Venezuela murder mystery

[mudplanet]

The scarily high murder rate in Venezuela could reflect social breakdown, imported narcowar or a ‘foreign conspiracy’. President Chávez has accused Bogota of trying to foment war by moving against Colombian rebels allegedly seeking refuge in Venezuela.

With a homicide rate of 48 in 100,000 in 2008, Venezuela is near the top of the fear league. In Caracas, the rate is as high as 127, with 1,976 murders between January and September 2009 in a city of 3.15 million.

The opposition blames Chávez; the media too: France’s L’Express said in May: “Under President Hugo Chávez’s Bolivarian revolution, the capital of Venezuela has become one of the most violent cities in the world.” Miguel Angel Pérez, the executive vice president of the Institut d’Etudes Avancées, complained: “They would like us to believe that insecurity is a product of Chavism. They’re forgetting how terrible it was in the late 80s and early 90s: you couldn’t go out in the street.”

...

On 13 May, aware that the clock was ticking, Chávez opened Cefopol, a new police training centre at the National Experimental University for Secu0rity, set up to support the new Bolivarian National Police force. The centre is taking a novel approach: officers receive technical training but also learn to be sensitive to human rights and community relations. Some 1,058 “clean” former members of the old Metropolitan police force have already been trained and are serving in the Catia district. Their record so far is encouraging and insecurity has been substantially reduced. Another thousand are nearing the end of training. The force is seeking to recruit university graduates and aims to grow to 31,000 over the next three years. Given that the results may not be immediately perceptible, this is a lot – but also too little.

Sonia Manrique of Ocumaré del Tuy city council said: “These days, if a youth assaults you, it’ll be because of drugs.” Her colleague Andrés Betancur was angry that “minors are carrying heavy calibre guns – guns bigger than they are. Where do they get them? There must be gangsters behind them.”

...

According to a 2007 survey, 4.2 million Colombians live in Venezuela, having fled their home country, which many observers claim (in all seriousness) is now a model of security. Most are honest, decent people and have been accepted into Venezuelan society (2). But thanks to the collusion of some elements of the police and the national guard, the Colombian drug trade is not only using Venezuela as a staging post on the way to the US or Africa but has also strengthened its hold on Caracas (3).

The scale of operations is huge. Marginalised youths are recruited with the offer of low price or even free (at first) cocaine. “We have seen a significant rise in consumption,” said a member of parliament, “and the indicators suggest a worrying number of teenagers are involved.” Once hooked, they burgle, rob, assault and kill to fund their drug habit. They become dealers but end up getting shot when they can’t pay their suppliers on time. They form gangs and fight for control of entire districts. “The turf wars between these imported networks,” I was told, “produce a lot of bodies, which is something the newspapers love.”

...

It has long been known that paramilitary groups were present in the Venezuelan border states of Táchira, Apure and Zulia. In 2008 Últimas Noticias reported that the former head of the directorate of intelligence and prevention services (Disip), Eliézer Otaiza, had claimed around 20,000 Colombian paramilitaries were based in Venezuela and were involved in kidnappings, contract killings and drug trafficking. The Venezuelan press has said nothing on the issue, but on 31 January 2009 El Espectador, published in Bogotá, had the headline “The Black Eagles have flown to Venezuela” (4). The journalist Enrique Vivas reported that such groups controlled almost everything in Táchira, and even offered life insurance (except to members of the United Socialist Party of Venezuela, several of whom were assassinated this February and March).

With the collusion of the Zulia state police (controlled by opposition governors) the paramilitaries have, through violence or money lending, taken control of parts of Maracaibo and of local trade and small business in Las Playitas. I was told: “The authorities in Zulia organise a lot of‘peasant rallies’. Loads of them come over from Colombia – and don’t go back.”

In the state of Barinas, further into the Venezuelan interior, a resident told me: “We have never had so many Colombians. They buy up property and rent it out. When people have problems, they offer financial help. They behave like the narcos in Brazil. Violent crime has shot up to the kind of levels they have in Caracas.” I asked if the criminals might be Venezuelan, and how was it possible to distinguish between criminals and paramilitaries? “In the past, the Colombians never came here. They used to go to Caracas to find work. We never saw contract killings, massacres or kidnappings on this scale.”

In April 2007, while investigating the kidnapping of the industrialist Nicolás Alberto Cid Souto, the Cojedes state police captured a group led by Gerson Álvarez, former head of the United Self-defence Forces of Colombia (AUC), who had been “demobilised” but had since become treasurer to the Black Eagles.

Read the rest: http://mondediplo.com/2010/08/07venezuela

[Judi Lynn]

1. Excellent material. Want to read it more slowly, at leisure right away, but here's a good quote:

In December 1996, two years before Chávez came to power, the French military/police specialist periodical Raids said: “With an average of 80 people shot dead each weekend, violence on public transport a daily occurrence, poverty growing exponentially and an economic crisis that has been gnawing away at the country for over 15 years – inflation is at more than 1,000% – Caracas has become one of the most dangerous cities in the world, perhaps the most dangerous.” Few people seem to remember this.

This looks very informative.

Really glad to see it, saving it for personal use.

Thank you.

[social_critic]

2. Venezuela's crime wave is due to poverty, and lack of government action

This article is a mishmash of prevarication and bs excuses. Crime in Venezuela is caused by a combination of poverty, and lack of government action to address the reasons for increasing crime. These include a high rate of teenage pregnancy, lack of employment for male youths, nearly absolute impunity (meaning the police don't chase criminals and the justice system doesn't put them in jail), the easy availability of guns, and the chaos and lawlessness the youth observes carried out by government authorities, which give a very poor example with their own actions. The fact is that over the last 10 years crime has increased relentlessly, Caracas in indeed a battlefield, kidnapping is a thriving industry, and the government actions are patchy, piecemeal, and fail to emphasize eliminating root causes.

Blaming Colombian AUC (which are nearly eliminated today) or other such nonsense is pathetic. It is the response of those who lack the imagination to come up with something which can come close to being believed by the population.

And the Venezuelan population is fully aware the government is completely useless when it comes to this problem. Maybe a Chavista foreigners fall for this bs, but give the world a break, guys, and wake up. Crime in Venezuela is horrible, and the government is to blame.

If they only had the common sense to start at the beginning, and tried to deal with teenage pregnancy, I would give them a bit of credit. But they don't even have the guts get into the barrios and work on real problems. Instead they waste money building mickey mouse cable cars which serve a total population of 10000 people for a cost of $350 million US. Great choice, isn't it?

[Bacchus39]

3. yep, its pure garbage as the Venezuela murder-rate quadrupled under Chavez: NGO

That means Venezuela experiences every month about as many deaths as occurred in the Gaza Strip during Israel's early 2009 offensive, Briceno said.

With a murder rate of 140 per 100,000 citizens, Venezuela's capital Caracas has the highest murder rate in South America, only exceeded in the hemisphere by Mexico's Ciudad Juarez.

Most of the deaths occur in crowded slums, but crime impinges on all sectors. In richer residential areas at night, cars shoot through red lights on often deserted streets and few people are willing to risk walking outside.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62A44A20100311

[mudplanet]

9. Finally, someone with some evidence. This is important and you should post it to the forum

I'm not convinced it Chavez's fault, but it's credible evidence of a crime rate.

The point of the articles is not to illuminate the real crime problem in Venezuela, but rather to persuade potential voters during the election campaign. Corporate media in Venezuela, which is owned by wealthy elites largely opposed to President Hugo Chavez, has continually used fear as a way to create an atmosphere of insecurity in an attempt to generate votes during elections.
International coverage was sparked most recently by the publication in the Venezuelan newspaper El Nacional of a graphic and highly disturbing photo of corpses piled haphazardly in a morgue in the epicenter of Venezuela’s violence – the capital city of Caracas. While the photo was printed in the lead-up to this year’s election campaign, it was quickly discovered that it was taken no later than December of last year. Yet El Nacional’s owner, Miguel Henrique Otero, waited for a more political opportune moment. As he pointed out himself on CNN, they decided to hold off printing the photo until this month because “Venezuela is in campaign-mode.”<1>
http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/5606

[Bacchus39]

10. the pics from the morgue could have been taken any weekend

last week there were 91 murders in Caracas.

I'm sorry, but if the government has been a complete failure in addressing the crime problem, it is a political issue. its is the number 1 concern of Venezuelans. certainly of greater concern than whether the US ambassador needs to say nice things about Hugo or not.

[mudplanet]

12. And poverty, high infant death rates, lack of access to medical care,

where do those fit into the equation?

Is crime the only concern Venezuelan's have?

[Bacchus39]

13. absolutely not, just their greatest concern n/t

s

[social_critic]

16. Dude, that sure is convoluted logic

Let me quote this bs:

"has continually used fear as a way to create an atmosphere of insecurity"

This would be funny if reality wasn't so tragic. In Venezuela, people don't have to read the press to understand their lives are in danger. All they have to do is hear the shots, see the corpses, and listen to their neighbors, friends, and relatives, as the endless tales of woe pour in.

This venezuelanalysis website is mostly tripe, smoke screens to hide just how horrible things have become in Venezuela.

It takes somebody wearing heavy duty blindfolds to claim "wow, now somebody is giving us statistics about crime in Venezuela". Statistics are everywhere, my friends. All you have to do is bother to look and stop living in some kind of alternate reality where your dear Chavez is a super hero saving Venezuela, when the truth is the guy is an incompetent autocrat whose rule is destroying the country. Caligula is the only fitting brand for the man.

[mudplanet]

5. Prevarication and nonsense seem to be your specialty. It's pretty

clear that Venezuela's crime rate can't be blamed on Chavez, as it was high and rising before his election. A country's problems are always the fault of it's government, by default: the buck stops here. The incredible poverty rate in Venezuela was the fault of the governments that came before Chavez.

If Venezuela's crime is Chavez's fault then you must believe that the US deficit and current depression is Obama's fault.

AUC and other paramilitaries are as active as ever albeit often in different uniforms and under different names. A significant number of them were simply absorbed into Colombia's police and military, and others continue to operate as per evidence of continuous reports from human rights organizations.

"Wasting" money on things like a cable car that only serves a poor community is a little like "wasting" money on a fancy concrete road that only serves a rich community, or a golf course. Yes, the rich and poor alike can use it, but how many of the poor are going to use that fancy first class road to the rich neighborhood or will get to play golf? Money often gets "wasted" by governments. I'd rather it get wasted in ways that benefit poor people than rich people. The rich can pay for their own cable cars and roads.

[naaman fletcher]

4. so let me get this straight:

They are blaming the immigrants for crime?

Such is the hypocrisy of "leftists" in this forum. They would go nuts if someone blamed crime in the US on mexicans, but what to do about the high crime under Chavez? Blame the immigrants!

[mudplanet]

6. As noted in my post above. if you are ok blaming Chavez for poverty and crime

in Venezuela, you must be onboard with blaming Obama for the US deficit, it's two illegal wars, and its current economic depression.

Such is the hypocrisy of "reactionaries" in this forum.

[Bacchus39]

8. that is really stupid

the crime rate has soared under Chavez, Caracas with the highest murder rate in the world.


the US wars were by choice, and that choice wasn't Obama's. the only choice in the Ven crime rate is apparently Chavez's choice not to do anything about it.

[mudplanet]

11. I think your argument is stupid, too. The crime rate was accellerating years before

Chavez came into office. Venezuela doesn't exist in a vacuum but has a long border with Colombia, which is possibly the most violent country in the Americas, and everything that happens in Colombia affects Venezuela.

Chavez wasn't responsible for the precipitous drop in oil prices, or the crippling strike organized by the opposition that almost destroyed Venezuela's economy, and he isn't responsible for the fact that when he took office Venezuela had a near 50% poverty rate. But he does share some of the credit for the fact that the poverty rate has declined by nearly 50% since he took office.

I agree that Chavez should launch an anti-violent crime project immediately. What do you propose?

[social_critic]

17. The most violent nation in South America is Venezuela

The most violent nation in South America is Venezuela. Caracas is one of the most if not the most violent city in the world. It is very far from the Colombian border. The crime rate has skyrocketed in an anomalous fashion, much faster than before - in spite of the supposed government emphasis on improving the life of the poor and the enormous windfall from super high oil prices in the last 10 years.

Get your facts straight, and stop posting cover stories to defend the indefensible.

[naaman fletcher]

15. silly

I blame Chavez for crime increasing. I credit him for decreasing poverty.

I blame Obama for continuing the defict spending problem that already existed, and for continuing the two illegal wars he inherited.

[Peace Patriot]

7. Interesting to read an alternative view of the CIA/RW "talking point": 'street crime in Venezuela.'

I've been wondering what could be the motive behind our multinational corporate/war profiteer rulers' reopening of the Colombia/Venezuela border, where--prior to the contretemps between Bushwhack tool, Alvaro Uribe, and the Chavez government--a quarter of a million poor Colombians had fled across the border into Venezuela, mostly fleeing the U.S.-funded Colombian military and its death squads and also the U.S.-funded toxic pesticide spraying. That flood of refugees and border chaos was reduced when Uribe was threatening war and Chavez closed the border crossings. Then the CIA yanked Uribe off the stage and okayed his replacement by his former Defense Minister, Manuel Santos, who immediately asked for a peace pow-wow with Chavez, at which they reopened the borders and re-started trade.

Colombia has been the source of two assassination plots against Chavez--one involving caches of assault weapons and death squad operatives holed up at a Venezuelan rightwinger's ranch and another directly involving the Colombian military (for which Uribe was obliged to apologize to Chavez, when the plot was exposed).

Further, the Colombia/Venezuela border is a highly explosive mix of two populations, one of which has a decent government that cares for the poor (Venezuela) and the other (Colombia) where fascists rule and the poor are routinely murdered, terrorized and driven from their small farms--five MILLION such refugees--THE worst human displacement crisis on earth--with about half a million Colombian refugees fleeing over the borders into Venezuela and Ecuador (where the leftist governments feel obliged to provide humanitarian assistance).

Colombia and the U.S. generate an horrendously violent and oppressive military and closely tied rightwing paramilitary death squads, and the endemic poverty in Colombia--which has one of the worst rich/poor income ratios in Latin America--while Venezuela has THE best--generates a lot of the drug trafficking, big and small, with the big drug traffickers being the most violent and oppressive, and continued armed resistance to the Colombian military and its fascist government by leftist guerrillas--a civil war that has been going on for 70 years(!), now exacerbated by $7 BILLION in U.S. military aid to one side of the conflict.

Poverty--far, FAR worse in Colombia than in Venezuela (where the Chavez government has reduced poverty by half and extreme poverty by over 70%)--also helps generate a "black market" in other goods besides cocaine--gasoline, food, etc.--in the Colombia/Venezuela border regions. And, on top of all this, there is traditional migration between closely related populations, AND Colombians migrating to Venezuela FOR the better job opportunities, much better labor conditions, free health care and education, etc.--in short, to become part of a decent society with a good government.

The volatility of this extensive Colombia/Venezuela border region--which neither government controls very well--provided the conditions for Uribe to allege that the Chavez government "harbors terrorists" and to call for a multinational force to invade Venezuela and exterminate the Colombian leftist guerrillas in the border areas on Venezuelan soil. The volatility of the border region also provided an excuse for the U.S./Colombia to drop 500 lb U.S. "smart bombs" on a FARC guerrilla camp just inside Ecuador's border in March 2008, and provides an on-going excuse to trump up a "Gulf of Tonkin"-type incident with which to start a war with Venezuela. The U.S. has at least 1,500 U.S. military personnel and an unknown number of U.S. military 'contractors' and other operatives in Colombia, and if any of them get shot at by the Venezuelan military, crossing the border with the Colombian military, for instance, there's your "Gulf of Tonkin." Vietnam deja vu all over again.

In short, an open border could be a set-up for war, or a set-up for a lot of other things, including destabilization and overthrow plots. The Chavez government certainly knows all of this, but they have opted for the peace opening that Santos provided--restored and increased commerce between Venezuela and Colombia. The Chavez government has never, ever, done anything provocative toward Colombia. In fact, Chavez went out of his way, and put himself at great risk, to help Uribe with FARC hostage negotiations, when Uribe asked him to--and got nothing but the treachery in return. Clearly, Chavez and his government believe in going the extra mile for peace.

Is this Santos peace initiative--which is certainly also a U.S. initiative (given that Colombia is a U.S. client state)--a ploy? I am in no position to make that judgement for certain--and maybe no one is. But as to guessing, I'm 50/50 at the moment. It could be a set-up--probably following the lines of the new CIA Director's more subtle methods (keep pouring multi-millions into rightwing groups so they can make political gains; keep running cocaine through Venezuela, with all the associated gangsterism; promote erosive and destabilizing activities; infiltrate government agencies where possible, to set-up corruption stings, "dirty tricks," etc). Long-term (post-2012, with a Diebolded Bushwhack in the White House) it could be a set-up for war. Or it could be a reflection of Obama/Clinton's desire to scale down the U.S. military funding and presence in Colombia, due to budget constraints, to clean up the image of Colombia (for U.S. "free trade for the rich"), and other less-than-war but still corporate/war profiteer goals.

In no way do I believe that U.S. government intentions in Colombia and toward Venezuela are good. They are not. And they never will be until we have a peaceful, democratic revolution here, starting with ridding ourselves of the 'TRADE SECRET' voting machines. But it's important to parse those intentions out, as well as we can.

I think it's quite plausible that Santos' peace initiative and re-opening of the border is for Colombian fascist operatives and U.S. operatives to more easily infiltrate into Venezuela--for a more long term and 'better' strategy than the bloodthirsty Bushwhacks were capable of pulling off. Chavez has not been an easy leader to overthrow. He has been elected twice by big margins. He has close friends and allies throughout Latin America's leadership. Brazil in particular has had his back. (And that is not going to change. Lula da Silva's chief of staff, Dilma Rousseff, who has an even more radical leftist background than da Silva, was just elected president of Brazil, and greeted Chavez with big smiles and warm hugs at her inauguration reception.) Chavez is smart. His government is full of smart people. Venezuelan security is excellent. (In fact, there is one Wikileaks U.S. diplomatic cable basically lamenting the U.S.'s inability to penetrate Venezuela's security.)

But is peace, in a sense, Chavez's "Achilles' Heel"? Uribe drew him right in, with it--in the 2007-2008 period--with a plea for help with hostage negotiations. Is he being sucked in again?

This article provides some of the reasons why this is a worry. In the last National Assembly elections in Venezuela, rightwing groups, paid for by you and me, chanted, "Blackouts, inflation and crime, oh my! Blackouts, inflation and crime, oh my!" "Street crime" was one of their main "talking points"--no doubt contrived at USAID "training" sessions. Is the U.S. not just "training" rightwing political groups in how to contrive, exaggerate and utilize "hot button" issues, but ALSO helping give those "color revolution"-type issues resonance by promoting "Black Eagle" and other such infiltration into Venezuela?

One thing I know about Bushwhacks--my "rule of thumb" on them: Whatever they allege, the opposite is true, and whatever they accuse others of doing, THEY are doing or planning to do. So, when Bushwhack tool Uribe claimed that Chavez was "harboring terrorists" in Venezuela, was the truth actually the opposite--that Colombia was infiltrating the "Black Eagles" (a rightwing terrorist group) into Venezuela? He blames Chavez for doing what HE is doing. This is pretty reliable "rule of thumb" on Bushwhacks. But it's not quite so easy to read Obama/Clinton/Panetta. The prior Clinton--Bill--did all the set-up for the Bushwhack war on Iraq (economic sanctions, induced poverty and suffering, no-fly zones, destroying Iraq's air force, etc.). Is that what Obama/Clinton/Panetta are doing on Venezuela, but with different methods? Open border for infiltration; massive funding of rightwing groups; feeding demonization of Chavez "talking points" to the press; destabilization; "dirty tricks" 'scandals,' and so on--softening Venezuela up for a future U.S. war?

Considering what Obama/Clinton did in Honduras, I'm inclined toward yes. I don't believe that Panetta was heading the CIA yet, when that occurred (six months into Obama's term, in June 2009), so I don't know if he is the one who engineered that phony election. (It appeared to be Clinton/Negroponte/McCain/DeMint). In any case, it was dire warning that Obama's stated policy of "peace, respect and cooperation" in Latin America was not possible, or not really intended. It was a VERY BAD SIGN. I still think it's possible that Honduras was a Bushwhack "time bomb" plot that Clinton could not control but her "solution" was so phony and so lethal as to make her complicit in the death squad murders of many innocent people in Honduras, as well as the death of Honduran democracy. And now, with this Diebold Puke Congress, Obama-Clinton will be even less able to control Bushwhack plotting. If the junior senator from South Caroline (a Diebold touchscreen state--no "paper trail") and member of the MINORITY in Congress could control Obama/Clinton's handling of the Honduran coup, what will a fully Puke Congress be able to do? Declare war on Venezuela, whether Obama wants it or not? I wouldn't put it past them. They just read the Constitution in the Puke House of Representatives and it says right there, "Congress has the right to declare war." Declare war on Venezuela, impeach Obama and grab Venezuela's oil in the general conflagration? Or wait for Jeb Bush?

[mudplanet]

14. Peace Patriot Rules

I wish I could rec this.

[social_critic]

19. The Crime rate is higher in Venezuela than in Colombia

The Crime rate is higher in Venezuela than it is in Colombia. Caracas is very far from the border and it is a war zone. The Colombians wanted an open border so they could sell their products to Venezuela, which can't feed or clothe itself because Venezuelan agriculture and industry are highly inefficient - one reason being the high Bolivar exchange rate set up by rate controls you admire so much.

It's pretty straightforward, really. A lot of what you write is irrelevant to Venezuela's crime rate. You have demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of Venezuelan society, or the problems of Venezuela's poor.

Finally, the reason why historically Venezuela was a lot wealthier than Colombia was its oil production, which unfortunately is a lot lower than it was in the past.

[Judi Lynn]

18. Crocodile Tears?

Crocodile Tears?
First published: 17 August, 2010
by Samuel Grove

~snip~
In contrast to the reporting on crime in the west, which tends to find explanation in either a delinquent culture or delinquent genes, the crime wave in Venezuela has been blamed on the Venezuelan government. The New York Times quickly latched on to the story of crime in Venezuela as a political scandal back in 2006 when they cited “crime analysts” who blamed the high rates of crime on the Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez’s “politicization” of the police force—anyone thought to disagree with Chávez’s “militaristic attempt” to reconfigure society along “vague socialist ideals” is “marginalized”—they argued. More recently Reuters argued that the problem was not so much the criminals, but rather the “government’s inaction and lack of policies”.


~snip~
We have at least two sizable reasons to be suspicious of the media in this regard. To begin with the crime wave described in Venezuela is actually all over Latin America. According to the World Health Organization (WHO) Latin America has the highest level of youth homicide of all regions in the world, with El Salvador and Puerto Rico singled out for special mention. Why isn’t there similar vituperation about these countries? In neighbouring Colombia an average of 12 people a day have been killed or disappeared in conflict related violence since 2002. Furthermore a significant proportion of these killings have been shared between the Colombian army and the paramilitary groups closely allied to them. The second reason to be suspicious is that while crime is high in Venezuela, it has been high for a very long time. Why the deluge of articles now? Why not ten, fifteen, twenty or even thirty years ago? Why aren’t the former presidencies of Rafael Caldera, Jaime Lusinchi or Luis Herrera Capins also tarnished by criminally high crime rates?

The media’s selectivity on this issue is partially explicable in the context of a much broader campaign to delegitimise Chávez. In the US in particular, media interest in Venezuela is commensurate with the level of importance of Venezuela to US elites. Not only is Venezuela situated in the US’s backyard, but it is also one of the world’s largest exporters of oil. However Chávez has been a thorn in the side of the US government ever since he openly criticised the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. When a country, particularly one of such strategic importance, forgets to read the script of its master, it can expect to be on the receiving end of some media mud-slinging. On this interpretation crime is simply another opportunity to slander the Venezuelan president along with charges of authoritarianism, incompetence and demagoguery.

The trouble with this analysis is that it mirrors the media’s preoccupation with Chávez. Another consideration to take into account is the degree to which western correspondents are reliant on Venezuelan elites (with whom they have close political, economic and cultural affinity) in order to gather stories, opinion and analysis. Recognising this encourages us to consider more substantial changes within Venezuelan society, which may have triggered a corresponding shift in the western media’s reporting of the country.

One reason why crime in Venezuela has not been reported widely before is that a large portion of the crimes have historically been carried out by the State. In the years preceding Chávez’s election, human rights organisations were reporting a “massive number of arbitrary detentions produced through raids and security operations”, as well as “the persistence of extra-judicial executions by the police forces.” The report was referring explicitly to the presidency of Rafael Caldera, but was by no means an exception. In the 1980s the infamous Cantaura and Yumare massacres (1982 and 1986 respectively) were ultimately eclipsed by the Caracazo in 1989 in which as many as 3000 people were killed after the army was sent in to crush a popular protest.

This period of extrajudicial killings, massacres and police violence is what “the dominant stream of scholarship”1 describes as a period of stability in which Venezuela “developed into a model democracy for the hemisphere”2. The scholarship is referring to a period, between 1958 to 1998, when “democracy” was safely contained within a power sharing arrangement between the two main political parties (Acción Democrática and COPEI) known as Puntofijismo. This arrangement represented a centre right consensus that systematically excluded third parties and independents. In particular there was no place in this arrangement for a party representing the broad interests of Venezuela’s poor majority. It was natural under these circumstances that the state would resort to violence and murder to maintain the status quo.

More:
http://www.newleftproject.org/index.php/site/article_comments/crocodile_tears/