VenEconomy: About the Wave of Violence in Venezuela 
 From the Editors of VenEconomy
Latin American Herald Tribune
July 8, 2015

"Colectivos"

A few days ago, Víctor Maldonado, head of the Caracas Chamber of Commerce, published an accurate analysis on the violence going on in Venezuela, whose assertions synthesize the everyday reality lived by Venezuelan citizens.

He begins with an unquestionable assertion: Venezuela is a violent country. He explains that Venezuela ranks No. 1 in all lists on the topic at global level with 2.85 deaths per hour; he also says that Venezuelans are living under a self-inflicted curfew that begins at sunset and lasts through dawn.

Maldonado is also right when saying that the country is suffering the effects of a complex system of illicit activities, increasingly organized and in constant conflict, fighting one another for the control of the national territory and the monopoly of the resulting profits from those activities.

He accurately explains that the first reason to criminal violence is found in the merciless exploitation of the Government's speech of resentment, focused on the argument of hatred. A speech that always blames other Venezuelans thinking differently for the bad things happening in the country: "If the poor are hungry is because the rich are taking their food. If there is inflation is because the 'stateless' bourgeoisie wants to put an end to their prosperity." And "the massive blackouts are due to the lack of awareness of some Venezuelans who spend energy at the expense of the hardships of others."

Sadly, he claims that is not possible to reconnect the Venezuelan people. "The regime has specialized in making some sectors fight against each other and educate us with resentment." "Dialogue is a chimera that quickly dissolves in the practice of retaliation." He points out that as a result this resentment justifies the physical disappearance of other Venezuelans.

He hits the nail on the head when explaining that the corollary of this division between "good and bad guys," between revolutionaries and "stateless" citizens, is impunity. And he portrays reality: "They all feel supported in the goal of their own vindication. Those who suffer deprivation feel they have been authorized to steal. Those who feel mistreated feel they are entitled to commit crimes. Those who do not have anything are authorized to invade properties and become their new owners." And says that the Bolivarian revolution is unaware of the two fundamental rights of living and owning, as it reduces us to the traditional "run for your life" once more.

But that is not all, he points out: The people's empowerment has been made through the 'colectivos' (a type of community organization that supports the Bolivarian revolution), with many of them armed and guarantors of their own laws."

He claims that "the revolution must be defended at all costs and all militants have to feel called together to carry out that mission. The colectivos are the guardians of the revolution, but their price is having territorial immunity. The so-called "peace zones" have been transformed into quite the contrary: violent spaces where the brute force is imposed over any consideration of guarantees and rights."

And makes a snapshot of the day by day life in Venezuela by explaining that "impunity is played within the following logic: "For those who are with the process, everything is allowed. The rest must face the consequences."

Just as serious is the following reality: "The police system does not work, is poorly managed and accompanied by a judicial and prison system that do nothing but make things worse. It has not been made to protect citizens and reintegrate offenders into society, but to put society in a worse situation while it improves wrongdoing at the same time. There is more fire power and capacity to kill on the other side. There is nothing on this side, because the message from the Government is ambiguous, doubtful, fragile and wicked."

To complete the picture, he raises another grim reality: "Drug-trafficking has taken root in the country."

Maldonado is also right when he argues that the State seeks to exacerbate the fear.

And he jumps to the following conclusions:

1) That Venezuelans want their violence to end.

2) That controlling our violence takes a government that establishes an adequate framework for the prevention of crime and the imposition of peace.

Is the Government up to the task?

___________________________