In the wake of a devastating report on his presidency by the Organization of American States’ (OAS) Inter-American Commission, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez’s loudest defense has come from actor Sean Penn, known most recently for his roles in Milk and Mystic River.
In the OAS report, Chavez is accused of not only centralizing his own power but eliminating his country’s private sector, repression of opposition media outlets and criminalization of human rights groups. Appearing on the HBO show “Real Time with Bill Maher,” Penn denied Chavez’s tyranny, saying, “Every day, this elected leader is called a dictator here, and we just accept it, and accept it,” before adding that he believed those who call Chavez a dictator should be imprisoned, “truly, there should be a bar by which one goes to prison for these kinds of lies.”
Penn’s role as Chavez propagandist is lockstep with Hugo Chavez’s dismissal of the OAS report. In his response, Chavez showed himself to be little more than a strongman, whose power is based on bullying and intimidation, ridiculing the OAS report in a manner that would be hilarious if it weren’t so sickening. In a fit of rage unbecoming anyone who would deem themselves a “leader,” Chavez said that Santiago Canton, the head of OAS, was “executive excrement, pure excrement” and that the OAS was a “mafia.”
However passionate he may be for the Venezuelan dictator, Penn is a lone voice in an increasing loud chorus of condemnation aimed at Chavez. In a harsh editorial in the Washington Post last month, the newspaper deemed the OAS report as “a powerful and sometimes chilling account” and a late response “to the steady deterioration of Latin American democracy during the past few years.” With so many voices, it’s time to ask who we should trust: the sobering report of the OAS or a celebrity who is clearly out of his league when it comes to politics?
Michael Orion Powell is currently a member of the Young Leaders Program at the Heritage Foundation. For more information on interning at Heritage, please visit: http://www.heritage.org/about/departments/ylp.cfm
No greater dilemma faced the Colombian political system in recent months than the issue of presidential re-election. Should a constitutional referendum be held to allow a popular, extremely effective leader to run, and likely win, a third term as president? For many Colombians, President Alvaro Uribe had become the indispensable leader.
Yet, across the political spectrum, many friends of Colombia worried about the impact of such concentrated power on the congress and judiciary. A third term for Uribe would damage democratic belief in the alterability of executive power and resemble what authoritarian populist Hugo Chavez is doing to destroy democracy in Venezuela.
On February 27, the Colombian Supreme Court rejected the holding of a referendum.
History will record that President Uribe [2002-2010] was a transformative president and a strategic visionary who save his nation from collapse, restored national confidence and pride, and blazed a path linking security with democracy. In the fight against drugs and terrorism, the U.S. found in Uribe a responsible and effective partner.
While the Bush Administration recognized Uribe’s achievements, the Obama Administration and Congress have maintained a distant posture. While advancing security cooperation with Colombia, the Democrats have failed to deliver on the Free Trade Agreement signed in 2006. More than three years of inaction has cost the U.S. jobs and market share.
The Obama Administration warmly applauded Uribe in a recent letter . It can take the next step by recognizing the maturity of Colombia’s democracy and pushing for congressional passage of the trade agreement. This action would be a fitting tribute to Colombia’s democratic progress, foremost, and a final, well-earned tribute to President Uribe.