We are in the United Kingdom. The Prime Minister smokes Parliament and his party and posts a delirious, tearful message on Twitter, in which he announces that he will take five days paid leave to consider resigning, because he is angry that the press is accusing his wife, who he professes deep love, of influence peddling. This is information that neither he nor she had denied until that moment, nor did they consider it defamation.
To cover up his ruse, the British Prime Minister requests an official audience with Charles III. Immediately afterwards, his party organized a demonstration in support of the depressed leader, who clicked in to attend. During that march, she saw the second man in the British government go out of her mind, as he incited the crowds with a hysterical gesture The cheerleaderNot worthy of a minister. The leader continues to meditate. The party and journalists associated with it comment with great concern on the possibility of his departure. But then Monday comes and it all turns out to be a joke, a huge joke. Having finished his thought, the Prime Minister appears without questions before Number 10 to announce that everything remains as it is – again using the character of the King – and that he has come to power. Immediately afterwards, he begins a round of interviews with subservient and servile journalists, in which he announces a major campaign to control the critical press and judges. His party fired back by immediately harassing a respected journalist, one of the best in the UK.
What would happen in England if something like this happened? All media outlets – right, left and semi-retired – will scream in unison against the threats to the freedom of the press and judges. Journalists, of all ideologies and companies, will unite to defend their profession, as will their professional associations. The opposition will demand the prime minister. Intellectuals and television analysts may shout that what happened is unacceptable in a traditional democratic country like Britain. In rows the first show Many rebellious representatives will revolt against him in the harshest terms. The media, political and social pressure will be so great that the Prime Minister will be forced to resign within a few hours.
Now let’s imagine that all of the above is happening in Venezuela. What might happen? Journalists and state media will cooperate with the president in their harassment of critical media. Threats to democracy can be called, in Orwell’s euphemism, “essential measures for the renewal of democracy.”
The president’s party will begin referring to respected journalists by name and title, threatening them with condemnation for the unpardonable sin of freedom.
The President would gossip about everyone, and after threatening to resign, would declare that he intended to continue in office for as many years as necessary, without public opinion expressing the slightest complaint.
His party will remain silent about the ugly circus of false resignations and will support him in his threats to the pillars of democracy.
Journalists, surrendering to the Bolivarian regime, will remain silent in the face of the president’s bluster against freedom of the press and in the face of the persecution of their colleagues in power. There will not be a single high-ranking intellectual who can raise his voice (for fear that they will come after me later). Businessmen will remain silent, fearful, while the authoritarian project threatens to undermine the rule of law. The opposition may raise some noise and complaints, but it will not even go so far as to demand the resignation of those who propose curtailing freedoms to divert attention from the corruption surrounding their party.
Easy question: Who do you think we resemble more, English democracy or Venezuelan marazanism? actually. It’s amazing how we agreed to all this.
And what’s left…
“Subtly charming bacon junkie. Infuriatingly humble beer trailblazer. Introvert. Evil reader. Hipster-friendly creator.”