Any discussion about tolerance or the lack of it must be always put in context with very specific examples.
How Tolerant Can a Human Being Be?
I recently read a post that left me thinking about a phrase I repeat every time a Venezuelan complains about the level of animosity in our society or the lack of tolerance to others’ pro-government political opinions: either they are too naïve or they are too cynical. In either case they do very little to help improve our convulsive society.
The former will never see or understand the root of the problem; the latter will always hide it and smile for the picture.
Any discussion about tolerance or the lack of it must always be put in context with very specific examples. I do not know the context this hiver was trying to illustrate, but it made me think about instances in which intolerance can be justified.
To theorize about the ethical or spiritual imperatives of tolerance is pointless in light of the brutal reality many societies face today. In the case of Venezuela, we have been under a ruthless regime for over twenty years now. That very same regime has repeatedly abused the use of platitudes like peace, beauty, and love with the same vehemence they have abused the human rights of men, women, children, elders, blacks, Indians, gays, and any other minority you can think of and which ironically they vowed to defend.
Source
Mother:"And the tale about the 'vindication' of the rights of indigenous peoples?" / Native kid shot by Venezuelan Military: "Not more, mommy" (a pun on the name of the tribe: Yanomami, which sounds like the Spanish phrase, lit, now-not-mommy)
If any Venezuelan (or any other person, for that matter) can recognize the magnitude of the damage caused in these twenty years (massive forced migration, hyperinflation, poverty, deterioration of basic services, human rights violation, impunity, ecocide, etc.) and at the same time wonders why some people are intolerant and even violent at the least provocation, as I said before, they are either too naïve (for lack of a better term) or too cynical.
How can a teacher tolerate anyone saying that we have an excellent educational system that provides “free” and “high quality” education because the government cares about the children and the teachers when teachers know the sad and horrific reality?
Someone who opposes the regime would not complain about intolerance because we have known for two decades that chavismo is intolerance and violence (in all its shapes). Those who support the regime tend to complain about escualidos’ intolerance every time there is a political argument among friends, family, or coworkers.
The idea that every person is entitled to their opinion and that all opinions are valid and should be respected applies to most cases. However, there are extreme cases where no one in their right mind (or with some blood running through their veins) would be able to show empathy, tolerance, or understanding, let alone respect, for certain opinions or the people who hold them.
Some people draw the line on racial matters; others on religion; others on gender discrimination. I draw the line on chavismo (which stands for anything wrong in the world these days). Anyone defending chavismo and all which it represents has it coming. I know I will not react violently (I’ll just avoid any conversation or argument), but I also know that most people, who have suffered great losses because of chavismo, have run out of patience after so many years of empty promises, corruption, mediocrity, violence, cynicism, and impunity.
Tolerance, like respect, must be earned. No sane person would expect to be respected if their views compromise the safety and integrity of the majority. Even if their views comprised the safety and integrity of a minority, it would still call for drastic reactions. No one can tolerate or respect discriminatory views that translate in the annihilation of a group. Chavismo represent the worst in political, economic, social, religious, and intellectual views. Their international allies and apologists are also the enemies of freedom, peace, and prosperity.
Source
Chavismo oil debacle /Ortega: "I think China is that way..."
Whatever international conflict espoused by chavismo immediately raises red flags. Any nation or individual defending chavismo in Venezuela becomes suspect. There is not a single tangible thing they can offer as achievements. Instead, they jabber in either theorizing, blaming others for their faults, or attacking strawmen.
For chavistas it would be ideal if despite their contribution to the destruction of their country, people would still treat them with affection and respect. After all, they are entitled to political views and you should be able to separate the person (friend, relative, co-worker) from their opinions.
Now, this may work, in trivial matters such as sports (and I know that maybe some die-hard sport fans would disagree with me). You would not break your relationship with friends or relatives over LeBron Vs. Jordan or Messi Vs. Ronaldo, would you? Whenever violence erupts in these kinds of scenarios, we can safely call for tolerance and understanding.
However, what happens when certain views become policies, unconstitutional ones, for that matter, and those in power can determine who has the right to even exist and who doesn’t. Wouldn’t those who support such a regime be complicit of whatever atrocity that regime commits? Would you be ok sharing the table with people who support the destruction of your business, the exile of your children, the assassination of some relative, and so on?
Can you separate the person from their opinions and still respect the person?
This is the situation in Venezuela and luckily for chavistas there is more tolerance than they deserve.
Articles 328 and 330 of our constitution explicitly forbid the armed forces to take side politically or ideologically. However, for almost two decades they institutionalized public and open pledges of alliance that make any rational person cringe just hearing a bunch of men and women in uniform chant that they are “chavistas, socialistas, anti-imperialistas…”. Their chants are accompanied by brutal repression of anyone trying to “subvert the order”.
How do you mediate? How do you conciliate when the condition is submission the new status quo. You can exist only if you accept the regime and its policies. Your citizenship is subject to fealty to the new lord. You can express your disagreements, but there will be consequences; sometimes fatal. That’s the scenario where some people who still support this nefarious regime expect to be tolerated and respected
Thanks for your reading
