It is said that the strong start of the negative sequence inaugurated on February 4, 1992 was showing the head of the coup on TV, spreading a “for now” generator. A priority agenda item in insurrectionary programs is always the forced occupation of the media, and in the first place, television. Along the same lines, regimes of force (despotic, totalitarian and similar) give primacy to total and systematic control of the media, as the first and fundamental oppressive step. These are data consistent with the reality now identified with what is usually called the “information society”.
These data force a reflection on the matter, when the country prepares for electoral events arbitrarily accompanied by a manifest communicational hegemony, demonstrative of the disastrous training of the Venezuelan people following the experienced guidelines of the Cuban Castro regime.
Man is rightly defined as a “being for communication”. This is evidenced in the narrative of the Genesis about creation. God makes a speaking being, in his “image and likeness”, with whom he establishes a dialogue and entrusts the variety of other beings, who are placed at his service. The speaker will soon be given a companion of the same species.
Communication weaves society, which the human being develops over time as history by virtue of his freedom. Unfortunately, this soon experienced a weakening with the irruption of sin (Adam’s disobedience that will be reflected in Cain’s fratricide), which is a fracture of genuine communication.
The human being continued to be a free being and, therefore, a builder of his society, which constitutes a relational continuum, fundamentally communicational. What happened to the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11) is a paradigmatic fact, which clearly revealed both human arrogance and the role that communication plays in the framework and social evolution.
Antonio Pasquali defines así communication in its most genuine sense of duty, emphasizing the aspects of equality and shared leadership: “the process by which the rational entity, acting one among equals and granting total reciprocity to the interlocutor, it vectorizes towards him, in agreed codes, a knowledge or a feeling converted into a message” (18 essays on communications, Debate 2005, 48). In this perspective, he insists on the right to communication -which integrates and exceeds the classics of expression, opinion and information- as innate, inalienable.
This right is primal and fundamental in the human fabric. In an immediate and privileged way it is linked to that of life. Hence the saying that “to live is to communicate and to communicate is to live”. Death comes to be loss of all communication. From this it can be inferred that preventing the free communication of a people is a kind of genocide.
The “Cuban domestication” of our country has its most immediate and palpable manifestation in the communicational hegemony that the totalitarian Socialism Siglo XXI has imposed on the Venezuelan people and they have been enduring “peacefully.” The media they have been swallowed up, suspended or controlled by the ruling party. conatenalization in a perverse sense.
In this, as in other fields, the non-existence of a Rule of Law and the unconstitutionality of the country are revealed. A particularly serious fact in pre-electoral times, which demand authentic freedom in the exchange of proposals and decision-making by the sovereign (CRBV 5), in the effective practice of what is established in article 57 of the Constitution: “Everyone has the right to freely express their thoughts, ideas or opinions out loud, in writing or through any other form of expression and to make use of any means of communication and dissemination, without censorship being established”.
The urgent national re-foundation must have a privileged manifestation in the restoration and improvement of free communication.