When the world gets closer.

We help you see farther.

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter.

Already a subscriber? Log in .

You've reached your limit of one free article.

Get unlimited access to Worldcrunch

You can cancel anytime .


Exclusive International news coverage

Ad-free experience NEW

Weekly digital Magazine NEW

9 daily & weekly Newsletters

Access to Worldcrunch archives

Free trial

30-days free access, then $2.90
per month.

Annual Access BEST VALUE

$19.90 per year, save $14.90 compared to monthly billing.save $14.90.

Subscribe to Worldcrunch

Mussolini To Maduro, An Old Recipe For Killing Democracy

The Venezuelan president's calls for a constitutional overhaul suggest a possible first step toward the 'corporatist' policy forged by 20th century rulers like Castro in Cuba, Francisco Franco in Spain and Italy's Benito Mussolini.

Protest in Caracas on May 4
Protest in Caracas on May 4
Loris Zanatta


At first glance, Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro"s proposals for a new assembly to rewrite the Constitution may seem unworthy of even being taken seriously. To begin with, it is evidently another ploy to perpetuate Venezuela's Bolivarian or socialist regime by overriding the most basic democratic of principles. Perhaps also because inside the country, and privately even among the most fanatical of Chavistas or government supporters, Maduro is a veritable disgrace and a comical figure history has so cruelly selected for this tragedy.

It would all be laughable if it were not so distressing. After invoking the soul of his mentor, the late president and regime founder Hugo Chávez, saying he had "heard" him speak to him in the form of a bird, Maduro has now decided to ask some cows their opinion of his new constitutional project. Perhaps he was hoping to revive the spirit of Ubre Blanca, the cow to which Fidel Castro raised a statue even as his grandiose food production plans were falling flat and leaving Cubans hungry. It's curious how tragedy inevitably returns as farce.

Yet the Venezuelan regime's announced reform, intended to extricate the country from its dire political state, should actually be taken quite seriously. This is not so much because the proposed new body might save the regime from sinking — which is unlikely — but for revealing its ideology, values and conception of political order, and for putting its family album on display.

It helps us remember that the Chávez regime, like all populist regimes, has a corporatist view of the social order and of political organization. If it has so far hidden behind institutional and representative forms of liberal democracy, it was because it could exploit them to its benefit.

President Maduro in Caracas on May 3 — Photo: Anebert Rivera/Xinhua/ZUMA

Now that these no longer assure its electoral majority and even condemn the regime to its certain demise, the hour has come to toss these institutions overboard. That begins first and foremost with such principles as "one person one vote," equal political rights for all and the right to free expression regardless of one's profession, ethnic origin, religion or ideology.

The Chavista idea of representation opposes these entirely: It believes every citizen should be part of a corporate grouping, be it professional or territorial, on which his or her rights depend. The individual must submit to the "body" or "organ."

A single party that claims to embody the nation's spirit.

I am a worker? I vote for a worker. A soldier? I vote for a soldier. Do I live in the district of Barinas? My representative will be someone from Barinas, and so on. This is the regime's proposed criterion for choosing the new constituent assembly, with due care to ensure overrepresentation for those sectors where it retains a good base of support. The idea is, each body must fulfill its duties inside the organism that is the nation, and all bodies must cooperate organically inside the assembly they will form. And watching over them will be the only source of national unity, the revolutionary party headed by its great leader — a de facto monarch taking the form of a president for life.

For some time it has been evident where this conception will lead: to a single party that claims to embody the nation's spirit, the sacrifice of individual rights supposedly for the collective good, and the death of pluralism in the name of "popular" unanimity. It constitutes the end of democracy.

There is nothing new in any of this. It is one of the oldest tricks in political history, and the habitual approach of the enemies of liberalism on both sides of the Atlantic. The corporatist model may even be said to resemble, in spite of its differing and distant historical context, the social vision of the Catholic monarchs of the colonial period. The regime's devotees might like to reflect on this, since they insist on describing themselves as "post-colonial."

The same conception, replacing the society of individuals and political parties with one of corporations and bodies, and liberal with corporatist representation, is seen in the totalitarian (fascist or communist) regimes that succeeded or almost succeeded in eliminating their enemies. And on this side, were the Argentine General Juan Perón's political dreams, or those of the Institutional Revolutionary Party, which ruled Mexico for over 70 years, really any different?

The corporatist tradition's varied ancestry also includes such landmark legislation as General Francisco Franco's labor laws, and Benito Mussolini's Work Charter in Italy, which inspired the creation of the Chamber of Corporations.

Still, the example that has inspired Maduro is closer in time and space: It is Cuba, where thousands of officials continue to hold together a shaky regime. Representation works in the same way there: The individual is encased in one or more "mass organizations' pertaining to the regime, mostly of a professional type like workers, artists or soldiers, but also territorial, as in the Committees for the Defense of the Revolution.

Who controls them? The Big Brother ready to crush anyone who breaks the choral unison of community and people. Chavistas like to call their opponents "fascists," against whom they supposedly mobilize to defend democracy. There may be something even worse than this so-called fascism: utter ignorance and dishonesty.

You've reached your limit of free articles.

To read the full story, start your free trial today.

Get unlimited access. Cancel anytime.

Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.

Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries.


AI And War: Inside The Pentagon's $1.8 Billion Bet On Artificial Intelligence

Putting the latest AI breakthroughs at the service of national security raises major practical and ethical questions for the Pentagon.

Photo of a drone on the tarmac during a military exercise near Vícenice, in the Czech Republic

Drone on the tarmac during a military exercise near Vícenice, in the Czech Republic

Sarah Scoles

Number 4 Hamilton Place is a be-columned building in central London, home to the Royal Aeronautical Society and four floors of event space. In May, the early 20th-century Edwardian townhouse hosted a decidedly more modern meeting: Defense officials, contractors, and academics from around the world gathered to discuss the future of military air and space technology.

Things soon went awry. At that conference, Tucker Hamilton, chief of AI test and operations for the United States Air Force, seemed to describe a disturbing simulation in which an AI-enabled drone had been tasked with taking down missile sites. But when a human operator started interfering with that objective, he said, the drone killed its operator, and cut the communications system.

Keep reading...Show less

The latest