Politics ROBERTO GIUSTI
EL UNIVERSAL

The president of the Commission for State Reform (Copre) from 1986 to 1989, Arnoldo José Gabaldón does not hesitate to say that the changes bolstered by that agency have been crucial to prevent "this system from turning into dictatorship." Worried about the youth's short memory, Gabaldón reminds us that Copre managed to introduce reforms resulting in direct election of state governors and mayors, and political and administrative decentralization, which is still effective despite the efforts at wiping it out. From this perspective, the former Minister of the Environment and a professor at Simón Bolívar University (USB) analyzes the significance of the local election to be held next November 23rd. "We are starting to harvest the result of an incipient democratic culture that settled down 50 years ago. People realized that they could not allow for the everlasting election of a president, or damaged private property, or state exacerbated intervention. Such an approach has widened up and will be present at the time of casting the ballot."

What is the use of being a state governor who would be subject to a local authority appointed by the president?

Candidates for state governors and mayors should give solutions to their voters' specific problems, but, above all, should cling to decentralization and work on deepening it.

Do not you think that the struggle for decentralization should include a coherent, convincing alternative to President Hugo Chávez's project?

These ten years, in addition to recovering a wide array of issues agreed upon nationwide, have allowed to setting strategies and clearer goals on the way to be taken once we overcome the Chávez problem. Therefore, I am not afraid of his departure. The country is quite prepared because it is aware, has pondered on the mistakes made in order not to repeat them and knows the way towards true modernization.

There is consensus concerning rejection of Chávez's process, but is there a clear concept of what is wanted, beyond a notion of democracy?

Venezuelans do not want a merely formal democracy, but a process able to perfect and deepen the concept in the face of social phenomena and movements. It is worth mentioning that we need a system based on market economy, including respect for private property, business freedom and a democratic state able to correct any economic deviation. We should focus also on remedying the serious lack of justice and rule of law.

Do you think that the Copre blueprint could be a valid alternative to Chávez's project?

It is a starting point to confront, beyond the 26 presidential directives, the 21st century socialism. Of course, twenty years have elapsed, there have been changes and there will be the need to refresh the national project. Anyway, Copre's guidelines are still effective, namely: political reforms and decentralization; a stronger rule of the law, and a qualified public office, presently reduced to a grotesque blend of the state machinery, the party that sustains the system and government electioneering. Then, there is a set of proposals to make more efficient social and economic policies, in addition to education, science and technology. Most of these initiatives have been completed with projects, such as fight against poverty, championed by Andrés Bello Catholic University (Ucab).

How and by whom were these proposals made?

It was a very plural team, composed by all sectors that accounted for consensus beyond political parties and reached after five years of efforts.

Was Copre an attempt at saving the political system in the face of impending crisis?

All the candidates running for president in 1983 agreed on the need for state reform because the political structure ought to be updated. Years passed by and now the people are keenly aware of it. Therefore, I think that we are near a political, cultural, economic and scientific rebirth. I would dare say that it will start on the day when democracy is rescued and a new, post-Chávez era begins.

You had troubles to make the then government welcome and implement the proposals. Is not Chávez a huge stumbling bloc to such a rebirth mentioned by you?

They are different situations. We, at Copre, were facing a political system familiar with a way of governance and afraid of anything that could disturb the rules of the game. That prudish stance was a hurdle.

Was it a prudish stance or, rather, determination not to hand over aliquots of power?

Absolutely. Even in the context of alternation, presidents wanted to continue appointing state governors, but there was in the country such a huge consensus on the changes, that they could not make it. The Law on the Election of State Governors and Mayors, and the Suffrage Law, as amended, were passed in 1988. And, as (former Venezuelan president and a historian) Dr. Ramón J. Velásquez said, these were the most significant reforms in the 20th century. Possibly, ongoing events, that is, a system that has unsuccessfully tried to establish a dictatorship, is due to the creation of democratic antibodies that invigorated a civil society which does not let itself to be squashed.

However, these reforms did not prevent the system emergence.

They could not prevent it. The political system was overwhelmed by the demands from the civil society.

What happened, then? Were the reforms late?

During the presidential term afterwards, the subsequent government did not pay sufficient attention to the social outcry and manifest leadership crisis.

And the masses opted for the violent way.

For a simplistic, military outcome. In our history and idiosyncrasy, army officers have played a significant role, because we were ruled by them for more than one hundred years. There are still many elderly who convey the youth the perception that only a tough guy with an iron fist can sort it out all. But the lesson has been a useful one. For this reason, a rebirth is coming and will bring along revaluation of democratic conducts, and people will strictly judge the performance of upcoming governments.

Translated by Conchita Delgado