, by the simple fact of forbidding him or her
to keep on oppressing.24
Humanity, as interconnected to the preservation of the dignity of each and every
individual, is not a new concept. African tribes have used this core value for centuries in
the moral philosophy of ubuntu. In Bantu languages, ubuntu means, “I am because we
are.” It is the concept that each person’s humanity is intertwined with and dependant on
every other person’s humanity. To be fully human one must preserve other people’s
dignity. It is the Bantu tribes’ code of ethical conduct, what Freire insists is true for all
people.
The oppressed’s liberation of both themselves and the oppressors, by creating an
inclusive and just society, is an act of forgiveness and acceptance. Forgiveness and
reconciliation are foundational aspects of a peaceful society. While the concept of
reconciliation is vague, it “can be generally defined as a process of mutual
accommodation comprised of acknowledgement of past wrongdoing and contrition from
the perpetrators in exchange for forgiveness offered by the victims.”25 In order to
achieve this, the primary objective must be rebuilding, or, in some cases, building, a
relationship, based on dignity, respect, equality, participation, and justice. “The
overriding goal of reconciliation is to build a just political order in which all citizens are
accorded dignity and respect. At the same time, the repair of broken human relationships
throughout a society results from moral reconstruction.”26 In Christian terms, creation of
23
Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, p. 42.
Freire, Pedagogy of Hope, p. 99.
25
Ho-won Jeong, Peacebuilding in Postconflict Societies: Strategy and Process, (Boulder: Lynne Rienner
Publications, Inc., 2005), p.156.
26
Ibid, p. 157.
24
10
Spelz
just relationships is redemptive and reconciliatory. In the modern discourse of peace
studies, reconciliation and forgiveness are key processes for repairing fractured societies,
such as those which Freire hoped to liberate.
For liberation to be truly revolutionary, it must change not only those in power,
the structure of government, or its laws, but the whole system and process of governance
must be changed. If a movement uses the techniques of the oppressors to come to power,
keep power, or use power, then they “are not truly revolutionary.”27 Thus, Freire
criticized liberation movements which did not include all the people. The old structures
were exclusive; only the “in group” was included and allowed to dominate. The new
structure must be inclusive; therefore, no person or group can be left out and no one
person or group can hold the power.
Education
To be completely revolutionary, the liberation process must include a change in
the structure of education. In a dominating system, the teachers are considered the
holders of power, authority, and knowledge, whereas, the students are “empty vessels” to
be filled with knowledge. The students are ignorant, unable to learn without the bestowal
of knowledge by the teacher. Freire calls this the “banking” system of education. This
classroom education structure mirrors the political and social structure in which the
students and teachers live. The state leaders hold the knowledge and bestow it on the
citizens. Both are patriarchal, repressive structures: the students and citizens only learn
the knowledge that the teacher or government wishes to confer. By structuring the
education in this manner, the student is acculturated into oppressive social structure.
Obedience, unquestioning acceptance, and resignation to the abusive authority and
structure are learned-behaviors for living in the oppressive society.
The social
“education” begins at an early age to create docile drones partaking in the government
machine.
In the banking concept of education, knowledge is a gift bestowed by
those who consider themselves knowledgeable upon those whom they
consider to know nothing. Projecting an absolute ignorance onto others, a
characteristic of the ideology of oppression, negates education and
knowledge as processes of inquiry. The teacher presents himself to his
students as their necessary opposite; by absolute, he justifies his own
existence. The students alienated like the slave in the Hegelian dialectic,
accept their ignorance as justifying the teacher’s existence – but, unlike
the slave, they never discover that they educate the teacher.28
The teacher must acknowledge the students’ worth as humans. When this happens, the
students are recognized for the contributions that they make to the world as shapers and
teachers within that world. The students are no longer separated from the teacher but
27
28
Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, p. 121.
Ibid, pp. 58-59.
11
Spelz
work with the teacher. The relationship transforms from one of hierarchy into one of
equality.
It is not surprising that the banking concept of education regards men as
adaptable, manageable beings. The more students work at storing the
deposits entrusted to them, the less they develop the critical consciousness
which would result from their intervention in the world as transformers of
that world. The more completely they accept the passive role imposed on
them, the more they tend simply to adapt to the world as it is and to the
fragmented view of reality deposited in them.29
In opposition to this, Freire proposes “problem-posing” education. This system assumes
that teachers are actually teachers AND students (teacher-student) and that students are
students AND teachers (student-teacher). “Education must begin with the solution of the
teacher-student contradiction, by reconciling the poles of the contradiction so that both
are simultaneously teacher and students.”30 Both learn from and teach each other. Every
person learns a lot through experiences, formal and informal education, which s/he can
share. It is these experiences which, when related to new information, allow a person to
learn more and quickly. It makes the knowledge learned in a classroom relevant.
Problem-posing education does not diminish the teacher’s importance or the
respect for the hard work and effort exerted in becoming “formally” educated. Rather, it
seeks to raise the consciousness of the importance of the student and to establish respect
for their role within the setting. They are not stupid, with nothing to contribute, but have
a wealth of experiences upon which to draw. To some extent, the teacher must steer the
direction of the course, but the students must have ownership in the curriculum. “While
requiring the effective presence of the teacher – his or her orientation, stimulus, authority
– that discipline must be built and adopted by the students.”31 The students’ active
participation in the class, and its structure and content will ensure the students’ interest,
increase everyone’s learning, and will encourage a participatory, inclusive structure of a
liberated society. Both students and teachers will have a new experience which can be
implemented on a “bigger” scale, in their communities, societies, and governments.
This acknowledgement of mutual dependency and value helps to break down
hierarchy and class, and destroy a stratified scale of human-worth, based on formal
education, wealth, gender, and race. Each person is a human and, consequently, has a
unique and comparable value as a human. No one is more or less important or significant
than another. Humanness has its own inherent value. Therefore, all persons must be
respected individually and collectively. Society is structured such that it creates human
interdependency. This interdependency entitles everyone to contribute to the governance
and function of that society.
29
Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, p. 60.
Ibid, p. 59.
31
Freire, Pedagogy of Hope, pp. 82-83.
30
12
Spelz
Praxis
Freire stresses the importance of praxis in education, liberation, and life. Praxis is
reflection as well as action; it is the dialogue on which all effective relationships and
advancements rely. Without analyzing and learning from experiences and events, no
learning occurs; the same mistakes will be repeated and successes cannot be duplicated.
“For apart from inquiry, apart from the praxis, men cannot be truly human. Knowledge
emerges only through invention and re-invention, through the restless, impatient,
continuing, hopeful inquiry men pursue in the world, with the world, and with each
other.”32 This invention and re-invention are in perpetual emergence and are endless.
Experiences change people, understanding, and knowledge. These changes require new
identity and a new invention or re-invention of the concept.
Freire emphasizes that praxis cannot be divided into stages of reflection and
action; they must occur simultaneously and continuously.33 Constant re-evaluation
enables a quick learning process and adjustments to action. The reflection is not removed
from the event as it will or did occur. These experiences generate new ideas and
comprehension of situations, events, and people. This applies to education as well as
liberation. Compartmentalizing activities, subjects or people prevents the learning or
movement from being effective and efficient because the actions are disconnected from
reality. The practicality and relevance of knowledge are at best underutilized, at worst
completely lost.
Similarly, roles within the movement cannot be dichotomized, neatly partitioned
into exclusive categories. Leaders cannot segregate a movement into two groups of
participants: brains and brawn; theorists and activists. Both must contribute to the
philosophical development of the liberation movement. In isolation, ideology is not
pragmatic, and action is blind, baseless, and ineffective. Participants, including the
leaders, must dialogue together drawing from their experiences and knowledge to create a
dynamic movement, which learns from mistakes and triumphs, ever refining into an allinclusive, liberated society. Every participant needs to have some experience physically
working towards liberation as well as wrestling with the ideology behind the movement.
Freire emphasizes:
. . . a revolution is achieved with neither verbalism nor activism, but rather
with praxis, that is, with reflection and action directed at the structures to
be transformed. The revolutionary effort to transform these structures
radically cannot designate its leaders as its thinkers and the oppressed as
mere doers.34
Freire is not saying that a leader might not be more of an activist or a theorist, but that
they must also participate in the other aspect. Leaders and all participants must be full
contributors in the liberation process that requires reflection and action.
32
Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, p. 58.
Ibid, p.123.
34
Ibid, p. 120.
33
13
Spelz
Freire emphasizes that all people must be included as full participants, not only
the leaders. Liberation imperatively insists that all within society should input into the
process to create a process and a goal desired by all. The dialectic of praxis must also
involve a dialogue among all the people of the society.
The leaders do bear the responsibility for co-ordination – and, at times,
direction – but leaders who deny praxis to the oppressed thereby invalidate
their own praxis. By imposing their word on others, they falsify that word
and establish a contradiction between their methods and their objectives. If
they are truly committed to liberation, their action and reflection cannot
proceed without the action and reflection of others.35
If the leaders do not share the praxis of liberation with all, then they monopolize the
revolution. Just as domination societies use exclusion, so too does the revolution. Thus,
they are no better than those from whom they seek to free themselves. They have created
their own class, inequality and privilege. While a dialectic approach takes far more time,
it is the only method that is actually revolutionary and will help liberate.36 Anything less
is rife with subtle and insidious aspects of domination, which will later rip apart the new
system and usher in the return of an oppressive government and society.
Following Freire’s reasoning that the means do not justify the ends, liberation
must be the process as well as the goal. Liberation movements must work not only
within education but also with the political struggle. Unlike the rhetoric of most
revolutionaries of the past, including Karl Marx, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Tse-tung, a
violent takeover is not the answer. Here critics find fault with Freire, because he never
condemns the use of violence, despite his personal revulsion to it. Freire writes about the
necessity of turning the oppressor’s greatest strength into his greatest weakness, a
foundational concept of non-violent struggle.37 Ronald Glass, a professor of education,
states:
Freire seemed to regard nonviolence only in tactical and not strategic
terms. He readily asserted that revolution might entail violent means . . . .
Nonetheless, Freire clearly failed to see the possibility that the theory and
strategy of militant nonviolence offered a way to construct an integrated
historicist theory of liberation education that combined consistent
ontological epistemological, ethical, and political positions.38
More to the point, Freire fails to recognize the discrepancy with his own philosophy. He
lacks either the clarity to see the inconsistency, the vision to move beyond realism, or the
courage to carry through a conviction. No one is perfect, and many great idealists before
35
Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, p. 120.
Ibid, pp. 52 -54.
37
Ronald David Glass, “On Paulo Freire’s Philosophy of Praxis and the Foundations of Liberation
Education,” Educational Researcher, (Vol. 30, No. 2, March 2001, pp. 15-25), p. 22.
38
Glass, “On Paulo Freire’s Philosophy of Praxis and the Foundations of Liberation Education,” pp. 22-23.
36
14
Spelz
Freire have had the same problem. Several of the signers of the U.S. Declaration of
Independence owned and kept slaves despite affirming that “all men are created equal.”
Throughout his work, Freire repeatedly states that the oppressed cannot use the
domination techniques of the oppressors. If they do, the movement will be neither
revolutionary nor liberating. The oppression will still remain within society – only those
in power will change. The government already uses physical repression, violence, and
fear to maintain power. The course of Mohandas Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr.
must be the way – non-violence; an alternative physical response to the current regime
would be a true revolution. Repressive methodology must be replaced to gain a
liberating paradigm.
Participation
Just as liberation cannot be bought through illegitimate means, it cannot be
purchased for another. “However, not even the best-intentioned leadership can bestow
independence as a gift. The liberation of the oppressed is a liberation of men, not things.
Accordingly, while no one liberates himself by his own efforts alone, neither is he
liberated by others.”39 If one is liberated by others, then the liberation is imposed, even if
it was desired. Such liberation would not be freedom, because the subject would not
have assisted in its creation. Excluded, none of the person’s ideas, hopes, beliefs, or
work would be added to the new society. S/he would be placed passively within the
society and told to choose a role, not asked to create a personal space. Additionally, the
individual would not have contributed to the praxis, neither learning nor teaching. This
might seem like liberation initially, but very soon, it would be recognize as the
oppression it truly is.
Likewise, oppressive regimes revolve around a key leader or leaders in a rigid
hierarchy. Liberation movements cannot be dependant on one or two charismatic leaders.
This is not to say that the movement cannot have a charismatic leader, but, if that is all,
the movement will disintegrate with the death of that leader, which means that it is not
being inclusive of others. If a movement is inclusive, others will learn how to lead
through experience and there will be many choices for someone to replace the deceased
leader. Additionally, as has been the case in the past, the charismatic leader is placed in
power in which the allure of control corrupts his/her morals. Cults of personality by their
nature have followings of people who are not involved in praxis. There is no reflection,
only blind devotion.
Revolutionary praxis cannot tolerate an absurd dichotomy in which the
praxis of the people is merely that of following the leaders’ decisions – a
dichotomy reflecting the prescriptive methods of the dominant elites.
Revolutionary praxis is a unity, and the leaders cannot treat the oppressed
as their possessions.40
39
40
Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, p. 53.
Ibid, p. 120.
15
Spelz
Even if the leader has the best intentions of the people in mind, this is not beneficial.
Freedom is living one’s own decisions, not decision made by some else. The people are
still trapped – animals following a master – even if s/he is a benevolent one.
The commitment of the revolutionary leaders to the oppressed is at the
same time a commitment to freedom. And because of that commitment
the leaders cannot attempt to conquer the oppressed but must achieve their
adherence to liberation. Conquered adherence is not adherence; it is
“adhesion” of the vanquished to the conqueror, who prescribes the options
open to the former. Authentic adherence is the free coincidence of
choices; it cannot occur apart from communication among men, mediated
by reality.41
Therefore, Freire taught dialectical participation in the governing of the new state. The
leaders cannot “do what is best for the people.” The people must be active participants in
the decision-making. They need to partake in setting goals, crafting visions, overcoming
obstacles, and developing creative solutions.
Unless the vision for inclusion is manifested in the techniques of achieving the
goal, then it will not be implemented later. “In the revolutionary process, the leaders
cannot utilize the banking method as an interim measure, justified on grounds of
expediency, with the intention of later behaving in a genuinely revolutionary fashion.
They must be revolutionary – that is to say, dialogical – from the onset.”42 The people
must have a voice that allows them to communicate with their leaders and the other
citizens. The government must hear their agendas and their ideas. Together, the citizens
will learn from each other and make decisions for the government to implement – not the
other way around.
Freire says, “If revolutionary leaders deny this right to the people,
they impair their own capacity to think – or at least to think correctly. Revolutionary
leaders cannot think without the people nor for the people, but only with the people.”43
No longer is the government a ‘Power Over’ structure but it metamorphosizes into the
‘Power With’ structure that true democracy is. Here, finally, the theory would be
incarnated into a physical manifestation; the people would rule, not only an elite group.
Allowing the general public to make their own choices, relinquishing control, is
frightening for a leader. This is very likely that the people will make poor choices at
various points. It is all part of the learning process. Keeping an open dialogue on issues
as well as presenting balanced information to inform the public is essential for equipping
the populace to make decisions. As the majority may sometimes make poor choices,
leaders will make mistakes. Freire says that the leaders “cannot fear the people, their
expression, [and] their effective participation in power. It [the leadership] must be
accountable to them, must speak frankly to them of its achievements, its mistakes, its
miscalculations, and its difficulties.”44 Hindsight will always be better than predictions
41
Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, p. 168.
Ibid, p. 74.
43
Ibid, p. 126.
44
Ibid, p. 122.
42
16
Spelz
and present readings of situation. New information, knowledge, and research will
illuminate new possibilities and understandings. Honesty, transparency, and genuine
apologies, instead of lies, cover-ups, and gestures to retain power, would be truly
revolutionary.
Many critics have noted, particularly in reference to Pedagogy of the Oppressed,
that Freire’s work is not inclusive because of its sexist language. Freire acknowledges
and apologizes for this ostracizing language in the book. He writes:
I shall begin precisely with the sexist language that marks the whole book,
and of my debt to countless North American women, . . . who wrote to me,
. . . . for having made me see how much ideology resides in language. . . .
From that date forward, I have always referred to ‘woman and man,’ or
‘human beings.’ . . . Discrimination against women, expressed and
committed by sexist discourse, and enfleshed in concrete practices, is a
colonial way of treating them, and therefore incompatible with any
progressive position, regardless of whether the person taking the position
be a woman or a man. The rejection of a sexist ideology, which
necessarily involves the re-creation of language, is part of the possible
dream of a change of the world.45
Not only has his language been criticized but also his perspective, being a man and not
specifically addressing the problems faced by women, indigenous peoples, Blacks, and
other ethnic groups.46 This is precisely why Freire asserts that complete participation in a
liberation movement is imperative. Together ideology and action can be refined by
adding many perspectives and experiences into the dialogue – a pooling of resources and
knowledge. By recognizing the importance of women and racial groups within society,
the philosophy and the society move toward accepting diversity and creating a
multidimensional, realistic model.
The participation of all citizens will not create uniformity. People will not just
come to unanimous agreement on all issues. On the contrary, politics will become the
venue for disagreement, but differences of opinion do not mean there must be oppression
or disunity. With great effort, a common space for dialogue can be created and
maintained. Society and the government have to want to be inclusive and want to allow
freedom of expression and ideas. This freedom and acceptance of all people will breed
what Freire calls multiculturality, or multiculturalism.
Hence the need . . . for the invention of unity in diversity. The very quest
for this oneness in difference, the struggle for it as a process, in and of
itself is the beginning of a creation of multiculturality. Let us emphasize
once more: multiculturality as a phenomenon involving the coexistence of
different cultures in one and the same space is not something natural and
45
Freire, Pedagogy of Hope, pp. 65-67.
Peter McLaren, “A Pedagogy of Possibility: Reflecting upon Paulo Freire’s Politics of Education: In
Memory of Paulo Freire,” Educational Researcher, (Vol. 28, No. 2, March 1999, pp. 49-54, 56), pp. 51-52.
46
17
Spelz
spontaneous. It is a historical creation, involving decision, political
determination, mobilization, and organization, on the part of each cultural
group, in view of common purposes. Thus, it calls for a certain
educational practice, one that will be consistent with these objectives. It
calls for a new ethics, founded on respect for differences.47
It is easy to believe naively that when an oppressive government is deposed, liberation is
complete. The reality is that liberation is fragile and can end at any second. Without
vigilance, people can be excluded, or they can choose not to make the effort to
participate. The valuing of dialogue, inclusion, and diversity can become difficult and
fall by the wayside. Freire warns that liberation is not easy or expedient, but rather, a
continual process dependant on reflection and action, on praxis.
The process needs a vision and a certain amount of optimism to sustain the effort.
The people must have hope.
I do not mean that, because I am hopeful, I attribute to this hope of mine
the power to transform reality all by itself, so that I set out for the fray
without taking account of concrete, material data, declaring, “My hope is
enough!” No, my hope is necessary, but it is not enough. Alone, it does
not win. But without it, my struggle will be weak and wobbly. We need
critical hope the way a fish needs unpolluted water.48
Hope is one of the first signs of conscientization’s fulfillment. The myth that the world is
like it is and cannot be changed has been broken. The oppressed can rise to something
higher, not just beat the system and rise in class. This hope is supported and sustained by
the community. Individuals will, at various times, become demoralized, impatient, and
frustrated, but others will be there to carry on the work and to encourage them.
Liberation is an on-going process with no quick results, calling for constant
vigilance. It can be exhausting. Although physical manifestation and concrete
benchmarks may be visible, most of the time liberation can not be measured. Hope
kindles the passion to begin, carries the movement forward during setbacks, and
nourishes the spirit during weakness.
According to Freire, hope, realized through conscientization, enables people to
struggle for liberation. This struggle must be developed by the oppressed for the benefit
of the oppressed AND the oppressors, all within society are victims of the dehumanizing
structure. The poor awaken to their importance in the oppressive structure and to their
power to change the system. The oppressed were acculturated into oppression through
their experiences, particularly that of the banking-system of education, whereby the
teacher holds the knowledge and has worth. The teacher’s job is to empty this knowledge
into the students who are like empty vessels. This hierarchy and class stratification
mirror society. As an alternative, Freire proposes problem-posing education, in which
47
48
Freire, Pedagogy of Hope, p. 157.
Ibid, pp. 8-9.
18
Spelz
the worth of all involved is recognized. The teachers are really teacher-students,
admitting the learning that a teacher experiences from the students. The students are
student-teachers, acknowledging their knowledge and their importance in educating the
teacher and each other. They are relationships based on equality and interdependence.
This interdependence requires allowing all to participate in education, society, and
liberation. Participation must be dialectic, a dialogue of give and take, and all-inclusive.
No member of society can be excluded. This makes the movement and the society
revolutionary, because it is contrary to the methodology of the oppressive regime. A
revolution cannot be truly revolutionary or liberating unless it uses methodology different
from the prevailing oppressive regime. Therefore, all must be included in praxis, a
cyclical and ongoing relationship of action and reflection. Praxis inspires learning and
prevents the distraction of the movement through corruption or tangents, maintaining
focus and honest evaluation. Praxis keeps the methodology in line with the ideology.
Perhaps Freire’s greatest lesson on methodology was the example he set living his life.
His philosophy was not just an ideal but a theory which was being tested. Freire was
widely acclaimed for his theories but also highly criticized. Despite the personal
frustrations, this criticism was applauded by Freire for the critical analysis. Freire wanted
education to teach critical analysis skills so that information would not be blindly
accepted, thus making it easy to dominate the student. He used the criticism as an open
dialogue, where all were invited to participate. This dialogue worked as a public praxis.
Along with his own personal praxis, Freire was constantly refining his ideas and learning
from others.
Freire treated his critics, of whom some were leaders in their field, like Bell
Hooks, and some were uneducated blue-collar workers, as equals and as student-teachers.
Freire realized some discrepancies within his original work and later wrote to refine,
correct, and clarify his theories. In Pedagogy of Hope: Reliving Pedagogy of the
Oppressed, he says: “My concern . . . is to stir my memory and challenge it, like an
excavation in time, so that I can show you the actual process of my reflection, my
pedagogical thought and its development, of which the book is a step . . . .”49 Freire lived
his methodology.
Just as Freire focused on methodology, so also does liberation theology.
Liberation is an unending process, thus it cannot be the blinding goal. The ends do not
justify the means. Liberation must be incarnated in the process. The next chapter
examines liberation theology, first by focusing on the background, then moving on to the
development, theory, and practice.
49
Freire, Pedagogy of Hope, p. 64.
19
Spelz
Chapter 3: LIBERATIO THEOLOGY
Background of Liberation Theology
Paulo Freire’s work not only spawned his own movement of followers and
educational programs, but also influenced many of the major liberation theologians.50
Liberation theology is a (predominantly Christian) religious movement, which analyzes
the Bible in light of Jesus’ relation with the socially dejected of society, and interprets the
stories and teachings in relation to the world of the poor and society’s outcasts.51 The
stories of the Old Testament, particularly the Exodus Story, and the New Testament, are
related to the political and economic situations of that day, with emphasis placed on
God’s love and faithfulness to the weaker Jewish nation. The New Testament Gospels
present Jesus, the Christian model, challenging social norms, class, and political
structures; the Epistles and the Book of Acts offer examples of communal living and
inclusion. Liberation theology uses these understandings to critique modern society and
the ideologies sustaining it.52
A movement primarily developed in Latin America by Latin Americans,
liberation theology has captured the interest of Americans and Europeans, but their
contributions have tended to be in critiques and analyses, rather than in theoretical
expansion. Although liberation theology does include Protestants,53 the majority of the
notable liberation theologians are Catholic. The crux of the theology is Christian, but
Jewish and Muslim theologians have begun to develop their own theologies of
liberation.54 Liberation theology’s growth coincided with the reforms and reevaluation
within the Roman Catholic Church. Vatican Council II (1962 -1965),55 and the Second
General Conference of Latin American Bishops at Medellín, Colombia (1968), and the
Third General Conference of Latin American Bishops Council at Puebla, Mexico
(1979),56 encouraged the liberation movement by bringing together likeminded leaders,
opening up the Church to more lay participation, and taking an official stance for the
poor57 and vulnerable.
50
Gustavo Gutiérrez, A Theology of Liberation: History, Politics, and Salvation, rev. ed., trans. and ed. Sr.
Caridad Inda and John Eagleson, (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1988), pp. 57, 121, 136-137.
Leonardo Boff and Clodovis Boff, Introducing Liberation Theology, trans. Paul Burns (Maryknoll, NY:
Orbis, 1987), p. 5.
John R. Pottenger, The Political Theory of Liberation Theology: Toward a Reconvergence of Social
Values and Social Science (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1989), p. 17.
51
Philip Berryman, Liberation Theology, (New York: Pantheon Books, 1987), p. 6.
52
Ibid, p. 6.
53
Pottenger, The Political Theory of Liberation Theology, p. 2.
54
Gustavo Gutiérrez, “Introduction to the revised edition: expanding the view,” trans. Matthew J.
O’Connell, A Theology of Liberation: History, Politics, and Salvation, p. xix..
55
Pottenger, The Political Theory of Liberation Theology, p. 14.
56
Boff and Boff, Introducing Liberation Theology, p. 76.
57
In all references to poor or poverty, the term is understood to mean material poverty, as opposed to the
Christian concept of spiritual poverty. Spiritual poverty is a desired state of recognized dependence on
God, whereas material poverty is a depravity of goods and/or services necessary for living and functioning.
20
Spelz
Vatican Council II has strongly reaffirmed the idea of a Church of service
and not of power. This is a Church which is not centered upon itself and
which does not “find itself” except when it “loses itself,” when it lives
“the joys and the hopes, the griefs and the anxieties of persons of this age”
(Gaudium et spes, no. 1). All of these trends provide a new focus for
seeing the presence and activity of the Church in the world as a starting
point for theological reflection.58
These developments at the Vatican Council II, under the watchful eye and acceptance of
the Pope, became a green light to social-minded, progressive, liberation-leaning, Latin
American Catholics (clergy, religious, laity and theologians). Both Vatican II and
Liberation Theology evolved and are evolving in part because of a dialectic with Catholic
Social Teaching (CST). CST is the accumulated and ever-expanding teachings of the
Catholic Church on society and social relationships, including society’s interaction with
its environment. The vast majority of the social justice teachings are found in encyclicals
and Church documents dating from the 1800s until today. The Catechism of the Catholic
Church, the book containing the official consolidated teachings of the Roman Catholic
Church, explains the history of CST:
The social doctrine of the Church developed in the nineteenth century
when the Gospel encountered modern industrial society with its new
structures for the production of consumer goods, its new concept of
society, the state and authority, and its new forms of labor and ownership.
The development of the doctrine of the Church on economic and social
matters attests the permanent value of the Church’s teaching at the same
time as it attests the true meaning of her Tradition, always living and
active.59
Prior to the 19th century, the Catholic Church relied primarily on the Bible and tradition
for conducting social relationships, but with the human labor abuses of the Industrial
Revolution, the Church found it imperative to write down directives instructing
individual Catholics and state governments on proper Christian behavior, ideology, and
social order.
CST calls for justice through change of the structure, laws and governance of
society, known as “social justice.” Social justice requires that all humans have a right
and also a responsibility to partake in the political, economic and social institutions of
their society. In order to see social justice realized, the Catholic Church calls all people
to work for systemic change in these institutions to become inclusive of all humans and
to recognize their rights, so that they are uninhibited by society from reaching their
potential and being “fully human.”
58
Gutiérrez, A Theology of Liberation: History, Politics, and Salvation, p. 7.
Catechism of the Catholic Church: Modifications form the Editio Typica, (New York, NY: Doubleday,
1997), §2421.
59
21
Spelz
Today, Catholic Social Teaching is sometimes condensed into a number of
guiding principles or terms which have been extracted from the writings of Bishops
(synods and councils) and the Pope, who is the Bishop of Rome and also the ‘Head of the
Church’ (encyclicals). The U.S. Catholic Bishops outline CST in seven themes: “life and
dignity of the human person,” “call to family, community, and participation,” “rights and
responsibilities,” “option for the poor and vulnerable,” “dignity of work and the rights of
workers,” “solidarity,” and “care for God’s creation.”60 Some teachers of Catholic Social
Teaching also include the themes of “subsidiarity,” “association,” “human equality” and
“common good” among their concepts, while others just place these ideas under the
aforementioned principles.61
Catholic Social Teaching draws from many Church writings. Many of the key
directives are derived from encyclicals written by the Pope. These encyclicals, as well as
The Catechism of the Catholic Church, create the backbone of CST. Traditionally, CST
doctrine begins with Pope Leo XIII’s 1891 encyclical Rerum -ovarum, which translates
as On the Condition of Labor. Liberation theologians frequently reference these same
encyclicals to support the movement and theology for liberation. These CST writings are
grounded in the core dogma of the Catholic Church: life is created by God and
specifically, human life is created by God in His image and likeness, with part of His
Spirit in each person. Because God created, and resides in, humanity, each human is
innately endowed with a dignity that cannot be taken away from him/her. God charges
each person to respect through action, deed, and language, the human dignity of every
person. Because each person has human dignity and is God’s creation, life must be
respected; human life first, and also all other life (plants and animals). To respect life and
to recognize human dignity, people must be allowed to participate within their families,
within their communities, and within their government – contributing in a meaningful,
positive way as each person chooses.
As people are responsible for their communities and those within their
communities, they must actively handle injustices at the most basic levels possible. That
is, if a person or local community can take care of a problem or injustice, it should do so
and not leave it to a higher government or organization. Subsidiarity requires each
person to accept responsibility for those injustices that s/he is able to change and correct.
“The principle of subsidiarity puts a proper limit on government by insisting that no
higher level of organization should perform any function that can be handled efficiently
and effectively at a lower level of organization by human persons who, individually or in
groups, are closer to the problems and closer to the ground.”62 In this way, everyone is
an active participatory member of society. The people who have the best understanding
and knowledge of a problem are asked to fix the situation with the best solution for their
community. Everyone remains stakeholders in their community and lives.
60
.U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. “Social Development and World Peace: Seven Key Themes of
Catholic Social Teaching,” (1999 [cited 8 June 2006]),
http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/projects/socialteaching/excerpt.htm.
61
William J. Byron, “Ten Building Blocks of Catholic Social Teaching,” America, (31 October 1998 [cited
12 June 2006]), http://www.americamagazine.org/articles/Byron.htm.
62
Ibid.
22
Spelz
Within subsidiarity, individual persons are called by God to work for the common
good of all in society. The common good is that which is best for all of society while
keeping in mind the basic dignity and needs of each individual human being. No one is
excluded; a few cannot suffer for the enhancement of others. Each person is a moral
agent, who respects each and every person’s dignity. Each person’s basic needs must be
met so that s/he can grow and thrive, not just survive. Because each person is taken care
of and because each individual’s dignity is respected, all of society benefits. Peace
becomes both a product of common good as well as a necessary requirement for common
good to exist, in that there must be no physical violence occurring within the society.
The option for the poor and vulnerable is a recently evolving principle of CST.
Jesus, God’s Son incarnated on Earth according to Christianity, spent the majority of his
time with the poor. His prime ministry was to the poor, both men and women, who lived
in poverty for a variety of reasons (widowed, ill, etc.). Jesus came to save all, but was
received by the poor because he showed them compassion and he understood suffering.
Jesus spent much of his ministry working with the poor and outcast, and speaking out
against their treatment. He confronted social norms and class divisions through his
interactions with the outcasts of society. Thus, this principle is to emphasize the needs of
the poor and marginalized of society, in order to create a just society where all are
allowed to fully participate.
In being attentive to the plight of the poor and marginalized, Catholics are also
called to live in solidarity with them and all of the human family. Solidarity means to
live in communion with all people. “Catholic social teaching proclaims that we are our
brothers' and sisters' keepers, wherever they live. We are one human family.... Learning
to practice the virtue of solidarity means learning that 'loving our neighbor' has global
dimensions in an interdependent world.”63 It requires not only seeing the world through
the eyes of disenfranchised people throughout the world, but also living with a
consciousness of how one’s actions or inactions affect the global community. One’s own
successes, failures, pains and joys are the successes, failures, pains and joys of each
person within humanity – and vice versa. They need to be celebrated, mourned or
remedied together as each situation determines.
One of the prime concerns for solidarity when focusing on the poor and
vulnerable revolves around the economy and, more specifically, work and workers’
treatment. Every person directly or indirectly participates in the economy and, ergo, in
the conditions of workers worldwide. CST focuses on the laborers and employers as
humans with dignity. The economy, work, and work conditions should reflect this
dignity for all involved. Work should be a positive contribution to one’s own self and to
the community. No one involved should be treated as a means to an end. The workers
should find fulfillment in their labor by use of their talents and skills to create something
enhancing and beneficial to society.
63
U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. “Sharing Catholic Social Teaching: Challenges and Directions-Reflections of the U.S. Catholic Bishops.” June 1998. Cited in: Byron, “Ten Building Blocks of Catholic
Social Teaching.”
23
Spelz
These principles of CST are intertwined with liberation theology. The two are not
synonymous, but rather, CST is a large part of the foundation for the theology.
Liberation theology uses CST as a base upon which to build and emphasize Christian
action towards ending oppression as a continuation of Jesus’ ministry. Catholic Social
Teaching “provides broad guidelines for Christian social activity” while liberation
theology attempts “to integrate these guidelines into its own synthesis, and . . . to clarify
them in a creative manner for the specific context of the Third World.”64 Liberation
theology takes CST and spins it into a more structured and refined material which enables
Christians to weave their faith into the political and social context in which they live.
Liberation Theology’s Development, Theory, and Practice
Since the colonization of the Americas after their European discovery by
Christopher Columbus in 1492, some of the Church’s missionaries have questioned the
manipulative relationship and the abusive treatment towards the indigenous peoples by
the conquerors. The American native peoples were viewed as inferior and backwards.
The colonials wanted to establish a social structure and government in which they ruled
over the indigenous peoples and used oppression to create lavish, comfortable lifestyles
for themselves supplied by the cheap labor of the natives and imported slaves. Many of
the missionaries bought into these social norms, but some did not. The latter wanted the
natives to be treated as equals, having human dignity as God’s children. They observed
that the indigenous owned the land and had respectable settlements; the colonists could
join the indigenous in America, but not enslave or exploit them.
The historical roots of liberation theology are to be found in the prophetic
tradition of evangelists and missionaries from the earliest colonial days in
Latin America – churchmen who questioned the type of presence adopted
by the church and the way indigenous peoples, blacks, mestizos, and the
poor rural and urban masses were treated. The names of Bartolomé de Las
Casas, Antonio de Montesinos, Antonio Vieira, Brother Caneca, and
others can stand for a whole host of religious personalities who have
graced every century of our short history. They are the source of the type
of social and ecclesial understanding that is emerging today.65
These early human rights activists are the heroes of the poor in Latin American history.
They were the few foreigners who wanted to establish a mutually respectful relationship.
These religious respected the traditions and culture of the people and chose to live with
and learn from them. Following Jesus’ example in the Bible, they joined the locals in
working towards justice. Most lost their lives fighting for the rights of the oppressed –
the same fate as those with whom they worked and lived.
The example of these religious and the commitment of the poor to their Christian
faith and to social justice inspired theologians to direct their scholarly endeavors to the
64
65
Boff and Boff, Introducing Liberation Theology, p. 37.
Ibid, p. 66.
24
Spelz
cause of liberation. Theologians began writing on the experiences and faith of the Latin
American poor. They learned from the spirituality of the poor and developed these ideas,
grounded in research, into a concrete theology.
This section on the development,
theory, and practice of liberation theology will focus on four areas: the foundation;
Christian base ecclesial communities (CEBs); Marxism; and solidarity.
The Foundation
From the tradition of CST, many 20th century Latin American religious and
theologians felt a call to change the injustice they saw in their communities and countries.
They also felt that, historically, the Church had sided with the dominant powers through
verbal endorsement and participation in the privileges of being in the dominant class, and
through non-verbal assent by turning a blind eye and not criticizing the injustices and the
system.66 These Catholics saw the oppressed losing faith and becoming disenfranchised
from the Catholic Church. The dichotomy between the teaching of Jesus and the
oppression being passively accepted made them hypocrites. These Catholics turned to
the Bible and the Church teachings; they found a mandate from Christ to liberate all
peoples from sin AND from social injustice.67
This does not mean that the emancipation should stem from a violent revolution,
as criticizes many opponents of liberation theology. While, undoubtedly, some people,
religious and clergy included, have become armed revolutionaries and guerrillas or
encouraged such violence in the name of liberation, Liberation Theology does not
encourage such a course. Like all Catholic theology, the follower is left with space for
discernment and with free will to act. Using the religious tradition of Just War Theory,
some within Christianity have applied this concept in an “updated” manner to justify
violent revolution.68 Again, certain individuals may advocate this, but liberation
theology, in scholarship, does not specifically endorse or forbid violence, neither
invoking the traditions of Jesus’ nonviolence nor Just War. By far, the most outspoken
bishops, such as Bishop José Maria Pires,69 Archbishop Dom Helder Câmara,70 and the
martyred Archbishop Oscar Romero,71 denounce violence and call for excessive love
through non-violent methods. Dom Helder Câmara once said:
The only violence I can understand is the violence of a peace maker, the
non-violence of Christ, of Gandhi or of Martin Luther King . . . . Injustice
always breeds violence. The violent reaction to the injustice spawns
further violence in its turn. Many young people are driven to this violent
66
Gutiérrez, A Theology of Liberation: History, Politics, and Salvation, pp. 78, 151.
Ibid, pp. xl, 22-25.
68
Pottenger, The Political Theory of Liberation Theology, p. 13.
69
Mev Puleo, The Struggle is One: Voices and Visions of Liberation, (Albany, NY: State University of
New York, 1994), pp. 224-225.
70
Mary, Hall, The Impossible Dream: The Spirituality of Dom Helder Câmara, (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis
Books, 1980), p. 90.
71
Oscar Romero, The Violence of Love, compiled and trans. James R. Brockman, S.J. (Maryknoll, NY:
Orbis Books, 1988), pp. 1, 10, 34, 82-83.
67
25
Spelz
reaction because of the inaction of Church or State. I can understand
them, Ché Guevara or Camilo Torres – they tire of non-violent efforts and
resort to revolution. But the only answer lies in non-violent pressure.72
The goal of liberation theology is a peace – internal and external – which can only be
established through justice as defined by Jesus’ ministry.
For if we are convinced that peace indeed supposes the establishment of
justice, we cannot remain passive or indifferent when the most basic
human rights are at risk. That kind of behavior would not be ethical or
Christian. Conversely, our active participation on the side of justice and in
defense of the weakest members of society does not mean that we are
encouraging conflict; it means rather that we are trying to eliminate its
deepest root, which is the absence of love.73
In Christianity, love is God, who resides in all people. “The church is calling to sanity, to
understanding, to love. It does not believe in violent solutions. . . . so that [in modeling
Jesus,] we humans might forgive one another, love one another, feel ourselves brothers
and sisters.”74 This interconnected humanity and relationship whereby all are equal and
deserving of respect and basic rights is not the sum whole of liberation theology, but
rather a jumping-off point.
Gustavo Gutiérrez, a Peruvian Catholic priest and the theologian who coined the
phrase “liberation theology” in 1968,75 states: “The importance assigned to this
experience in the theology of liberation is in keeping with the purpose of that theology,
which is to develop a reflection that is concerned with and based on practice in the light
of faith.”76 For Gutiérrez, liberation theology is the practice of faith culminating in action
– a faith based on a preferential option for the poor and a conviction to live justly
according to the Gospel. Officially, the Church does not advocate specific politicians,
political structures, or programs.77 The individual is responsible for taking the
framework that the Church provides (theology and tradition), informing themselves on
the issues, science, and developing a personal relationship with God in order to discern
the best choice or plan for themselves. The Church points out deviations from the morals
and ethics established in faith.
Liberation theology expresses the need for conscientization, a concept borrowed
from Freire. The Gospel is the basis for awakening a person to the injustice in the world.
The Church utilizes the Bible to encourage people to relate the situation and the example
of Jesus – the required action for Christians as followers of Jesus – to their reality. “The
72
Hall, The Impossible Dream: the Spirituality of Dom Helder Câmara, p. 90.
Gutiérrez, A Theology of Liberation: History, Politics, and Salvation, p. 159.
74
Romero, The Violence of Love, p. 10.
75
Gustavo Gutiérrez, “Introduction to the revised edition: expanding the view,” trans. by Matthew J.
O’Connell, A Theology of Liberation: History, Politics, and Salvation, p. xviii.
76
Gustavo Gutiérrez, We Drink from our own Wells: The Spiritual Journey of a People, trans. Matthew J.
O’Connell (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1984), p. 1.
77
Gutiérrez, A Theology of Liberation: History, Politics, and Salvation, p. 160.
73
26
Spelz
annunciation of the Gospel thus has a conscienticizing function, or in other words, a
politicizing function.”78 The Gospel stories present Jesus as awakening his society to the
injustices that existed in that day. Among other things, he confronts the secondary status
of women, the poor, the chronically ill, and other groups by breaking cultural norms and
interacting with them. He treats them as equals and gives them roles within his ministry
and following. When challenged to relate this to the world today, Christians can
undoubtedly see that there are people who have secondary status within society. As in
Jesus’ time, women, and the poor, along with minority races and religions, are among the
most unjustly treated. Imitating the message of the Bible, Christians see that these
injustices must be eradicated.
Finally, the process of liberation requires the active participation of the
oppressed; this certainly is one of the most important themes running
through the writings of the Latin American Church. . . . . The participation
of the oppressed presupposes an awareness on their part of their unjust
situation.79
Through conscientization, every person is stimulated to act in effecting change.
Liberation for all through the creation of a just society is the objective.
Just as Freire advocates, liberation theology stresses the importance of praxis –
reflection and action. Liberation theology stems from reflection and encourages action.
From action, reflection occurs. The relationship is circular; reflection and action nourish
each other, so that the whole ideology and process can mature and be refined.80 Faith is a
conceptualization of belief (reflection) that requires physical manifestation demonstrating
adherence and conviction (action). One cannot live in a dream-world of good intentions
and hopes. Christians are obligated to look at the world, evaluate its congruence to the
ideal, and work to create the ideal and live out their moral convictions.81
It is important to understand that Christians believe that their salvation is tied to
their community. Humans live in community and are social beings. It is not enough to
be content with one’s own actions and beliefs. Christians are responsible for their
brothers and sisters, i.e. all of humanity. They must work for the good of all, to create a
society that lives out the “Kingdom of God” as was taught by Jesus. The spiritual and
physical realms are not distinct but co-mingled and are inextricable. Christians are “their
brothers’ keepers.” “Human beings are called together, as a community and not as
separate individuals. . . .”82 The process of helping others is redemptive: “to build a just
society is liberating. . . . It is a salvific work, although it is not all of salvation.”83
Therefore, one cannot live in isolation. This does not mean that a Christian (or
Christians) has the right to force another person to behave in a certain manner, but they
78
Gutiérrez, A Theology of Liberation: History, Politics, and Salvation, pp. 153-154.
Ibid, p. 67.
80
Ibid, pp. 6, 9-11, 73.
81
Ibid, pp. 6, 9-11, 73.
82
Ibid, p. 146.
83
Ibid, p. 104.
79
27
Spelz
do have a responsibility to teach through modeling “moral conscientization” and to create
a just society. “In their temporal endeavors, lay persons will seek to create with others,
Christian or not, a more just and more human society; they will be well aware that in so
doing they are ultimately building up a society in which man will be able to respond
freely to the call of God. They will have, nevertheless, the fullest respect for the
autonomy of temporal society.”84 Faith cannot be practiced apart from actions. The
New Testament is emphatically clear that faith requires action. “To know God is to do
justice.”85 To “know, that is to say, to love Yahweh is to do justice to the poor and
oppressed. . . .[it] is to establish just relationships among persons, it is to recognize the
rights of the poor. The God of Biblical revelation is known through interhuman
justice.”86 From this communal responsibility, Liberation theology grew, tailored to the
historic situation of the oppressive, unjust societies of the developing countries such as
those in Latin America.
Christian Base Ecclesial Communities
Perhaps one of the most physical manifestations of the liberation theology
movement is Christian base ecclesial communities (CEBs).87 The CEBs serve many
functions, from creating supportive, active communities to empowerment, faith-sharing,
education, reflection, and conscious-raising or conscientization. These groups are
composed of Christians who gather to study their faith and the Bible. Originally, they
were founded by religious, but now they are almost missionary in that people from base
communities often founded other communities because they are so popular.88 They
normally have trained leaders to help provide catechist instruction. These groups study
the Bible in light of their experience of reality, relating the stories of the Bible and Jesus’
examples to their life. This has produced a liberation theme, as they see their oppression
and read God’s plan of emancipation throughout the Bible. “It has been these
communities – leaders and members – that have begun to reflect on their faith in a
liberating spirit.”89 For example, the group might read the story of the Exodus and God’s
hand in the Jews’ liberation. Then they might discuss what structures or groups are
acting like the pharaoh in the story to hold them unjustly. They might also discuss
methods to create a just liberation.
Nobel Peace Prize winner, Rigoberta Menchú, a indigenous Guatemalan human
rights leader, tells of her experience with CEBs:
We began to study the Bible as our main text. Many relationships in the
Bible are like those we have with our ancestors, our ancestors whose lives
were very much like our own. The important thing for us is that we
84
Gutiérrez, A Theology of Liberation: History, Politics, and Salvation, p. 37.
Ibid, p. 113.
86
Ibid, pp. 110-111.
87
Pottenger, The Political Theory of Liberation Theology, pp. 138-142.
88
Berryman, Liberation Theology, pp. 74-80.
89
Boff and Boff, Introducing Liberation Theology, p. 85.
85
28
Spelz
started to identify that reality with our own. That’s how we began
studying the Bible. It’s not something you memorize, it’s not just to be
talked about, and nothing more. It also helped to change the image we
had, as Catholics and as Christians: that God is up there and that God has a
great kingdom for we the poor, yet never thinking of our own reality as a
reality that we were actually living. But studying the scriptures, we did.
Take ‘Exodus’ for example, that’s one we studied and analysed. It talks a
lot about the life of Moses who tried to lead his people from oppression,
and did all he could to free his people. We compare the Moses of those
days with ourselves, the ‘Moses’ of today. ‘Exodus’ is about the life of a
man, the life of Moses.
We began looking for texts which represented each one of us. We tried to
relate them to our Indian culture. We took the example of Moses for the
men, and we have the example of Judith, who was a very famous woman
in her time and appears in the Bible.90
For Menchú and many poor Latin American Christians, the CEBs give hope and provide
examples of strong leaders (historical and present-day) who took charge of their realities.
The communities see their faith not as passive acceptance of the paradigm, but as a call to
action, a call to justice.
Although the CEB leaders or group would not endorse a particular political
movement or party, political analysis discussions (pro and con) may take place – all
viewed through the lens of faith. Most members become active in politics outside of the
base communities. Base communities’ leaders become confident and empowered
through their training and experience. The discussions and education from the base
communities translate to action outside of the base community.
Many CEB members and leaders choose to join political or military groups. The
Catholic Church has said that base community leaders must choose only one leadership
position. They are given time to discern and are welcome to stay members of the group if
they choose the political or military leadership position.91 The reason is that the Church
does not want anyone to be confused believing that the Catholic Church endorses or is
allied with a particular political, economic, or military organization or program. The base
communities began the liberation movement by inspiring their pastors – on up the Church
hierarchy, until theologians began the scholarly endeavor of articulating the experiences
of the people in conjunction with the Bible and Church teachings.92 The theologians add
insight and stronger historical and doctrinal support to the movement.
90
Rigoberta Menchú, I, Rigoberta Menchú: an Indian Woman in Guatemala, ed. Elisabeth Burgos-Debray,
trans. Ann Wright (New York, NY: Verso, 1984), p.131.
91
Berryman, Liberation Theology, pp. 74-80.
92
Boff and Boff, Introducing Liberation Theology, p. 15.
29
Spelz
Marxism
Liberation theology uses Marxist analysis of worker exploitation and class
stratification and struggle. Liberation theologians see this as a major asset in its
development, credibility, understanding, and logic, while critics find it an insurmountable
obstacle to the theology’s acceptance. Many people have come to Christianity through
the application of Marxism in liberation theology. They understand and agree with
Marx’s assessment of the economic and social paradigm caused by capitalism. The use
of Marxism brought these people to learn of liberation theology and its social justice
perspective. Likewise, the general populace, or the “popular level,”93 consider
themselves Marxists because of liberation theology’s use of Marxist class structure.
However, it is not the theory on class structure that critics fear, but Marx’s
atheistic stance and insistence on the necessity of violent revolution. Marx called religion
“the opium of the masses,” a method of control by those in power. Critics say that the
atheism of Marxism cannot be separated from the rest of the ideology; Christianity and
Marxism cannot coexist.94 Eventually, one must choose between Christianity and
Marxism, and the fear of critics is that Marxism will be chosen.95 Critics, such as
Cardinal Ratzinger,96 argue that because violent revolution is inevitable to Marx,
liberation Christians will endorse violence, as well as act violently in order to change the
system.97
On the other hand, liberation theologians see Marxism as a tool, not an end within
itself. Leonardo Boff, a leading Brazilian liberation theologian, and his brother Clodovis
Boff, a priest with the Servite order, explain the role of Marxism in liberation theology:
“Therefore, liberation theology uses Marxism purely as an instrument. It does not
venerate it as it venerates the gospel. And it feels no obligation to account to social
scientists for any use it may make – correct or otherwise – of Marxist terminology and
ideas, though it does feel obliged to account to the poor, to their faith and hope, and to the
ecclesial community, for such use.”98 Marxism helps those within liberation theology to
understand and analyze the causes of poverty and the relation between capital and labor,
as well as the dependency created between the two. This analysis has proved insightful
for the Third World to understand the vastness of the system as it extends to a larger
dependency of their countries on the First World. The use of Marxist analysis does not
mean that liberation Christians will become violent atheists.
According to Gutiérrez, Marxism’s fundamental contribution has been its
emphasis on praxis and that it is “geared to the transformation of the world.”99
Liberation theology uses Marx’s concept of class struggle and subjugation by the capital
93
Boff and Boff, Introducing Liberation Theology, p. 13.
Arthur F. McGovern, Liberation Theology and Its Critics: Toward an Assessment, (Maryknoll, NY:
Orbis Books, 1989), p. 151.
95
Pottenger, The Political Theory of Liberation Theology, p. 75.
96
Cardinal Ratzinger became Pope Benedict XVI in April 2005.
97
Pottenger, The Political Theory of Liberation Theology, p. 75.
98
Boff and Boff, Introducing Liberation Theology, p. 28.
99
Gutiérrez, A Theology of Liberation: History, Politics, and Salvation, p. 8.
94
30
Spelz
class. However, their idea of a proletariat class is expanded. Marx has the workers
rebelling; Mao has the peasants leading the revolution, but liberation theology looks for
the liberation by all the people suffering from the unjust system.
We mean a collective poor, the “popular classes,” which is a much wider
category than the “proletariat” singled out by Karl Marx (it is a mistake to
identify the poor of liberation theology with the proletariat, though many
of its critics do): the poor are also the workers exploited by the capitalist
system; the underemployed, those pushed aside by the production process
– a reserve army always at hand to take the place of the employed; they
are the laborers of the countryside, and migrant workers with only
seasonal work.100
Marxism provides liberation theology with a method for economic and social analysis,
but liberation theology is more than Marxism plus Jesus. It is not dependent on Marx’s
theories alone. While liberation theology may use Marxist vocabulary, it has its own
morality, ideals for societal structures, and methods for change.
Solidarity
Liberation theology’s perspective is through the lens of the Christian faith, one
that is tinted by the concept of solidarity. Being in solidarity with those who are poor,
marginalized and unjustly abused by society is paramount. It means seeing the world
through their eyes; their concerns become that of everyone. The indignation of their
injustice belongs to everyone. Through this awareness of unity, individuals make choices
to benefit all, not just themselves. Out of concern for and a kinship with the oppressed,
people live out their vision for a just society, one where all have ownership. The
oppressed accept the efforts of upper classes to live in communion with them. Solidarity
creates community.
The documents from the councils at Puebla and Medellín stress the fundamental
position of the Church to be in solidarity with the poor and unjustly treated of society. In
“Poverty of the Church,” part number 10, released in the document from Medellín, it
states, “This solidarity means that we [the Church] make ours their [the poor’s] problems
and their struggles, [and] that we know how to speak with them. This has to be
concretized in criticism of injustice and oppression, in the struggle against the intolerable
situation which a poor person has to tolerate.”101 Solidarity opens the door and compels
one to action and genuine unity with the disenfranchised of the world. “But this is made
real and meaningful only by living and announcing the Gospel from within a
commitment to liberation, only in concrete, effective solidarity with people and exploited
social classes. Only by participating in their struggles can we understand the implication
100
Boff and Boff, Introducing Liberation Theology, pp. 3-4.
“Poverty of the Church,” no. 10, in Medellín.; Cited in Gustavo Gutiérrez, A Theology of Liberation:
History, Politics, and Salvation, p. 68.
101
31
Spelz
of the gospel message and make it have an impact on history.”102 Faith no longer is a
personal matter but communal; one can no longer allow injustice and oppression.
Solidarity forces the eyes open to their existence and prevalence.
The CST encyclicals also emphasize the example of Jesus and His love of the
marginalized. His actions and words were always conscious of the position unjustly
imposed upon them. His ministry demands that people live in solidarity and work
towards the liberation – physically and spiritually – of all, if they want to be called
Christians. Pope John Paul II writes about the importance of solidarity in his encyclical.
He begins by stating:
The exercise of solidarity within each society is valid when its members
recognize one another as persons. Those who are more influential, because
they have a greater share of goods and common services, should feel
responsible for the weaker and be ready to share with them all they
possess. Those who are weaker, for their part, in the same spirit of
solidarity, should not adopt a purely passive attitude or one that is
destructive of the social fabric, but, while claiming their legitimate rights,
should do what they can for the good of all. The intermediate groups, in
their turn, should not selfishly insist on their particular interests, but
respect the interests of others.103
He goes on to state, using Biblical references, how solidarity causes Christians to see
everyone with dignity and thus not to exploit their labor for material enhancement.104
In the practical sense, followers of liberation theology struggle with what is
required of them to be in solidarity with the poor and marginalized. Lori Altmann, a
Brazilian, Lutheran minister, expresses her journey to understanding of this principle:
Well, we used to believe that the option for the poor meant becoming poor
among the poor. . . . But we’ve matured from this and recognized that our
big sacrifices, in political terms, didn’t always help! It didn’t help change
things for the poor. Living with the Indigenous we learned that more
important than becoming poor was the effort to really open ourselves,
trying to understand their culture and lifestyle. We also came to learn that
to be in solidarity with the poor we didn’t have to give up everything or
stop being who we were. . . . But, we do have to place our gifts and our
work at the service of changing society. We have to use our goods to
serve the grassroots struggle.105
Archbishop Oscar Romero, a role model within liberation theology, set an
example as a leader in the Church. During a sermon in early 1979, shortly before he was
102
Gutiérrez, A Theology of Liberation: History, Politics, and Salvation, pp. 153-154.
Pope John Paul II, Solicitudo Rei Socialis, (1987), http://www.osjspm.org/cst/srs.htm, §39.
104
Ibid, §39.
105
Puleo, The Struggle is One: Voices and Visions of Liberation, pp. 83-84.
103
32
Spelz
gunned down, he said, “My position as pastor obliges me to solidarity with everyone who
suffers and to embody every effort for human freedom and dignity.”106 Solidarity keeps
the unity of a common humanity and dignity of all people at the level of consciousness.
Perhaps the final salient point about liberation theology is that it recognized itself
as a movement and theology, born of a tradition, situated in a specific historical context
for which it was created.107 However, liberation theology does not claim its truth only as
relative today in the context of Latin America; it is not based in relativism. Rather,
liberation theology admits that its usefulness and its viewpoint must be understood in
order to properly apply it. The gross injustices of today, particularly in the Third World,
have created a yearning to understand the causes of injustice, to know how to liberate
themselves and their world, and to learn the appropriate ordering of society. Liberation
theology meets this need by focusing on God’s commitment to and love for those
unjustly treated as well as recognizing his desire for justice and their liberation.
Christianity also has many other themes found in Jesus’ life, such as forgiveness, hope,
and reconciliation. These virtues within Christianity are not being negated, or
contradicted, by liberation theology, but they are not liberation theology’s focus. In
another social and historical context, in another age with different technology, social
structure and understandings of science, a different theology might be a more appropriate
for those Christians. The specific issues of this time period will not be the same issues of
another. Liberation theology is attempting to be specific to the situation of this era as it is
manifested in Latin America.
Liberation theology grounds itself in the Christian tradition, focusing on the
relationship of God and Jesus to the oppressed of Jewish and early Christian societies. In
the tradition of CST, liberation theologians have expanded these teachings by
incorporating Marxism’s structural analysis and the experiences of the oppressed of Latin
America, particularly that of the Christian base ecclesial communities. Liberation
theology emphasizes establishing social justice and creating unity through solidarity.
From Freire’s influence, praxis, universal inclusion, and conscientization have a
prominent role in the methodology. Like Freire, exemplification of the ideals and values
in the process is as important as the obtainment of the goal. The golden end objectives
shift from conceptual values to be achieved to realized practices and principles within the
process.
Freire’s and liberation theology’s ideologies form the basis with which Chávez’s
Bolívarian revolution in Venezuela will be analyzed. Before one can analyze a
movement, a general understanding of the people’s history is imperative. The next
chapter will briefly look at revolutionaries, in particular, Simón Bolívar, the man whose
name Chávez’s revolution bears. It will lay the groundwork for understanding his
importance in the culture and to the goals of Venezuela’s liberation movement.
106
107
Romero, The Violence of Love, p. 117.
Gutiérrez, A Theology of Liberation: History, Politics, and Salvation, pp. xiii, 9-12, 77.
Boff and Boff, Introducing Liberation Theology, p. 36.
33
Spelz
Chapter 4: REVOLUTIOARY, SIMÓ BOLÍVAR
Latin America has many revolutionary heroes. Their passionate rebellions have
been immortalized in stories; now legends, almost demi-gods. Simón Bolívar, Pancho
Villa, Emiliano Zapata, Augusto Sandino, and Ernesto “Ché” Guevara are the faces of
resistance for the Latin American population. While most of these icons came from the
middle class, they are the heroes of the poor and destitute. Their names inspire respect,
unity, courage, and action. Many would also include Eva and Juan Peron from
Argentina. “Marcos” of the Mexican Zapatista Movement and Fidel Castro are idealized
now, and will be immortalized as great liberators upon their deaths.
The histories of these leaders are ingrained in the collective memory and the
culture of Latin America. Despite many glaring differences in practice and beliefs,
Freire and many liberation theologians have an affinity and admiration for many of these
folk heroes. Either as academics or as Latinos, they have all studied at least some of
these revolutionaries’ lives. Both Freire and Gutiérrez discuss Guevara, extolling his
love for the oppressed of Latin America and his ongoing dialogue with them, but never
praising his violent methods.
Additionally, several liberation theologians are
acquaintances of Fidel Castro, a good friend and inspiration to Hugo Chávez. While
none have advocated following Castro’s exact steps, they have a respect for many of his
goals and new initiatives to help the poorest of society by providing the basic needs.
Of all these revolutionaries, one in particular inspires the Venezuelan President
Hugo Chávez: the first champion of the people throughout all of Latin America, Simón
Bolívar. Born to an aristocratic family in 1783 in Caracas, Bolívar dreamed of the
American colonies’ liberation from their European rulers; in particular, the Spanish.108
Having studied in Europe as a young man, he became caught up in the current
philosophical ideals of liberation, democracy, and popular sovereignty. He desired the
best of practical governments (federal systems with popular representation were too
perfect and not realistic) for his homeland of Venezuela – as he saw it, modeled in large
part after England. He suggested a bi-cameral legislature: the upper house based on
hereditary commissions; and the lower house representative of the people. Instead of a
monarchy, Bolívar recommended an executive elected for life but not a position which
would be hereditary.109 Ideally, he envisioned all of Latin America would work together
to form a confederation. This confederation would work together to solve problems and
provide a balance of power to protect itself again the United States, which he distrusted.
Bolívar admitted this confederation is probably too optimistic.
108
Miguel Centellas, “El Libertador,” Biblioteca Virtual de Simon Bolivar, (1998, [cited 27 November
2006]), http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/7609/eng/bio.html.
109
Simón Bolívar, “A Letter by Simón Bolívar [to a “gentleman” of Jamaica],” Selected Writings of
Bolivar, trans. Lewis Bertrand (New York: The Colonial Press Inc., 1951, [cited 27 November 2006]),
http://www.college.emory.edu/culpeper/BAKEWELL/texts/jamaica-letter.html.
34
Spelz
It is a grandiose idea to think of consolidating the New World into a single
nation, united by pacts into a single bond. It is reasoned that, as these parts
have a common origin, language, customs, and religion, they ought to
have a single government to permit the newly formed states to unite in a
confederation. But this is not possible. Actually, America is separated by
climatic differences, geographic diversity, conflicting interests, and
dissimilar characteristics.110
Bolívar believed that the fate of the Americas, not including the United States and
Canada, was inextricably linked. The U.S. had already secured its independence and was
on the way to a prosperity and power. In fact, Bolívar feared that the U.S. ambitions for
growth and dominance would soon extend southward. As colonies, Latin America,
including the Caribbean, needed to work together to liberate themselves and to unite for a
balance of power in the global theater. Despite his desire for unity, Bolívar did not
believe that they could peacefully exist united under one government. The people vary
too much and the geographic topography divides them physically. He hoped for interstate cooperation in the future, perhaps something akin to today’s European Union.111
Known as “El Liberator,” Bolívar pursued his ambitions. Folklore has it that while
in Rome atop Mount Aventin, he vowed never to rest until America, the continent, was
free. He returned from Europe to Venezuela in 1811 to fight the Spanish. The regiment
he commanded fought in battles from Peru to Venezuela.112 After liberating present-day
Colombia in 1819, Bolívar helped create a state known as “Gran Colombia.” It included
the territories of Colombia, Ecuador, and Venezuela. Bolívar was elected president but
left the executive running to the viceroy, as he continued fighting the Spanish.113 Upon
the territory’s emancipation, the country of Bolivia was named in honor of him. He
wrote the constitution for them in 1826 but it never came to be enacted. Towards the end
of his life, Bolívar was embittered by the infighting of the newly liberated countries. He
had hoped they would thrive but instead they struggled to have a government in control
and subjugated the lower classes. He was even banned from entering his beloved
Venezuela. Disillusioned by the end of his life, Bolívar is often quoted as saying that the
Americas are ungovernable. Shortly before he was scheduled to depart for Europe,
Simón Bolívar died of tuberculosis in Colombia in 1830.114
Despite his lonely, embittered, and denigrated last months, Bolívar soon became
revered as a liberator, and cultural hero for Latin America, surpassing his former warhero status. While not without flaws, Bolívar has inspired many in their quest for
liberation. His memory and legacy has seen a resurgence as a result of the recent
revolutionary movement in Venezuela, thus immortalizing him in another chapter in the
annals of history.
110
Bolívar, “A Letter by Simón Bolívar [to a “gentleman” of Jamaica],” Selected Writings of Bolivar.
Ibid.
112
Miguel Centellas, “El Libertador,” Biblioteca Virtual de Simon Bolivar.
113
Ibid.
114
Ibid.
111
35
Spelz
Chapter 5: VEEZUELA AD HUGO CHAVEZ
Having examined Freire’s and liberation theology’s theories for liberation and
Simon Bolívar’s life and ideals, this thesis will now focus on Hugo Chávez and his
current Bolivarian revolution in Venezuela. After a brief history of Venezuela to lay the
foundation of today, the thesis will examine the liberation movement through the
breakdown of: the 1999 Constitution; Chávez’s popularity: elections and coercion; social
programs; corruption; international cooperation; dialogue and communication; and the
Chávez personality. An analysis using Freire and liberation theology will follow each
topic in order to illuminate positive and negative trends to liberate Venezuela and thereby
create peace through dialogue and justice.
Brief History of Venezuela
Christopher Columbus and his ship’s crew were the first Europeans to set foot on
Venezuelan territory in 1498, on his third voyage to the New World. Three main groups
– the Carib, the Arawak, and the Chibcha – inhabited the land. Venezuela, named by the
explorer Alonso de Ojeda in 1499, 115 was a Spanish colony ruled from Santo Domingo,
the capital of present day Dominican Republic, until 1717, when the territory’s rule was
assumed by the viceroy of Bogóta, the capital of present day Colombia.116
Little
attention was paid to the area because no significant wealth or natural resources were
found there to interest the Spanish. Therefore, the viceroy ruled light-handedly as it
brought no great wealth to him.117
In 1806, Francisco de Miranda founded and led a revolutionary movement to
liberate the Spanish colonies.118 Unfortunately, he was captured in 1812; whereby, Simón
Bolívar took over command.119 After Bolívar’s armies liberated Colombia in 1819, the
Congress announced Gran Colombia, a state in which Colombia, Venezuela and Ecuador
were unified, despite the fact that Venezuela and Ecuador remained Spanish colonies.
Bolívar was made president, even though he was still in the battlefields fighting Spanish
armies.120
Bolívar liberated Venezuela in 1821, and in 1829, Gran Colombia dissolved as
Venezuela succeeded. Venezuela’s independence was marred by several military
dictators, known as caudillos, and civil wars. Racially stratified, the power rested almost
115
“Venezuela: History & Culture,” [cited 21 November 2006],
http://www.geographia.com/venezuela/history.htm.
116
Krzysztof Dydyński and Charlotte Beech, Venezuela, 4th ed., (Oakland, CA: Lonely Planet Publications
Pty Ltd., 2004), p. 21.
117
“Venezuela: History & Culture.”
118
Dydyński and Beech, Venezuela, p. 21.
119
Ibid, p. 22.
120
Ibid, p. 22.
36
Spelz
exclusively in the hands of Creoles, people of European descent.121 To complicate
matters, oil was discovered there in 1914. This catapulted Venezuela from being a
country of poverty to one of wealth. Oil became the staple of the economy.122
In 1947, the first democratically elected president, the novelist Rómulo Gallegos,
led the short-lived government. Eight months into his term, a coup overthrew the
government and installed Colonel Marcos Pérez Jiménez. In 1958, Jiménez was
overthrown and Venezuela returned to democracy.123 To capitalize on the oil boom of
the 1970s, the country’s third president, Carlos Andrés Pérez, nationalized the iron-ore
and oil industries in 1975. The late 1970s and 1980s brought economic disaster with the
fall of oil prices. Venezuela was swamped with debt and unemployment.
Reelected in 1989,124 Pérez survived two coups attempts in 1992. The first was
by a military group, including Hugo Chávez, and the second by a group of junior air force
officers. Both were unsuccessful, but in the process Hugo Chávez gained a reputation
and the sympathy of the country, such that he was pardoned and released from prison by
Venezuela’s next president, Rafael Caldera, in 1994.125 Upon his release, Chávez began
organizing support for his presidential run in the 1998 elections.
Analyzing Hugo Chávez and the Bolívarian Revolution
The current president of Venezuela, Hugo Chávez Frias, 52, grew up in Sabaneta,
Venezuela, reading books about Simón Bolívar.126 Wanting to become a professional
baseball player, at the age of 17, he enrolled in the military academy in order to get to the
capital, Caracas.127 While playing in the city, he realized that his baseball talent would
never materialize into a lucrative career so he stayed with the military and became an
instructor. At the academy, he studied military tactics and read war classics. His love of
Bolívar became infused with military strategy. Since then, a Bolívarian revolution, so
named, in honor of the colonial revolutionary he admires, has become his passion. In a
speech in 2004, Chávez expresses the movement of the revolution:
The only way, the only real way . . . to lead our people to its full social and
economic liberation is through a complete revolution, an integral
revolution, a revolution which must deal with the economy, that is to say a
revolution which in addition to being political, must also be social, must
be profoundly economic.
121
Dydyński and Beech, Venezuela, p. 23.
Ibid, p. 24.
123
Ibid, p. 25.
124
Ibid, p. 25.
125
Ibid, p. 26.
126
“Profile: Hugo Chavez,” BBC -ews, (24 November 2006 [cited 28 November 2006]),
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/3517106.stm.
127
Franklin Foer, “The Talented Mr. Chávez,” The Atlantic Monthly, (May 2006, Vol. 297, No. 4, pp. 94105), p.98.
122
37
Spelz
I will say once and for all, we must leave behind us the capitalist model
that has been installed in Venezuela for such a long time, because in the
framework of the capitalist model, of the capitalist economic model, there
is no solution to society’s most serious problems, grinding poverty and
social exclusion.128
Chávez wants the cooperation of Latin American countries to solve their shared
problems, strengthen their economies, and create a hegemonic force to balance world
power.129 Like Bolívar, he is weary of the United States and wants financial
independence from it and other organizations such as the World Bank and International
Monetary Fund (IMF).130 He believes that the economic dependence, the submission to
financial plans in order to receive loans, the military threat of the U.S. intervention, and
Venezuela’s internal poverty enslaves the country. Chávez wants Venezuela to be
emancipated from entrapments which oppress the people, create discord, and inhibit
peace.
To realize this Bolívarian dream, Chávez and other military officers conspired to
take over the government in 1992 in a multiple stronghold capture.131 Chávez took the
lead for the palace assault. The coordination and planning were botched. Chávez
surrendered on television and assumed responsibility for the failed coup. In an effort to
dissuade others from copycat attempts, the sound-bite was replayed many times. The
effect was the opposite of what the government had hoped. Chávez went from being
unknown to a hero.132
While in jail, Chávez used the time to make new alliances, learn more, and begin
to build a political base. Upon his being pardoned and released in 1994, Chávez started
his political life. He was elected president in 1998 with 56.2% of the vote.133 His
platform was to give back control to the people. The first thing Chávez did was hold a
128
Hugo Chávez, SPEECH, (La Guaira, Vargas State, Venezuela:, 28 October 2004) cited on: Pascual
Serrano, “To lead our people to full social and economic liberation through a complete revolution,”
International Viewpoint Online Magazine, (Number 364, February 2005 [cited on 18 January 2007]),
http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article414.
129
Hugo Chávez and Marta Harnecker, Understanding the Venezuelan Revolution: Hugo Chávez talks to
Marta Harnecker, trans. Chesa Boudin, (New York, NY: Monthly Review Press, 2005), pp. 23-25.
130
Foer, “The Talented Mr. Chávez,” p. 104.
131
The planning for the revolution began 10 years earlier in 1982, when Chávez organized a political cell
called MBR-200 (The Bolivarian Revolutionary Movement-200, the 200 was to mark the bicentennial
anniversary of Bolívar’s birth). Originally, he and the other officer members studied the problems of the
country, but as they grew to believe “that Venezuela’s version of ‘democracy’ was a sham,” the focus
became planning a coup d’etat. On December 17, 1982, the small group swore Bolívar’s oath to liberate
Venezuela: “I swear before you, and I swear before the God of my fathers, that I will not allow my arm to
relax, nor my soul to rest, until I have broken the chains that oppress us . . .”
Richard Gott, Hugo Chávez and the Bolivarian Revolution, (New York, NY: Verso, 2005), p. 38.
132
Foer, “The Talented Mr. Chávez,” p. 100.
133
Damarys Canache, “From Bullets to Ballots: The Emergence of Popular Support for Hugo Chavez,”
Latin American Politics and Society, (Vol. 44, No. 1, Spring 2002, pp. 69-90), p. 69.
38
Spelz
referendum, the first ever referendum in the country, to establish a constitutional
assembly to write a new constitution.134 The people received this proposal with
overwhelming support.
The 1999 Constitution
In 1999, the new constitution was approved by a majority vote, and the country
was renamed “The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.”135 Thereafter, new elections were
held. With 60.3% of the vote,136 Chávez again was elected, as were many within his
party; they took the legislature. By 2002, the country was in turmoil. Many Venezuelans
were questioning the new programs that the government was funding; labor issues were
resulting in demonstrations and threats of strikes; conservative military officials feared
the changing role of the military. A coup, led by some within the military, took control
of the government and held Chávez as a prisoner, but with protest from the general
public, Chávez was restored to power after two days. Later that year, there were
marches, demonstrations, and a labor strike within the oil industry. In 2004, the
opposition had accumulated enough signatures petitioning a referendum to recall Chávez.
The referendum was held; the people gave Chávez the mandate to stay in power.137 On
December 3, 2006, Chávez was reelected by almost 63% to his 2nd consecutive, 6-year
term in office under the new constitution.138
Proposed by Chávez as part of his 1998 election campaign, the 1999 Constitution
was sanctioned by the Venezuelan people, with over 70% of the vote. Chávez’s
Bolivarian revolution touts greater participation in government by the people. While
some criticize the constitution-writing process for not allowing enough input by the
public, Chávez lauds the method they used. He feels reasonable practical measures were
taken:
Toll-free telephone lines were opened, so that people could provide their
opinions; the assembly delegates organized regional assemblies to receive
input – at least our delegates, who were in the majority, did. I believe that
once or twice per week they went to the regions from which they were
elected to organize assemblies, to talk, to explore ideas, to look for
projects.139
Neither Chávez nor other sources seem to know the statistical extent to which these
telephone lines and community meetings were used or effective. Anything more
134
Chávez and Harnecker, Understanding the Venezuelan Revolution, p. 49.
Foer, “The Talented Mr. Chávez,” p 97.
136
Canache, “From Bullets to Ballots,” p. 85.
137
Chávez and Harnecker, Understanding the Venezuelan Revolution, pp. 19-22.
138
Christopher Toothaker, “Chavez Snubs U.S. Overture for Dialogue,” Washington Post, (5 December
2006 [cited 11 December 2006]),
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/05/AR2006120500667_pf.html.
139
Chávez and Harnecker, Understanding the Venezuelan Revolution, p. 49.
135
39
Spelz
extensive than these initiatives would have dragged out the writing indefinitely, which is
why he supported the closed assembly.140
Freire and liberation theology would applaud the use of telephone lines and
community meetings to communicate with the public. All tend to favor group dialogues
over two person conversations, but it is the inclusion and dialogue which is most
important. For Freire and liberation theology, process is as important as the end goal.
Pragmatism is necessary, but both would encourage more transparency and openness in
the proceedings. More methods for inclusion could have been used. If the public had
been allowed to help create the framework, they would have added alternative ideas to
the process. Many people living in rural areas are marginalized. Their distance from
cities increases the difficulty of getting information, participating in politics, and
accessing resources. For instance, in Amazonas, a state in southern Venezuela, people do
not always have access to phones, or to dependable phone service, or reliable electricity
utilities. 141 Their areas would not likely be visited during these community meetings.
They continue to be left out of participating in their government. Liberation theology and
Freire emphasize the need for all to be included; the marginalized cannot be added later
when it is easier and more convenient. Freire initiates change through dialogue among
people, while liberation theology requires solidarity with all, as well as empowerment
and action on the grassroots level.
In some ways, the 1999 Constitution gives more power to the general populace by
providing measures for requesting referendums, such as they utilized in the vote of
confidence for Chávez in 2002. However, in many ways, it has consolidated power in the
executive office. The executive branch can manipulate the military leadership, while the
legislature no longer has oversight of the military.142 Many commend the constitution on
its protection of human rights, but “other aspects of the constitution strengthen the power
of the executive branch in ways that may jeopardize human rights in practice.”143
The new constitution converted the parliament from a bicameral to a unicameral
legislature.144 Many people see this as weakening the checks and balances of the
government “because it eliminates the body capable of defending regional interests
against the center, the Senate. The president now has the ability to dissolve it
[parliament] after three censures of the vice president.” Finally, the president was
granted the power to create “enabling laws,” decrees which have the same impact and
validity as a law passed by the legislature.145 The purpose of these “enabling laws” is to
140
Chávez and Harnecker, Understanding the Venezuelan Revolution, p. 50.
Fabian Andres Cambero, “Venezuela vote raises few hopes in Amazon state,” Washington Post, [28
November 2006 (cited 28 November 2006]),
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/28/AR2006112800333_pf.html.
142
Foer, “The Talented Mr. Chávez,” p. 102.
143
Maxwell A. Cameron and Flavie Major, “Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez: Savior or Threat to Democracy,”
Latin American Research Review, (Vol. 36, No. 3, 2001, pp. 255-266), p. 257.
144
A bicameral legislature has two houses or chambers. For instance, the U.S. Congress has the House of
Representatives and the Senate. A unicameral legislature only has one house. In this case, Venezuela has
only the house that is represented by the U.S. Senate.
145
Cameron and Major, “Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez,” p. 257.
141
40
Spelz
expedite the process of creating a law and allow the president to respond to situations in a
timely and appropriate manner. Unfortunately, it is a power which can be easily abused.
The new constitution allows the president to be elected for a second consecutive
term but no more in succession. Hugo Chávez has said, publicly and repeatedly, that he
wishes to remain in power until 2021,146 while his allies predict he will stay until 2030.147
This would require an alteration to the constitution or a complete disregard of it. Chávez
has already begun talk of having it changed. While using the mechanisms in place to
change the constitution is a good thing, the changes he wishes to make are not as
favorable. No constitution should be changed frequently to satisfy the wishes of one
person. Eventually, other leaders will take the presidency. Should anyone be allowed to
remain president for two decades or longer? Even a benevolent leader directing
government can stagnate a country or lose vision if given power for too long of a time.
The change would position the country for future abuses and injustices, exactly what
liberation theology is trying to change and avoid. It would reinforce Chávez as the sole
leader, not allowing others to participate: Freire’s admonition.
Chávez’s Popularity: Elections And Coercion
It is clear from the polls, rallies, and previous elections that Chávez holds the
majority of support in Venezuela. International organizations such as the Carter Center
have monitored elections and proclaimed them fair. For the most recent election, an
independent organization, Ipsos, conducted a poll for the Associated Press. They found
that 66% of those surveyed approve of Chávez’s government. “The poll showed that
although most Venezuelans see Chávez as authoritarian, they also overwhelmingly
approve of his social policies, which have given a voice to a vast underclass that had felt
forgotten under previous governments.”148 In the 2006 election, there was nearly 75%
voter turnout, and Chávez received almost 7.2 million votes out of roughly 11 million.149
The public has input into their government and the choice of their leaders – essential in
Freire’s and liberation theology’s philosophies. However, there are some questionable, if
not objectionable, situations and events in the country concerning the support of Chávez.
In November 2006, a month before the presidential election, Chávez distributed
$3 billion in Christmas bonuses for government workers. He claims the decision to
award them a month and a half early150 was to help ease the Christmas spending worries.
While a thoughtful sentiment, the appearance is that of vote buying. Not only were the
146
Ian James, “Oil Money Aids Venezuela’s Poor, for Now,” Washington Post, (22 November 2006 [cited
28 November 2006]),
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/22/AR2006112200252.html?referrer=emailarticle.
147
Foer, “The Talented Mr. Chávez,” p. 102.
148
Juan Forero, “Venezuela’s Chávez Wins Decisive Victory,” Washington Post, (4 December 2006 [cited
4 December 2006]),
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/03/AR2006120301173_pf.html.
149
Toothaker, “Chavez Snubs U.S. Overture for Dialogue,” Washington Post.
150
Juan Forero, “Setbacks for Venezuela’s Leader Embolden a Vigorous Opponent,” The Washington Post,
(World News Section, Sunday, 19 November 2006, A20), A20.
41
Spelz
bonuses early, but a free rock concert was held in Caracas, a free All-Star baseball game
was arranged, and the new extension of a public transit train for Caracas was opened and
free of charge until the New Year.151
Just weeks before the December 2006 presidential elections, the opposition
released a video taken of Rafael Ramírez, the head of PDVSA, the state oil company,
speaking to his managers, in which he tells them that the company supports the
revolution and Chávez. Ramírez is quoted saying, “Here, we are backing Chavez, who is
our leader, who is the leader of this revolution, and we will do everything we have to do
to support our president. Those who do not feel comfortable with that orientation, should
give their jobs to a Bolivarian.” Neither Ramírez nor the government denies or
apologizes for these statements. In fact, Chávez defended Ramírez, saying that this
speech should be given to the employees daily.152
These statements are no idle threat to many workers. In 2002 and 2003, some
PDVSA workers held a two-month long strike, which crippled the economy.153
Following that strike, 18,000 employees, approximately 45% of the PDVSA’s
personnel,154 including executives, were fired. Many, if not most, of the employees were
allied with the opposition. Hard-liners within Chávez’s party were calling for more
dismissals within the oil industry.155 Since these workers were sacked, they have had
great difficulty in finding employment, to the extent that they have been blacklisted in the
industry. “Not only are they denied government jobs, but the discrimination even
extends to private contractors and foreign oil companies, which risk losing their contracts
with the government if they employ the former oil workers.”156
Similarly, in 2004’s referendum petition, “a list of petitioners’ names and national
identification numbers mysteriously appeared on the Web site of a pro-Chávez
congressman named Luis Tascón.” It became known as the “Tascón List.” Afterwards,
passports, government contracts, and even welfare were being denied to the signers.157
In general, this seems to be the case concerning any strong or threatening stance taken
against Chávez. “There is also credible anecdotal evidence of the existence of lists of
individuals’ votes that have been used to deny Chávez’s opponents jobs and services.”158
From these events and climate came another interesting result from the recent Ipsos poll:
151
Rory Carroll and Daniel Cancel, “Goodies galore as Venezuelan presidential rivals vie for votes,” The
Guardian Unlimited, (26 October 2006 [cited 28 November 20060),
http://www.guardian.co.uk/venezuela/story/0,,1931471,00.html.
152
“Storm over Venezuela oil speech,” BBC -ews, (4 November 2006, [cited 27 November 2006]),
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6114682.stm.
153
Ibid.
154
Christian Parenti, “Venezuela’s Revolution and the Oil Company Inside,” -ACLA Report on the
Americas, (vol.39, no.4, Jan/Feb 2006, pp. 8-13), p. 9.
155
Steve Ellner, “Revolutionary and Non-Revolutionary Paths of Radical Populism: Directions of the
Chavista Movement in Venezuela,” Science & Society, (Vol. 6, No. 2, April 2005, pp.160-190), p. 170.
156
Phil Gunson, “Chávez’s Venezuela,” Current History: A Journal of Contemporary World Affairs, (vol.
105, no. 688, February 2006, pp. 58-63), p. 60.
157
Franklin Foer, “The Talented Mr. Chávez,” p. 102.
158
Michael Shifter, “The Real Hugo Chávez,” Foreign Affairs, (Vol. 85, No. 3, May/June 2006, pp. 45-59),
p. 48.
42
Spelz
“57 percent of Venezuelans believed that voters who did not support the president might
suffer from retaliation.”159
Such tactics are entirely unacceptable to liberationist Freire or those within
liberation theology; they are being threatened into making a specific choice, a choice for
Chávez. These are methods of dictators and authoritarian regimes. Freire stresses that
revolutions must use methods different from those of the oppressor’s system. Even if the
intent is to help the public make the “best choice” it is not liberating them by forcing that
choice upon them. People are to be educated to see the oppression around them.
Conscientization will allow them to make choices which they believe will liberate them
more. Instead, the leaders are telling the citizens what to do and how to think as is
mirrored in banking education. The people are not being developed for critical thinking
and choosing. Liberation theology would point to the human dignity being undermined
by such actions; the inequality is socially unjust. Neither Freire nor liberation theology
would agree to silencing people’s voices and opinions. Rather, they should be
encouraged, even if it means disagreement, so that real dialogue can occur. Then,
collectively, they can work towards solutions. It does not mean that everyone will agree,
but that they can all participate and be unified.
In May 2004, Chávez had the support of the National Assembly, which was
stacked with members of his party. Using their voting power, Chávez received their
consent to enlarge the number of Supreme Court justices by 12, from 20 to 32. He
packed the court “with handpicked political loyalists.”160 In a similar move, during the
beginning years of his term, Chávez created new field grade officer positions, nearly
doubling the number. These new positions allowed him to appoint officers loyal to him.
Closely related; “Venezuelan newspapers found direct evidence that 498 senior officers
were investigated regarding their personal lives[,] political leanings and loyalty to the
regime. The Chávez regime denies that the investigations were politically motivated
arguing that background checks of officers are routine.” The government also points out
that the promotion rate is the same for both pro- and anti-Chávez supporters; however,
the vast majority of officers in that statistic do not take a public, political position, so
which political leanings were found in the background search is unknown.161 Despite the
government’s claims of multi-partisanship, after the 2002 coup, Chávez replaced 60
generals and got “rid of the entire upper reaches of the armed forces.” His biographer,
Richard Gott, admits, “So the people running the army today are absolutely unconditional
supporters of Chavez.”162
Interestingly, one of the generals of the 2002 coup is now in Chávez’s cabinet as
minister of defense, for which Chávez has received a lot of criticism. He explains in an
159
“Mr. Chávez’s Victory,” Washington Post, (Editorial Section, 8 December 2006, A38, [cited 11
December 2006]),
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/07/AR2006120701576_pf.html.
160
Shifter, “The Real Hugo Chávez,” p. 48.
161
Ronald D. Sylvia and Constantine P. Danopoulos, “The Chávez phenomenon: political change in
Venezuela,” Third World Quarterly, (Vol. 24, No. 1, 2003, pp. 63-76), pp. 72-73.
162
Richard Gott and Julian Brookes, “hugo chávez and the bolivarian revolution,” Mother Jones, (4
October 2005 [cited 5 December 2006]), http://www.motherjones.com/news/qa/2005/09/richard_gott.html.
43
Spelz
interview with Marta Harnecker that having listened to the general’s story, he believes
that the general was lied to in order to get his participation. Today, he is now more than
ever loyal to Chávez. The general’s contrition for his actions has paved the way for
forgiveness and reconciliation of the two. Not an isolated case, many involved with the
attempted coup were admonished and then pardoned.163
Freire and liberation theology would praise the dialogue and forgiveness which
allowed this reconciliation to take place. Everyone has a place within society. Each
must be allowed to participate. Some liberation theologians discuss the importance of
reconciliation and forgiveness, as the Gospel stories have Jesus frequently forgiving
sinners. For liberation theologians, reconciliation and forgiveness are necessary to have
an inclusive and functioning society. A liberated society must allow diversity and
multiculturalism, particularly in opinions. A monolithic society cannot exist; no two
people can agree all the time on everything. This says nothing of a country of millions;
thus a monolithic country cannot be truly liberated – some people’s voices are being
silenced. Forgiveness and understanding must be present to allow diverse opinions and
methods, because, inevitably, people will offend or hurt others, even if not intentionally.
Despite this favoritism by Chávez’s party and suppression of opposition, the
majority seems to honestly and ardently support Chávez. Perhaps that has to do with the
number of social programs Chávez has initiated. He calls these programs “Missions.”
Over the last three years, Chávez has spent $20 billion from oil revenues on these social
programs to address the extensive poverty in Venezuela.164 Because of these programs,
the lives of the poor have changed:
millions of people now receive free medical care, 1.3 million have learned
to read and an estimated 35 – 40% of the population now shops at the
price-subsidized government-owned markets.
Elementary school
enrollment has increased by more than a million because schools now
offer free food to students. Land reform is underway in both the
countryside and the slums.165
While most Venezuelans struggle to get by and rely on the handouts from the
government, their quality of life has improved. Perhaps more importantly, they feel that
the government is now paying attention to them and they have hope that their lives will
improve. Chávez is giving them respect as people; they are no longer forgotten.
163
Chávez and Harnecker, Understanding the Venezuelan Revolution, pp. 91-96.
Shifter, “The Real Hugo Chávez,” p. 50.
165
Christian Parenti, “Venezuela’s Revolution and the Oil Company Inside.” p. 9.
164
44
Spelz
Social Programs
One such mission is known as “Barrio Adentro.”166 Chávez arranged with Cuban
President Fidel Castro to have their teachers and doctors sent to work for free (with their
stipend being paid by Cuba) in Venezuela in exchange for approximately 90,000 barrels
of oil a day.167 The 12,000 doctors168 work in poor communities to provide free public
health care in clinics; over 2,100 have been built for this program. As a result, the infant
mortality rate is decreasing. However, many other health problems, such as malaria169
and dysentery, exist and are even on the rise, because the situations creating these
diseases are not being treated.170
In addition to this health care assistance, Chávez has had 44 hospitals renovated,
and 600 diagnostic centers built. A new state-of-the-art, public cardiac hospital for
children was opened in Caracas. The Venezuelan Medical Federation criticizes these
expenditures, saying they desperately need supplies to treat patients in public hospitals;
many of the tools that they use are dull and out-of-date, while there are not enough
medicines available. These basic necessities, tools, supplies, staffing, and medicine, need
to be the highest priority, after which renovations need to be made, and then new
hospitals and centers can be built. They say that “patients at many public hospitals are
still forced to wait weeks or even months for surgeries in dilapidated buildings that are
just beginning to be fixed up.”171 These are the infrastructure changes that would create a
better health care system, as opposed to being dependent on Cuban doctors who only
have clinics, not fully outfitted hospitals, to treat patients. While the clinics are new, the
hospitals are in disrepair and under-equipped and -supplied.
Teachers from Cuba, as well as some from Venezuela, are involved in the mission
plan for literacy, “Mission Robinson.” In 2004, Hugo Chávez proudly announced that
illiteracy had been eliminated, based on the UN definition that literacy means having less
than 5% of the population illiterate. Mission Robinson targeted adults and teenagers who
missed out on schooling as a child. The government claimed that the Mission Robinson
had taught approximately 1,230,000 people to read at a basic level.172
Mission Robinson II picked up from there and continues today. The goal is to
educate adults up to the level of sixth grade. In 2004, approximately 900,000 people
were enrolled in the program. From there, Mission Ribas educates Venezuelans through
166
Steve Ellner, “Revolutionary and Non-Revolutionary Paths of Radical Populism: Directions of the
Chavista Movement in Venezuela,” Science & Society, (Vol. 6, No. 2, April 2005, pp.160-190), pp. 183184.
167
Shifter, “The Real Hugo Chávez,” p. 52.
168
Ellner, “Revolutionary and Non-Revolutionary Paths of Radical Populism,” pp. 183-184.
169
Elizabeth M. Nunez, “Chavez Touts Health Care Ahead of Vote,” Washington Post, (24 November
2006 [cited 28 November 2006]),
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/24/AR2006112400687_pf.html.
170
Cambero, “Venezuela vote raises few hopes in Amazon state.”
171
Nunez, “Chavez Touts Health Care Ahead of Vote.”
172
Robyn Marshall, “VENEZUELA: ‘We have eliminated illiteracy’,” Green Left Weekly, (7 July 2004
[cited 4 December 2006]), http://www.greenleft.org.au/2004/588/32230.
45
Spelz
the end of high school so that they can receive their high school qualification, essentially
like the U.S. GED certificate. The government claims that almost 1.5 million are
participating in the program, of which the government is helping with 100,000
scholarships.173
The three aforementioned education programs are directed towards adults, but the
chavista government did not forget the children. All-day schooling returned after a more
than 30-year absence. The students now have supervision all day instead of, as many
children had, a half day of school and time in an empty house as parents worked. All
public school students receive breakfast, lunch and afternoon tea. This is an important
incentive and assistance for the poor.174
In addition to the literacy and education campaigns, the chavista government
sponsors a music program that has existed for the past 30 years. Known as “the System,”
school children who join the program learn to play an instrument.
Its primary
participants are poor children from the barrios. This provides an alternative to idle, often
unsupervised, free-time in which to get into trouble. It also keeps the children off the
dangerous, violent streets.175 The students tackle selections of classical music rather than
learning little ditties and easy tunes. The program is hugely popular. Practice is
communal and fun. The children grow within the System and are allowed to take on
more responsibilities such as learning to conduct or teach. The program is “producing –
and exporting – musicians of extraordinary quality.”176
The founder of the System, Maestro Abreu said, “Our ideal is of a country in
which art is within the reach of every citizen so that we can no longer talk about art being
the property of the elite, but the heritage of the people.” While not initiated by him,
“because of its perceived success, President Hugo Chavez has deemed it in tune with the
socialist-revolutionary times.” The System receives $29 million a year “and it is seen as
a flagship of national achievement, with children from youth orchestras frequently
accompanying the comandante [Hugo Chávez] on his excursions as head of state.” The
System is a distinguished program of which the country and the president are exceedingly
proud.177
Another social program Chávez initiated is state subsidized grocery stores Mercal.
Millions rely on these markets to feed their families for about half the normal cost.
Unfortunately the stores are known to run out of staples. Nonetheless, the poor
appreciate the assistance. They are still poor but “getting by is easier today than when
Chavez was elected in 1998.”178
173
Marshall, “VENEZUELA: ‘We have eliminated illiteracy’.”
Ibid.
175
Charlotte Higgins, “Land of hope and glory,” The Guardian Unlimited, (24 November 2006 [cited 27
November 2006]), http://arts.guardian.co.uk/filmandmusic/story/0,,1955176,00.html.
176
Ibid.
177
Ibid.
178
James, “Oil Money Aids Venezuela’s Poor, for Now.”
174
46
Spelz
Freire and liberation theology would endorse Chávez’s inclusion of the poor and
attempt to raise the quality of life. Freire’s personal dedication to adult literacy would
place the Robinson and Ribias Missions close to his heart; however, they do not appear to
use conscientization techniques, a crucial component of Freire’s program. Equally
important, these programs, no matter how benevolent, were bestowed upon the people by
Chávez and his few advisors. This exemplifies the banking process as well as the neglect
of praxis. The Chávez administration has no ongoing reflection on the methods being
employed, at least none that have resulted in actions to modify or adjust the programs to
make them more efficient and effective. This may be attributed to the lack of real public
discussion on the programs.
Meanwhile, the emphasis on the poor’s humanity and right to life (through basic
health care and food programs) adheres to liberation theology’s quintessential principals.
Liberation theology emphasizes attacking the root of social problems (the symptoms) by
focusing on the structure (the cause). In the case of education, these programs are
helping the poor to get the skills to improve their life – get jobs, stay informed of events,
etc. Unfortunately, there are no programs to fix the pollution (stewardship), to vaccinate
against preventable diseases, to educate on proper nutrition, or to ensure children are not
malnourished or mineral/vitamin deficient (right to life). Such programs would prevent
many illnesses and deaths. The health clinics help treat existing problems; thus, they are
important and necessary, but they cannot change the structure and causes as liberation
theology’s social justice demands.
Freire and liberation theology are both concerned with creating a just society.
One indicator of a just program is its sustainability and proportion to the problem within
society. Subsidized markets meet an immediate need, but other markets are undermined
and put out of business because they cannot compete with the prices of the government
markets. This creates unemployment. Too many people are dependant on the subsidized
food and their situation to afford unsubsidized groceries is not being substantially
changed. The job market has not increased. Essentially, the people dependant on the
market will remain dependant on it. Liberation theology recognizes the immediate need
for food that these people have, but calls for the program to be coupled with other
effective programs which will increase the need for labor, creating self-sufficiency.
Corruption
Corruption is a major problem and a great concern of the people in Venezuela.
Even Chávez admits it: “I recognize that we still have a long way to go on that issue,
nothing remarkable has been accomplished in combating corruption, nothing that could
be called substantial or defining. But I also don’t think things are worse now than they
were before.”179 He goes on to say that the old laws and loopholes exist so it is very
difficult to get a conviction for corruption.180
179
180
Chávez and Harnecker, Understanding the Venezuelan Revolution, p. 63.
Ibid, p. 64.
47
Spelz
An open and inclusive society is based on dialogue which is based on trust and
honesty. Corruption is an antithesis of this. Freire would stress the need to rid the
government of corruption so as to have an open dialogue. Liberation theology points out
the injustice of corruption; it is a roadblock to a socially just society and to liberation.
International Cooperation
Corruption is a means of manipulation, but not the only means. Many critics of
the chavista government claim that Chávez is using other forms of manipulation to
increase Venezuelan influence on the global stage. Staying predominantly in the Latin
American region, Chávez is using oil and oil revenues to create economic partnerships
and strategic alliances. He wants Venezuela to be an important country in the
international arena. José Toro-Hardy, the former PDVSA director, said, “Oil is being
used to create or even buy a Venezuelan sphere of influence in Latin America and the
Caribbean.”181 Under the program Petrocaribe, Venezuela had agreed “to provide
198,000 barrels of oil a day to 13 Caribbean nations.” The agreement gives the
governments’ up to 40% of it in “soft” financing.182 Some of the countries also pay in
agriculture products or other products such as Cuba trades with the doctors: “we have set
up a system of shipping cheap oil to other Latin American countries, in return for
agriculture and industrial products or even medical services.”183 Toro-Hardy’s previous
position within the oil company would suggest he knows the rationale behind the recent
trade with their neighbors; however, Chávez has openly championed the Bolivarian ideal
of a more united Latin America. Chávez touts the necessities of the commonality of the
countries and the importance of cooperation to solve problems and pursue global
interests. This could be, as Chávez would suggest, one step in the process. It can also be
viewed as an alternative economy, whereby the criticized methods of the foreign
oppressors are not being used; other methods are being developed. Venezuela can also
be seen as creating other countries’ dependencies on its oil, giving Venezuela leverage
for manipulation. True intentions are difficult to determine without hard evidence on
this subject.
In line with this cooperation, Chávez has many joint projects with Brazil. The
two countries, primarily paid for by Venezuela, have recently completed one bridge over
the Orinoco River to increase trade between the countries. Another bridge is planned,
both contracted to Brazilian companies, as was the expansion of the Caracas subway
system.184
Other regional cooperation includes a natural gas pipeline, which would extend
from Patagonia through Brazil to Venezuela, which is being discussed. Still on the
181
Greg Morsbach, “Venezuela basks in oil ‘bonanza’,” BBC -ews, (17 February 2006 [cited 27 November
2006]), http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/hi/americas/4713404/stm.
182
Shifter, “The Real Hugo Chávez,” p. 52.
183
Morsbach, “Venezuela basks in oil ‘bonanza’.”
184
“Brotherly love: A growing bond between Brazil and Venezuela,” The Economist, (November 17, 2006,
Economist Intelligence Unit ViewsWire, [cited 20 November 2006]),
http://www.economist.com/daily/news/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8190742.
48
Spelz
drawing board, the project would cost approximately $20 billion, and would solve most
of the energy demand of those countries involved.
Additionally, Venezuela joined
Mercosur in July 2006. This regional organization, founded by Brazil, Argentina,
Uruguay, and Paraguay, is a customs union.185 These same countries are key to the new
energy organization Petrosur, which Chávez is hoping to begin and has agreed to
primarily bankroll.186 As a response to the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA),
supported by the Bush administration in the U.S., Chávez proposed the Bolivarian
Alternative for the Americas (ALBA), an alliance that includes the U.S.187 Chávez
explains its task:
We are going to integrate with an eye toward solving the problems we
have in common – housing is one of them. We are going to see how we
can solve that problem in all our countries. Together we can do much
more than any one can do alone.
Poverty, unemployment, the debt – we are going to figure out how to
come together and tell the world: here we are, we have a common
problem, and here is how we want to work on solving it. But if we all go
it alone, we will not accomplish anything.188
Again, it would be the regional governments working together to solve their social and
economic problems, whereas the FTAA is feared by Latin America to cause more social
inequality because the U.S. economy is much stronger and not in relative parity with the
Latin American economies.
Finally, Chávez has pointed to economic imperialism by the West, the U.S. in
particular, as suppressing and sabotaging the Third World. Chávez has proposed that, of
the foreign debt payments which Latin American countries make to the IMF and World
Bank, 10% would be channeled into an “International Humanitarian Fund.” The fund
would be allocated to social programs but would not have the usual control stipulations
that the IMF and World Bank normally apply to loans.189 To emancipate Venezuela from
the IMF loans and control, Chávez has threatened to default on payments if he saw the
well-being of the people jeopardized. While he has not done this, he has loaned money to
other South American governments to pay off their IMF debts. For example, Argentina
used $1 billion from Venezuela to pay off the IMF loans. Interestingly, “Argentina will
end up paying Venezuela more than twice the interest rate that it had been paying the
IMF.” The advantage of not having IMF economic demands which come along with any
IMF loan, are worth the higher interest to Argentina. “Chávez has also offered to buy
$300 million of Ecuador’s debt, and is providing aid and lending to Bolivia.”190 While
185
“Brotherly love: A growing bond between Brazil and Venezuela.”
Shifter, “The Real Hugo Chávez,” p. 52.
187
Steve Ellner, “Venezuela: Defying Globalization’s Logic,” -ACLA Report on the Americas, (Vol. 39,
No. 2, Sept/Oct 2005, pp. 20-24), p. 22.
188
Chávez and Harnecker, Understanding the Venezuelan Revolution, p. 113.
189
Ellner, “Venezuela: Defying Globalization’s Logic,” p. 22.
190
Foer, “The Talented Mr. Chávez,” p. 104.
186
49
Spelz
possibly a selfless act, the fear by many other governments is that these loans will later be
used as leverage for future international plans which need support.
Venezuela’s regional cooperation initiatives are significant steps taken towards
improved relations and an alternative to the existing paradigm. Methodology changes
must be implemented in order to be liberated, according to Freire. This is an attempt;
only time will tell whether such economic initiatives support liberation. A legitimate
concern of critics is whether Chávez is installing methods for future control over the
region or whether this is a genuine attempt at mutual aid. The potential for abuse exists.
Will there be safeguards put in place? It is hard to tell at such an early stage. Some of
the programs, such as Venezuela holding Argentina’s debt, are much more open to abuse
than the building projects with Brazil. Clearly, Freire and liberation theology would
never agree with any form of manipulation, blackmail, or inequality of power because
these would be social injustices.
Chávez’s trade deals have not been limited to Latin America. One is with Spain
for the purchase for the military of 8 patrol boats and 12 transport planes for $2 billion.191
Another new deal Chávez has arranged involves buying arms from Rosobornexport,
Russia’s state arms dealer. In Summer 2006, Chávez met with Russian President
Vladimir Putin to arrange the sale of 24 military planes and 53 attack helicopters. In an
earlier meeting with Putin, they agreed to license the production of AK-47s in
Venezuela.192 In Venezuela, the violent crime rate is relatively high (murder is up 67%
under Chávez),193 and there are problems with Colombian groups stealing oil on the
western border, but these new arms are not the best weapons for deterring and stopping
these crimes. Chávez has decided to arm citizen militia groups with the AK-47s, 100,000
newly purchased.194 Prevailing wisdom of today states that more small arms, particularly
unregulated in the hand of citizens, leads to more violence. More weapons in the hands
of citizens do not make them safer. Chávez claims the militia groups need arms to
defend the country. In particular, he fears a U.S. invasion similar to Iraq to depose him
as leader. In such a case, he claims he and the Venezuelan people would take the fighting
to the hills and create a guerilla insurgency which he calls Plan Ché, in honor of
revolutionary Ché Guevara.
While Chávez does view U.S. (military and political) involvement in Venezuela
as a threat, Freire and liberation theology would question the harm these weapons bring
in stifling dialogue.
Both would argue that maintaining open and inclusive
communication is very difficult. Weapons as a solution to frustration or a quick answer
to removing the inhibitor are easy. The temptation to use violence frequently wins out, as
is evidenced throughout the world. Liberation theology would also question the justice of
191
“Venezuela signs Spain arms deal,” BBC -ews, (28 November 2005 [cited 11 December 2006]),
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/4479280.stm.
192
Nick Paton Walsh, “Moscow snubs US to sell arms to Venezuela,” The Guardian, (28 July 2006 [cited
29 November 2006]), http://www.guardian.co.uk/venezuela/story/0,,1832194,00.html.
193
“Mr. Chávez’s Victory,”Washington Post.
194
Foer, “The Talented Mr. Chávez,” p. 97.
50
Spelz
spending so much on weapons when issues such as malnutrition and contaminated
drinking water need attention.
Finally, both Freire and liberation theology are cautious in making violence an
option or even increasing its use. In fact, many, though not all, within liberation theology
view it as an illegitimate means of liberation. Freire’s philosophy of liberation
emphasizes the importance of creating a new paradigm by using the new societal values
and methods throughout the liberation process and not using the oppressors’ methods for
control. Violence is a key for maintaining power and domination employed by the
oppressors. Therefore, it should not be a legitimate technique for liberation.
Chávez criticizes the U.S. for being oppressive and interfering with other
countries, politically and economically. The U.S., which he calls “the empire,” is the
oppressor to Chávez and many others in Latin America. Unfortunately, while he
denounces these techniques, Chávez has been trying to influence elections throughout
Latin America – not to the same extent as the U.S does, but nonetheless influencing.
For instance, during Mexico’s election campaigns in early 2006, Chávez
“denounced Fox [the then current and outgoing president of Mexico] as a ‘lapdog of the
empire’.” He was trying to use the media attention to sway Mexican public opinion from
the Fox endorsed candidate to that of the socialist candidate, Andrés Manuel López
Obrador.195 Chávez openly supported Obrador and hoped that he would soon have a new
ally running Mexico. This did not end up the case; Obrador lost in a close election.
In November 2006, Chávez’s ally in Nicaragua, Daniel Oretga, was more
successful. Venezuela sent 350,000 barrels of oil to Nicaragua in October. “The heavy
diesel was intended to alleviate power cuts in the impoverished central [sic] American
country and to show the benefits of friendship with Venezuela’s president, Hugo
Chávez.” Chávez openly backed Ortega, who is a critic of the U.S.196 Again, Freire is
clear about not using the methods of the oppressors, or else liberation has not occurred,
one oppressor replaced another. In this case, Chávez is replacing the U.S.’s manipulation
with himself. While the U.S. is still influencing the situation, Chávez and Venezuela are
hoping to eventually push the U.S. completely out of Latin American politics. His
involvement in the political situations of Nicaragua and Mexico are nowhere near that of
the U.S.’s historic involvement. All the same, Freire would say such actions are neither
liberating nor revolutionary.
Dialogue And Communication
Another worrying trend in Venezuela is the lack of open dialogue. While there is
some criticism of the government, and the poor have voiced their opinions in
195
Foer, “The Talented Mr. Chávez,” p. 96.
Rory Carroll, “Chávez sends oil to boost Ortega’s election bid in Nicaragua,” The Guardian Unlimited,
(10 October 2006 [cited 27 November 2006]),
http://www.guardian.co.uk/venezuela/story/0,,1891640,00.html.
196
51
Spelz
demonstrations and referendums, many within the country feel there is a lack of
discussion. Chávez proposes ideas and initiatives and the poor assent. No real dialogue
exists even to tweak programs. If there is real disagreement, groups are not having
constructive dialogues; at most they are having shouting and name-calling matches.
Teodoro Petkoff, an editor at a large Venezuelan newspaper, says, “This is a country in
which the opposition and the government do not speak to each other at all. That is very
dangerous.”197
Clearly some are feeling disenfranchised, frustrated, and even angry. This is not
how liberation theology or Freire purport to liberate a society. Everyone needs to be
included; everyone needs to feel included. Dialogue is imperative. Unfortunately, right
now the middle class is being left out; in fact, they are being squeezed out; the middle
class is declining. The poor are slowly moving out of poverty (not out of the lower class,
though), and the rich are becoming richer,198 but the middle class is disappearing. They
are losing their jobs, due in part, to the social programs. When services are subsidized,
the poor will not go to a business that charges the cost plus a small profit. A doctor who
recently had to shut down his practice says, “I have never seen such levels of hatred in
Venezuela before. There is a lot of fear.”199
Along with the lack of internal dialogue, Venezuela is barely on speaking terms
with the U.S., its main adversary. Chávez frequently uses antagonistic, baiting language
when referring to the U.S. For instance, he calls the U.S. “the empire,” U.S. President
Bush “the devil,” “asshole,” or “Mr. Danger,” and U.S. Secretary of State Rice
“illiterate.”200 None of this inspires warm relations or creates an atmosphere for
dialogue.
Chávez uses a device that Freire strongly warns against – dichotomization.
“Chávez’s discourse, like that of the classical populists, frames conflict along the lines of
a “we verses they” dichotomy, thus aggravating political and social polarization.”201
Such rhetoric not only impedes cooperation but also encourages discord and fuels
belligerency. It is highly destructive to a fundamental element of Freire’s liberation
philosophy. Understandably, Venezuela has many historical and current grievances with
the U.S., but perpetuation of such dichotomizing language will not shore up the rift.
Chávez’s frustration is directed generally at multinational corporations, Western
governments and past U.S. government administrations, and, specifically, at the Bush
administration. He is not angry at the U.S. people. Instead, he has offered Venezuela’s
197
Nathalie Malinarich, “Venezuela: A nation divided,” BBC -ews (27 November 2006 [cited 27
November 2006]), http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/6179612.stm.
198
Rory Carroll, “Welcome to the Chávez revolution – where the rich keep getting richer,” The Guardian
Unlimited, (13 November 2006 [cited 27 November 2006]),
http://www.guardian.co.uk/venezuela/story/0,,1947026,00.html.
Nathalie Malinarich, “Venezuela’s middle class feels the squeeze,” BBC -ews, (29 November 2006
[cited 29 November 2006]), http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/6186990.stm.
199
Malinarich, “Venezuela’s middle class feels the squeeze.”
200
Foer, “The Talented Mr. Chávez,” p. 97.
201
Ellner, “Revolutionary and Non-Revolutionary Paths of Radical Populism,” p. 168.
52
Spelz
hand of friendship by offering aid to the victims of Hurricane Katrina and reduced cost
oil for heating to poor families in Boston, New York,202 and Washington, D.C. this
year.203 Being the opposite of his abrasive rhetoric, these actions help create good
feelings. If these actions are honest attempts at improving relations between the U.S. and
Venezuelan people, Freire would cheer such initiatives, and liberation theology would
applaud the assistance to satisfy a basic need of the poor. However, if these offers are
meant to undercut the U.S. government and to ingratiate him with the U.S. citizens for
later manipulation, then neither Freire nor liberation theology would accept such
methods. They are not techniques of liberation or peace but oppression.
The Chávez Personality
Hugo Chávez has the central role within the revolutionary movement and the
government. Clearly the leader, Chávez supporters call themselves chavistas and the
name of the movement and politics is called chavismo. He has a strong following, a fanclub, which borders on hero worship. A cult of personality following is building. His
charisma is undeniable. He speaks for hours on his Sunday television program, Aló
Presidente.204 Many chavistas have pictures of him in their homes and businesses.
Many Venezuelans depend on Chávez for leadership. They do not trust others to
continue helping and including the poor. Chávez, also, sees himself as the best leader.
He admits he does not like to follow, if he can lead. Additionally, he believes that the
people have appointed him to lead and thus it is his duty. He says:
I believe that was the only time I recognized someone else’s leadership [in
1992 while in prison and military officers were attempting a second coup],
because since then there has not been a similar situation. I am not the
leader because Hugo Chávez decided to be the leader. I came out of
prison to the street to see what was happening, to travel the country and
try and organize the people. In the process of accomplishing those tasks, a
natural leadership arose that I cannot capriciously delegate to another
person because of pressures or deals. I believe in natural leaders, not in
those that are imposed. And if I ever believe that my leadership has
weakened so much as to put the process at risk, and another leader arises, I
will not have any problem supporting that person, not any problem
whatsoever.205
While Chávez says that he would allow another to lead, he does not leave much space for
others to develop such capacity. Leadership, like any other skill, must be honed through
experience. The opportunity to really take chances and try new things is lacking in the
government under Chávez.
202
Morsbach, “Venezuela basks in oil ‘bonanza’.”
Citgo, TV commercial, NBC WRC Channel 4 Washington D.C., 10:21AM, 19 December 2006.
204
Chávez and Harnecker, Understanding the Venezuelan Revolution, pp. 148-152.
205
Ibid, p. 54.
203
53
Spelz
“The revolution is not complete” is the reason Chávez most frequently cites for
running for a third term. Somehow, he does not feel that there are other competent,
trustworthy, or revolutionary leaders in Venezuela who can take the movement forward
to liberate the people. It is good that there is not an obvious successor whom Chávez has
been grooming. That would demonstrate definitive signs of: hierarchy; favoritism; lack
of citizen participation; and authoritarianism – thus, proving the revolution to be
oppressive, not liberating. While no movement is expected to be perfect, or could it be, a
hand-picked success would show that Chávez has no intention of creating a liberated
country. Such an action would be directly contradicting his touted goal to ‘return control
of the government to the people.’206 In a liberation movement, every person should be
being trained in leadership and given space to lead. Some certainly would be better than
others but all should be encouraged to be active and to develop their abilities. Currently,
there is no obvious list of rising leaders which could recommend themselves to be a
successor, leaving Chávez essential to the revolution.
Freire cautions against making a movement that is reliant on one (or a few)
leader(s). This makes the movement difficult, if not impossible, to sustain. Also, it
means that the people are not being fully included in the process and are not being
empowered (and, thus liberated). Otherwise, the leader becomes the lynchpin and
everything falls apart when the lynchpin is pulled. Chávez cognitively knows this: “It
would be very unfortunate, sad, if a revolutionary process of change were to depend on a
caudillo [term historically used in Venezuela for rich, local strongmen, who wield power
as colonial dictators207]. The human being is so vulnerable.”208 Unfortunately, there is a
disconnect between knowledge and actions; his actions do not reflect his knowledge.
This exemplifies why Freire and liberation theology insist on integrating praxis into the
liberation process. Praxis combines knowledge with action through reflection by all
participants. With everyone engaging in praxis, theory and practices can be refined,
inaccuracies corrected, and discrepancies can be fixed.
206
Paraphrased, not a direct quote.
George S. Wise, Caudillo: A Portrait of Antonio Guzmán Blanco, (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press
Publishers, 1970), pp. ix-xi.
208
Chávez and Harnecker, Understanding the Venezuelan Revolution, p. 54.
207
54
Spelz
Chapter 6: COCLUSIO
Written in the 20th century, Paulo Freire’s philosophy of liberation and liberation
theology were developed by Latin Americans using their experience of oppression in
Latin America. Both grew organically, inspired by the poor, in order to address their
specific situation.
Comprehensive, these theories elucidate the importance of
methodology as well as results, keeping present the values of human dignity, equality,
respect, inclusion, and liberty, so that they are not compromised in the pursuit of
predetermined liberation structure. Predetermination neglects dialogue, growth, change,
and inclusion of all people. History is saturated with revolutionaries lost in tunnel-vision
for the goal or corrupted by power. Liberation theology and Freire emphasize practices
such as praxis and dialectic inclusion of all to prevent this. Tailored to the Latin
American context from which they grew, liberation theology and Freire’s philosophy
offer some of the best framework to evaluate Latin American liberation movements.
Both Freire’s philosophy and liberation theology share many fundamental
concepts. They stress the importance of conscientization of all people and insist upon the
inclusion of the poor and marginalized of society in a liberation movement and in a
liberated society. Freire particularly emphasizes the necessity of a dialectic relationship
within society, while liberation theology stresses the importance of solidarity and social
justice. For both, praxis is imperative to refine the process, ideology, and vision.
Continued reflection and action allows manifestations of the embedded oppression
structure to be revealed.
Analysis of the Venezuelan Bolivarian revolution illuminates both positives and
negatives in light of Freire and liberation theology. Chávez’s social programs to help the
poor, who make up approximately 80% of the Venezuelan population, are predominately
positive. They attempt to bring the most basic needs to the people so that they may
survive. The people have become more empowered with their vote, particularly because
of education on their constitutional rights through Chávez’s distribution of pocket-sized
books of the Constitution.209 The program to increase literacy now enables these same
people to read the Constitution and the news, to stay informed. It also allows them to
better participate within their government and be more active than they have ever been in
their society. Some of the programs do not work well with the infrastructure already in
place, such as is the case with the clinics and the health care system.210 Many of the
programs are causing problems because the subsidization is forcing small business
owners, unable to compete, to go out of business. Additionally, some, such as the
subsidized markets, are not very sustainable programs. They create more of a
dependency than a hand up out of poverty. Also, they are not sustainable in that the oil
profits are going to these programs and little is going to maintaining or improving the oil
209
210
Foer, “The Talented Mr. Chávez,” p. 102.
Nunez, “Chavez Touts Health Care Ahead of Vote.”
Marshall, “VENEZUELA: ‘We have eliminated illiteracy’.”
Ellner, “Revolutionary and Non-Revolutionary Paths of Radical Populism,” pp. 183-184.
55
Spelz
industry infrastructure, including transportation. Eventually things will be broken,
failing, and out of date within the oil industry; the profits will decrease and will have to
be diverted to fix the infrastructure.
The new constitution allowed the citizens to have a direct vote and become truly
involved in the process. The 1999 Constitution seems to have concentrated more power
in the executive branch. The Chávez administration has used this power to ensure that
the military and Supreme Court are active in chavismo by key appointments of chavistas
to the respective institutions. Chávez has used the strike and coup to oust opponents and
promote loyalty. These actions and the blacklists threatened employees, silenced many
dissenting voices, and stifled dialogue.
Chávez’s public language when discussing the U.S., prominent members of the
Bush administration, and his Venezuelan opponents, leaves the impression of hatred and
of an unwillingness to cooperate. It does not encourage dialogue and actually isolates the
parties. Since Freire views dialogue as being essential to liberation, he would admonish
such rhetoric. On the other hand, actions such as his offer of low cost gas to the poor in
various international cities, Freire would promote, along with Chávez’s regional
cooperation efforts. Liberation theology would also commend these efforts of solidarity
and attempts to create social justice.
Social justice is directly countermanded by the rampant corruption at all levels in
Venezuela. Corruption is manipulation of people. The unequal and unlawful abuse
applied does not fit with liberation theology’s CST principles. People are not treated as
equals with human dignity. The Bible stories of Jesus’ interactions with and reproach of
tax collectors, who used extortion, would set the example. Liberation theology would
also reprove the continuance of corruption. While Chávez admits the problem exists, not
much has been done. This cannot be allowed to continue from the vantage point of
liberation theology.
The arms deals with Russia and Spain, as well as the political meddling in Mexico
and Nicaragua, would not sit well with either liberation theology or Freire. Violence,
weapons, and election influencing are part of the structure of oppression. They are tools
that have been used and are being criticized by Chávez. Freire’s liberation philosophy
states that the methods of the oppressor cannot be used if there is to be a true
revolutionary movement and liberation. Liberation theology would reprove of spending
money on these things while Venezuela still has so much poverty. Neither of these
tactics encourages dialogue, but rather, encourages resentment and fear. Also, both
disrespect human dignity and the right to life, which are fundamental in liberation
theology.
It is rather hard to determine what Chávez’s true intentions and motivations are.
Critics always speculate manipulation; supporters always altruism. Chávez is a mixed
bag: personal rhetoric pleasant and ideological for the people, public rhetoric often
aggressive and antagonistic. His antics and congenial, charismatic personality have
created a following that is almost hypnotized by him. He is such a strong leader with a
56
Spelz
giant personality that in his shadow, no one has been able to grow substantially as a
leader. Chavismo seems fairly dependant on him. More people need to be allowed to
lead, so that they are participatory in the liberation, as Freire endorses.
Despite these things, the majority of Venezuelans truly want Chávez in power.
They expressed this in a fair election, where most Venezuelans voted. They are
exercising their right to participate in government, voicing their preference of leaders. Of
course, there could always be more participation of the people in government, and Freire
would say that praxis would help to refine this process to allow more input of the people.
Chávez likes to quote Mao Tse-tung, a 20th century Chinese guerrilla
revolutionary, “The people are to the army as the water is to the fish.”211 Freire also likes
this image of fish, but he says, “We need critical hope the way a fish needs unpolluted
water.”212 Among his people, Chávez is a fish in water, but he needs to continue working
with all Venezuelans in praxis, so that, they may one day be fish in unpolluted waters.
Perhaps the reason Chávez is so popular is that he gives the people hope. While
many recognize that he is not perfect, in fact the majority consider him at least a bit
authoritarian, he is the first government leader to show in word and deed his concern for
the poor. Some have never received help from the social programs Chávez has initiated.
Some realize that even with these, they are still in poverty, but it is Chávez’s outreach to
them that gives them hope for a brighter future. Freire cautions that hope, in and of itself,
is not enough. Freire writes:
On the other hand – while I certainly cannot ignore hopelessness as a
concrete entity, nor turn a blind eye to the historical, economic, and social
reasons that explain that hopelessness – I do not understand human
existence, and the struggle needed to improve it, apart from hope and
dream. . . . But the attempt to do without hope, in the struggle to improve
the world, as if the struggle could be reduced to calculated acts alone, or a
purely scientific approach, is a frivolous illusion. To attempt to do
without hope, which is based on the need for truth as an ethical quality of
the struggle, is tantamount to denying that struggle one of its mainstays.
The essential thing, as I maintain later on, is this: hope, as an ontological
need, demands an anchoring in practice. As an ontological need, hope
needs practice in order to become historical concreteness. That is why
there is no hope in sheer hopefulness. The hoped-for is not attained by
dint of raw hoping. Just to hope is to hope in vain.
Without a minimum of hope, we cannot so much as start the struggle. But
without the struggle, hope, as an ontological need, dissipates, loses its
bearings, and turns into hopelessness. And hopelessness can become
tragic despair.213
211
Chávez and Harnecker, Understanding the Venezuelan Revolution, p. 24.
Freire, Pedagogy of Hope, pp. 8-9.
213
Ibid, pp. 8-9.
212
57
Spelz
The people of Venezuela need truthful open relationships with their government and
within their society. Honest assessment of the liberation movement through analysis,
such as this thesis provided, allow the revolution to be truthful to its leadership and to the
populace. It assists in maintaining an open relation of dialogue. According to Freire, this
truth will nurture hope and encourage participation and action. Continued hope will fuel
the revolution, keeping it faithful to its goals and ideals and resetting the course if the
movement is deviating from its principles.
58