When the world gets closer.

We help you see farther.

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter.


A Victory For Chavez, The End Of Chavism

Into the future...
Into the future...


In spite of what the polls say and the voting urns told us - Hugo Chavez has indeed won another term, which will keep him in power until 2019 - it is also true that the true triumph in Venezuela’s election yesterday lay elsewhere: in the support for the young Henrique Capriles Radonski, the unity of the country's opposition, and - in the long run - Venezuela’s democracy itself.

Several things came together to earn Capriles impressive results (around six million Venezuelans voted for him). First , his youth and energy, along with his enormous talent for campaigning. He was also aided by his razor-sharp political intuition, which he demonstrated by moving from the right to the center and even towards the center-left, calling together all of the opposition groups.

At 38, the former governor of the state of Miranda started the presidential campaign undefeated, having never lost a single election. And he managed to unite the plethora of parties and movements that make up the Venezuelan opposition, from the left, center and right, consolidating everyone into a strong opposition to Chavez, capable of governing Venezuela.

Capriles was also helped by the increasing popular discontent about a government that has shown more than a couple of cracks. Outside of Caracas, power outages are frequent, the infrastructure is deteriorating across the whole country, and in spite of Chavez's indisputable popularity, his nearly 14 years in power have led an increasing number of Venezuelans to feel disillusioned about their country.

The price of oil has been Chavez’s main ally. He has used the petrodollars to increase the salaries for public employees and to improve social programs at the same time that he neglected investments and a balanced public budget. As a result, the state debt has shot up, reaching 60 percent of the GDP.

But in terms of education, health coverage and access to housing, Chavez has decidedly helped the poor. That is the key to his popularity. In fact, he was able to stand for office yet another time thanks to the incredible success he had at the voting urns in 2006, when he was elected with 63 percent of the vote. That margin allowed him to nationalize a significant portion of the economy, close the country’s most popular private TV station and weaken the power of state and local governments.

A changed man

While he was at it, Chavez was also able to win the referendum he led in 2009 to modify the constitution and allow a president to stand for reelection again and again and again. On more than one occasion, Chavez has said that he would like to govern until 2031, adding that the results of his management of the country will bear fruit in the decade 2020-2030.

But unlike Capriles, he didn’t come to this election never having been defeated. Two years ago, the President put a radical new constitution up for referendum, and it was defeated at the polls. This electoral reversal of fortune demonstrated that Chavez, too, could be defeated, inspiring opposition groups to unite against him, and showing that the colorful Venezuelan leader is not the caricature-dictator that some see him as, but a leader who does respect the power of the vote.

In addition to this first sign of electoral weakness for the Venezuelan regime, there was also the unexpected blow last year, when people found out that Chavez had cancer. After three surgeries and treatments that made his face swell and prevented him from campaigning with as much energy as in earlier years, the image the Chavez projected was far from that of an invincible leader.

Ironically, then, Chavez’s electoral victory by a narrow margin sends a clear signal to his government. The opposition is united, barely more than half the population support Chavez, and it will be necessary to negotiate and try to create a government for all Venezuelans. No more messianic dreams, Hugo Chavez. The moment has come to accept that politics is the art of the possible.

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.


What's Spoiling The Kids: The Big Tech v. Bad Parenting Debate

Without an extended family network, modern parents have sought to raise happy kids in a "hostile" world. It's a tall order, when youngsters absorb the fears (and devices) around them like a sponge.

Image of a kid wearing a blue striped sweater, using an ipad.

Children exposed to technology at a very young age are prominent today.

Julián de Zubiría Samper


BOGOTÁ — A 2021 report from the United States (the Youth Risk Behavior Survey) found that 42% of the country's high-school students persistently felt sad and 22% had thought about suicide. In other words, almost half of the country's young people are living in despair and a fifth of them have thought about killing themselves.

Such chilling figures are unprecedented in history. Many have suggested that this might be the result of the COVID-19 pandemic, but sadly, we can see depression has deeper causes, and the pandemic merely illustrated its complexity.

I have written before on possible links between severe depression and the time young people spend on social media. But this is just one aspect of the problem. Today, young people suffer frequent and intense emotional crises, and not just for all the hours spent staring at a screen. Another, possibly more important cause may lie in changes to the family composition and authority patterns at home.

Firstly: Families today have fewer members, who communicate less among themselves.

Young people marry at a later age, have fewer children and many opt for personal projects and pets instead of having children. Families are more diverse and flexible. In many countries, the number of children per woman is close to or less than one (Singapore, Taiwan, South Korea, Hong Kong among others).

In Colombia, women have on average 1.9 children, compared to 7.6 in 1970. Worldwide, women aged 15 to 49 years have on average 2.4 children, or half the average figure for 1970. The changes are much more pronounced in cities and among middle and upper-income groups.

Of further concern today is the decline in communication time at home, notably between parents and children. This is difficult to quantify, but reasons may include fewer household members, pervasive use of screens, mothers going to work, microwave ovens that have eliminated family cooking and meals and, thanks to new technologies, an increase in time spent on work, even at home. Our society is addicted to work and devotes little time to minors.

Keep reading...Show less

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.

The latest