Our language, rich in adjectives, falls short in defining another. In English, “other” carries a certain connotation not commonly applied in Spanish. “Other,” in one of its literal meanings, refers to a person distinct from the one thought of or spoken about. In English, “other” is also used to describe the counterpart, the opposite, the contrary. I bring this subject up because, in our current political reality, not only does language fail us, but the attitudes, both individual and collective, private and public, reveal a total, absolute, and generalized ignorance of the other (in the English sense of the word). That is to say, almost everyone seems unwilling to recognize the validity of opinions or arguments put forth by those who are on a different political spectrum.
Moreover, acceptance on one side or the other depends on the ignorance professed about the other. The more antagonistic and obstinate one is, the more manifest such an attitude, the more rewards seem to be gained. For someone like me, who has spent nearly 10 years observing from the sidelines of voluntary exile, it’s easy to conclude that the social and political problems facing the country will not be resolved, not even with the eventual departure of Chávez from power. Healthy and selfless voices have no place in this environment, and this is a result of the hostile attitudes toward the other, the different (in the literal Spanish sense), that characterize the ideological positions or groups that divide society.
Our country has gone through stages where recognizing the other became impractical due to economic and political issues: I speak of the independence period and the many vicissitudes that followed. Boves was a successful caudillo for a very simple reason, much employed by the current president: he was able to channel the emancipatory deep resentment that blacks, indigenous people, and mixed-race individuals felt toward the mantuan class. By using a liberating discourse, he was a pioneer in capitalizing on the hatred of the other. Bolívar followed until he realized that the attitude taken in the Proclamation of War to the Death would lead nowhere but to the obliteration of society. Nowadays, positions are, as they were back then, irreconcilable. On one side of the spectrum, we have a social group that, like any collective, is filled with qualities and flaws, yet seems to share the notion that there are certain limits that should either be respected or at least pretended to be respected. On the other side, we have a group that, in its thirst to redress grievances and seize power, is willing to go to any lengths, like Boves’ lancers, even if it means jeopardizing integrity, not just personal but collective. The considerations around perception or appearance defining this group seem dictated by sincere pride derived from belonging to an absolutely radical collective. It goes without saying that there are various economic, political, and social aspects that define individual and collective behavior, as well as belonging to one group or another. However, both groups share a disdain for the other. This situation is neither new nor unique to our society. Similar attitudes can be observed to varying degrees in all societies, whether industrialized or not. The results of such social struggles are well known: Venezuela experienced a century of civil wars, followed by another century of relative harmony.
It seems that currently, Venezuelans as a whole are quite interested in plunging the country into a new social conflict. The history of humanity has no examples of the complete eradication of the other, even though countless attempts have been made. The other will continue to exist.