Thank you for giving me the opportunity to present my remarks to the Subcommittee on International Human Rights. I am here to give you my perspective as a university professor, therefore as a researcher and a teacher, on democracy and pluralism, particularly in Latin America. My role as Director of the Observatory of the Americas at Université du Québec à Montréal as well as my position as chief editor of the Canadian Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Studies inform my perspective on the region and on relations between Canada and the rest of the hemisphere.
On a more personal note, because I am appearing before you as an individual and not on behalf of the institutions I am professionally associated with, I would like to point out that because I lived under one of the barbaric military regimes in South America until I was 19 years old, I am very hesitant to politicize or instrumentalize the issue of human rights, because that ultimately trivializes it. If I have anything to contribute to your reflections and debates, it will be a modest contribution which may serve to add to the context.
Latin American nations were born two centuries ago with a revolutionary promise of equality and liberty but the majority of their populations have experienced mainly exclusion or oppression. Latin America is the region in the so-called third world with the longest history of fighting for social justice and yet it is now the region where there is the most inequality on the planet with respect to the concentration of wealth. That is why superficial speeches, moral lessons, and generic categories are rarely useful to understand Latin American reality. Furthermore they are an affront to Latin Americans themselves.
Am I saying that the notion of human rights has to be adjusted or adapted in order to be applicable to Latin America? Not at all. But we absolutely do have to agree on our definitions and apply them consistently before passing judgment. You'll understand that the picture I am giving you of Venezuela in terms of human rights is neither black nor white. It goes without saying that several recent events in the country have been extremely troubling, especially with respect to the restriction of freedom of expression and the weakening of the separation between executive, legislative and judicial authorities. This can all be connected to the personality cult around the president.
The fact that some observers are interpreting these problems in light of the Venezuelan government's ideology or foreign policy is in my view questionable. It is clear to me, as it is for many specialists in Latin American policy that these troubling departures, contrary to a true democracy, are not necessarily exclusive to or associated with left-wing regimes. I will not attempt to justify to you the obviously populist side to the president, Hugo Chávez, by stating that even in the most developed western societies, from France to Italy to the United States, the blurring of politics and electoral marketing, partisan control of information, questionable management of public finances, demagogy or the demonization of one's adversaries have unfortunately become all too common. In the Latin American context, messianic presidencies, supported by the people but authoritarian in how they are exercised, and intent on staying in power forever, have an annoying habit of repeating themselves, in various shapes, whether they be conservative, neo-liberal or socialist.
I will repeat: the human rights situation in Venezuela is of concern in several ways. I don't need to repeat the list of incidents that have attracted your attention since the beginning of your deliberations. There are essentially three main themes to understand.
First, there is the political sphere itself. The Chávez government is using its parliamentary majority to achieve its goals and it is not afraid of pushing the limits of what is legitimate or of reinterpreting what is legal to its own advantage. It goes without saying that in our ideal democratic world we use negotiation and compromise, but it seems to me that politics in Venezuela, even if you take into account the numerous blunders and the climate of aggressiveness that has overtaken relations with the opposition, are still acceptable in light of regional standards. In other words, it is my opinion, which is informed by, among other things, very respected sources such as PROVEA and Red de Apoyo, that institutional life in Venezuela is facing considerable challenges and has significant shortcomings, but that does not give us the right to declare from outside the country that this democracy, more than others in Latin America, is in imminent danger.
The second main theme is that of Mr. Chávez's inflammatory rhetoric. Far be it from me to minimize the significance of the gaffes of a president on a public stage who insults some and hurls abuse at others. Combative words from a charismatic leader, we know very well, can become, in some people, an authorization for pernicious behaviour. The cases of intimidation that the Venezuelan Jewish community have been a victim of were raised in your exchanges and were also the subject of very severe criticisms in the latest report of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. Of course, we have to be vigilant about this situation but it would be a mistake to speak of a persecuted or systematically disregarded minority, or to give the impression that Venezuelan society has become intolerant. The Jewish community in Venezuela is well integrated into national life and actively participates in the rich culture of the country, and plays an important role in many civilian society organizations.
I would say then that these two themes—the actions of a government that has firm control of power and benefits from significant popular support and is sometimes pushing the limits, flirting with political illegitimacy and engaging in combative speech, and, under certain conditions, stirs up tension in society and even encourages some excited individuals to act—are no doubt relevant in a discussion of the situation in Venezuela but they do not prove that this country stands out completely compared to the others in this region.
It is also necessary to understand that the role of the media in Venezuela, and throughout Latin America, must be examined beyond the over-simplified view that the private sector is the only guarantee of a diversity of voices. Media issues are very complex and include political as well as economic dimensions.
The third theme, however, is more problematic. Here I'll be referring obviously to intimidation, harassment, censorship and punishment that target certain members of the opposition, critical journalists, or quite simply citizens who openly express their disagreement with the government. In my opinion I still don't think there is any reason to talk about a repressive regime or general political violence or extra-judicial coercion. It is however clear that the expression of dissident or challenging views, which are fundamental issues in a democracy, have become more fragile in Venezuela.
When citizens to do not support the broad objectives of their government, whether it be a war against the axis of evil or a Bolivarian revolution, when citizens are called anti-patriotic or traitors, democracy suffers, but when social protest is arbitrarily criminalized, when individuals are singled out by those in power because of their opinion or when accusations of a political nature are made against opponents, while cloaking the whole operation in a type of legality, there must be a firm response on the part of civilian society and the international community. Canada must never remain indifferent when this type of transgression takes place in Latin America, regardless of the party in power.
Before I conclude I would like to talk about something I alluded to at the beginning of my opening remarks, the issue of definitions and priorities. I stated that I do not at all support human rights being contextualized. A violation is a violation, regardless of the historical or cultural context, but the absolute nature of fundamental rights does not give us the right to simplistic interpretations. Thus, the Economic Commission for Latin America—the ECLA—that prestigious United Nations organization whose headquarters are in Chile, suggested a holistic approach in 2007 to assess the situation of a community, using indicators that measure, among other things, the right to life, to health, to fertility and family choices, to dignity, to intimacy, etc. That approach is absolutely in line with human security, a key element in Canada's foreign policy in the 1990s. Human security combines the protection of fundamental freedoms with the battle against economic hardship and it tries to strike a balance between individual rights and collective well-being, between material needs and cultural or identity imperatives.
Do I have five minutes left? I can conclude if you give me two more minutes.
