The Dark Spectacle of Maduro: Elon Musk, Lula, and Electoral Fraud

by
Isaias Lobão
My articles My booksMy videos
Follow on:

Do you know the term “matinee”? Originating from the French matinée, it means “morning” and it refers to artistic presentations or exhibitions held during the day. In the United States of the 1930s and 1940s, matinees were especially popular for airing “sitcoms”—weekly episodes full of adventure and suspense that kept audiences looking forward to the next chapter. These serials only arrived here in Brazil between the 50s and 60s.

Using a political analogy, socialism can be seen as a “dark matinee.” Just as sitcoms keep audiences looking forward to the next episode, socialism keeps its adherents waiting for improvements that are rarely realized, perpetuating a cycle of dependency and frustration. This path, as Friedrich Hayek defined in The Road to Serfdom, leads to an escalation of state control that, even initiated with noble intentions, inevitably reduces individual freedoms and paves the way for governmental tyranny.

Socialist rhetoric is uniform regardless of place. Initially, its proponents present themselves as populist candidates, promising answers to the distressing national problems, achieving high popularity, and aggregating various segments of society—military, religious, intellectuals, press, and nationalists. However, as socialist policies fail to promote the promised economic growth, news of enemies and attempted coups “against democracy” begin to emerge. Popular discontent grows, culminating in protests. According to the official discourse, such demonstrations pose threats to the country’s stability.

The next acts are well known. First, a government needs to be “firm” to establish order. As Hans-Herman Hoppe observed:

To assure its very existence, any institution that enforces a socialist theory of property must rely on the continual threat of violence….Regarding the content of its actions, violence is the cornerstone of socialism’s existence as an institution….and as socialism rests on aggressive violence directed against innocent victims, aggressive violence is the nature of any state.

Naturally, what follows is the suppression of all the freedoms that trouble the state apparatus: freedom of speech, political freedom, religious freedom, economic freedom, property rights, and the right to bear arms. Take Venezuela, for example, where the government has taken repression to absurd extremes. At the height of their disarmament policies, not only were firearms banned, but even slingshots were banned.

In Brazil, the Lula government tried to implement similar policies, but encountered an obstacle in the incompetence of his successor. President Dilma Rousseff was eventually impeached by Congress. This unexpected event paved the way for the election of Jair Bolsonaro, thus interrupting the advance of the policies previously planned by the Workers’ Party (PT).

Socialist rhetoric is persistently predictable, and it identifies and demonizes so-called internal enemies — labeling them “fascists” or “nationalists” — who supposedly foiled the glorious revolutionary process. At the same time, it turns its rhetorical weapons against external adversaries such as imperialism, foreign debt, and economic sanctions, painting them as the real threats to the well-being of the people.

This defense mechanism is a constant. Cuba, for decades, has attributed extreme poverty and economic difficulties to the U.S. embargo, presenting it as the main villain of its economic tragedy. Daniel Lacalle demonstrates that what destroyed Cuba was Communism, not the so-called “blockade.” Meanwhile, Venezuela – in an equally desperate situation – blames international sanctions for sky-high inflation rates and the dizzying devaluation of the bolivar, resulting in abrupt changes in its economic policy. Ryan McMaken argues that the real cause of the country’s economic collapse lies in its socialist economic policies.

In both cases, these regimes divert attention from the failure of their own economic policies. They use these accusations as a shield to cover up the ineffectiveness and counterproductivity of socialism to provide prosperity or stability.

As socialist regimes consolidate their power, they invariably take control over crucial institutions like the judiciary, the military, and the intellectual circle. The rhetoric employed by these governments becomes progressively more radical. Thus, founded on seemingly-solid foundations, these administrations reach the apex of their dominion, which is both tragic and absolute. And then, as Ludwig von Mises had already painstakingly exposed in his seminal work Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth, the system begins its inevitable collapse. Faced with these failures, apologists for these regimes quickly claim that what manifests itself is not “true socialism.”

Venezuela follows the script of the dark matinee. Nicolás Maduro rigorously adopted the same script outlined by Chávez. Immediately before these last elections, state television aired an uplifting documentary, extolling Chávez and his contribution to the building of the Bolivarian Revolution or “Socialism of the 21st Century.” The intention is clear: to strengthen the regime by elevating Chávez to the status of a mythical figure, while Maduro recognizes the continued need for propaganda to prop up his failed government.

Faced with the clearly fraudulent election process, opponents demanded access to the minutes of the election. International observers and some governments agreed, however, the script continued to be staged. Maduro, always ready for a show, released a “bombshell” video claiming that Elon Musk, not content with revolutionizing transportation and space exploration, decided to hack the Venezuelan electoral system, preventing the disclosure of electoral minutes.

As for Lula and the Brazilian left, they maintained a complicit silence, supporting Maduro. At the same pace, Brazil blocked a crucial resolution in the OAS. Under discussion was Maduro’s electoral fraud, with a proposal for a forceful declaration against the regime. The declaration required the regime to immediately disclose the disaggregated results of the ballot boxes and submit to independent verification. There were 17 votes for and none against, however, 18 affirmative votes were required. Brazil, opting for abstention, ensured that the declaration was not adopted. This demonstrated that, in the international arena, the Brazilian left consistently favors dictatorships, regardless of their consequences.

Sectors of the Brazilian press, such as Globo News and UOL, are already rewriting the narrative, claiming that Maduro would have swerved to the right, corrupting the ideals of 21st Century Socialism. This is a ridiculous attempt to disengage from obvious failure by proclaiming that Maduro is “not a leftist.” It is widely known that both Maduro and Lula are central figures in Latin American socialism, linked by the São Paulo Forum, an organization founded by Lula, Fidel Castro and Hugo Chávez.

In a recent show of rhetorical sordidness, Senator Randolfe Rodrigues, Lula’s ally, tried to distance himself from Nicolás Maduro. During an interview with journalist Leonardo Sakamoto of UOL, known for his socialist sympathies, Rodrigues took a curious position. Rodrigues suggested that Maduro would now be following in the footsteps of Jair Bolsonaro, in a desperate attempt to reshape Maduro’s image as an antagonistic figure to the Brazilian left. In this scene, the rats begin to abandon the sinking ship.

This kind of political maneuvering is typical of socialist strategy manuals. Randolfe Rodrigues, to get away from a now inconvenient ideological ally, created an imaginary bogeyman. He seeks not only to divert attention from his ideology mates’ critical flaws, but also to reconfigure the political narrative in a way that clears his own bar. This strategy of redirecting attention is an art masterfully practiced by socialists: whenever reality begins to crumble around their failed utopias, they quickly invent an external villain or reshape alliances without any regard for coherence or factual truth.

In the grotesque Venezuelan theater, the situation is heading dangerously towards a civil war, with the worsening of social and political tensions. Countless lives have already been lost in the protests and the future is terribly uncertain. In a recent video, Maduro features imprisoned opponents—he pejoratively labels them terrorists – playing the role of satisfied prisoners to unsuspecting international observers. Tragically, there are those who believe this scene.

In this macabre montage, Maduro sent armed groups to confiscate cell phones, trying to prevent posting any unauthorized information, and organized an example prison, where prisoners are forced to sing in chorus that “Chávez lives!” This performance was aimed at impressing and arming his international allies, such as Lula da Silva, reinforcing the narrative that “everything is normal” in Venezuela. The prisoners – many arrested for reporting electoral fraud – are coerced into participating in the staging. Meanwhile, in Brazil, the Workers’ Party (PT) repeatedly alleged fraud in each election it lost, without any of its members suffering legal consequences for these statements.

It only remains for us to wait and hope that the worst can be avoided, while we reflect on the course that things can take. As we await the scenes of the next chapters, we hope that, against all odds, that we can witness a positive outcome. It is crucial that they abandon any illusion in socialism or democracy as solutions. The true path to prosperity is the path to freedom – a principle that should guide not only Venezuela but all nations that seek freedom and progress.