Fill out the brief form below for access to the free report.
Venezuelan civil society activist Rodrigo Diamanti was first interviewed for the Freedom Collection in 2010. Rodrigo is the founder and president of Un Mundo Sin Mordaza (A World Without Censorship), a nongovernmental organization that works for freedom of expression around the world. I recently had the opportunity to speak with Rodrigo about the October 7, 2012 elections, when Hugo Chavez was reelected to a new six-year term as president. Despite widespread concerns over Venezuela’s deteriorating human rights conditions, Chavez’s cancer diagnosis, and the president’s autocratic way of governing, voters preferred Chavez over his opponent, Henrique Capriles Radonski, by a 55 - 44 margin. Chavez took full advantage of his control over the media during the campaign and there were numerous accusations of dirty tricks, including reports of armed Chavez supporters breaking up opposition rallies and charges by the head of one opposition party that he was offered money to withdraw his support for Capriles. Even so, Capriles, a popular governor performed better than any of Chavez’s previous opponents and benefitted from a united opposition front. Reflecting on Chavez’s victory, Rodrigo notes that the opposition improved on its previous levels of support, but that the government won because of its dominant position in the media and its ability to spend freely. In its report on the elections, the Carter Center noted that the government launched several lavish new social programs in 2011, including the “Great Venezuelan Housing Mission” to provide free homes to the poor and the “Great Senior Citizens Mission” to provide pensions to the elderly. “The opposition obviously has limited resources and the government has an unlimited amount of resources, because they have all of the resources of the Venezuelan state to convince the Venezuelan people to vote for them,” Rodrigo said in his interview. Despite their relatively strong performance, the Venezuelan opposition was disillusioned by Chavez’s reelection. Nevertheless, Rodrigo remains committed to changing his country’s political future. He said, “The only fight that we lose is the one that we abandon.” Given the many institutional challenges they face, Rodrigo and his fellow Venezuelans will indeed need to persevere in their cause. Rodrigo called on the international community to remain engaged. He said, “International support is very important for Venezuelans because it helps them morally and maintains the motivation of the people who are in the country.” And that is an important lesson common to many democratic revolutions and movements. While material support can be important, the moral support from overseas is often even more valuable. Democratic activists often feel they are alone. Those of us in free societies must remember those who are committed to the patient work of advocating for change.
This post was written by Lindsay Lloyd, Program Director of the Freedom Collection.
Lindsay Lloyd is the Director of the Human Freedom Initiative at the George W. Bush Institute, where he manages original research and programmatic efforts to advance freedom and democracy in the world. Lindsay currently leads the Bush Institute’s Freedom in North Korea project, which raises awareness of human rights violations in North Korea, proposes new policy solutions, and engages leaders to help improve the lives of the North Korean people. Lindsay is also responsible for managing the Freedom Collection, a multimedia archive that documents the stories of nonviolent freedom advocates from around the word.
Prior to joining the Bush Institute, Lindsay served for 16 years at the International Republican Institute (IRI), most recently as senior advisor for policy. Previously, he was IRI’s regional director for Europe and co-director of the regional program for Central and Eastern Europe, which was based in Slovakia. At IRI, Lindsay worked with candidates, elected officials, political parties, and civil society activists to develop lasting democratic institutions.
Before joining IRI, Lindsay worked for several members and the leadership of the U.S. House of Representatives, as political director for a political action committee, and for Jack Kemp’s 1988 presidential campaign. He graduated from Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service.Full Bio
Chinese Prisoner’s Death Holds a Message for Americans and China
Liu Xiaobo, China’s most prominent dissident and Nobel Peace Prize winner died this week. His death holds a message for Americans and for China.
Release of Chinese Political Prisoner a Timely Reminder to Support Freedom Advocates Abroad
More than half the world’s population still lives in countries where basic political rights and civil liberties are only partly respected, if at all.
Bringing Freedom to the Forefront of 21st Century Politics
Is the global liberal democratic order in danger? Purposefully constructed in the aftermath of World War II, this order -- and the American leadership that is central to its success --has contributed to securing peace and expanding prosperity in the United States and around the world. Today, that order appears to be dissolving. This crisis is not new or sudden; it has been mounting for several years. Global challenges like authoritarian capitalism, violent extremism, demographic pressures, and displaced populations have placed global freedom in decline. Fraying traditional alliances united by core values of freedom are increasingly weak to respond. It is alarming that the downdraft in democratic resilience over the past decade or more includes countries that have long been part of the consolidated democratic West. This is democratic deconsolidation. In much of the Western world, we see a rise in demagogic populism, illiberalism, nationalism, protectionism, and waning conf
The Importance of Speaking Truth to Tyrants
What the president of the United States says matters. Even during the realpolitik policies of détente under Richard Nixon, it was still clear that American policy was based on a set of core values. Nixon’s practical goals of reaching deals with America’s adversaries was never based on the “great chemistry” with himself or praising the Soviet or Communist Chinese leadership doing a “fantastic job.” When the president aligns himself with the autocrats and dictators, he aligns America with their oppression. He sends a message that corruption and brutality are not our concern. Contrast that with how Ronald Reagan defied much of world opinion in calling out the brutality of the Soviet system. Natan Sharansky, then a refusenik imprisoned in a Soviet gulag, later wrote for the Weekly Standard of his thoughts on Reagan’s pronouncement that the USSR was an evil empire: “It was the great, brilliant moment whe