<html><body><div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:10pt"><div>The following letter in reference to the link below was submitted to the DI; a related letter will be submitted at a later date to the NG:</div><div> </div><div><a href="http://illinois.edu/lb/article/72/70237">http://illinois.edu/lb/article/72/70237</a></div><div><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"></font> </div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Calibri"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN;" lang="EN"><font size="3">This letter
responds to an interview with political science professor Damarys Canache about
her native Venezuela, conducted by the University’s News Bureau and available
on its website. It appeared in the News-Gazette on January 20</font><font size="2"><sup>th</sup></font><font size="3">.<var id="yui-ie-cursor"></var></font></span></font></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;" class="MsoNormal"><font size="3"><font face="Calibri"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN;" lang="EN">When asked why
President Hugo Chavez has won honest elections, Canache refers to his “use of
institutions and resources of the Venezuelan government to build and maintain a
large base of electoral support.” She doesn’t mention significant decreases in
poverty and increased access to education and medical care. Chavez has used oil
wealth to benefit the majority. It’s not clear why this is not a legitimate,
desirable process, nor how this makes Chavez’s programs different from our own
history. Canache’s view of political science strongly implies that elected
leaders should not respond to the basic survival needs of the majority that
elects them.</span></font></font></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;" class="MsoNormal"><font size="3"><font face="Calibri"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN;" lang="EN">Canache states:
“Although Chávez has won three presidential elections, many scholars contend
that Venezuela today is best characterized as a competitive authoritarian
regime.” Again, it’s not clear why an elected leader using his constitutional
authority to improve the lives of those who elected him is authoritarian rather
than democratic; nor why Americans shouldn’t desire such outcomes in our own
country.</span></font></font></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;" class="MsoNormal"><font size="3"><font face="Calibri"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN;" lang="EN">The reality is
that Chavez is demonized by American politicians and media because he opposes
U.S. imperialism. We have historically supported ruthless Latin dictators as
long as they complied with “U.S. national (read corporate) interests.” Canache
invokes her academic authority to legitimize the propaganda that has for two
centuries been used to justify violent American control of the hemisphere. I
would suggest that her views reflect the petulance of privileged Venezuelans
whose aristocratic authority has been undermined by a charismatic leader and a
successful popular movement. This obviously is to the detriment of what is
called “political science” on our campus.</span><?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p></font></font></div><div><font size="3" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div> </div></div></body></html>