Two different capabilities
Organizing a campaign requires mobilizing, communicating, and garnering support. Administering a country demands, in addition, understanding problems, selecting teams, executing decisions, and correcting errors. Confusing these two capabilities has allowed electoral victory to function as a universal certificate of competence. The party wins and assumes that, with the result, all its cadres have acquired the aptitude for any responsibility.
Renny Ottolina challenged this confusion in his campaign speeches. He contrasted the parties' ability to win elections with their performance in government. The archives allow us to clearly identify his argument, even if the automatic transcript does not allow for every word to be cited verbatim. His criticism points to a selection process for leaders that prioritizes the organization's success over the country's functioning.
The reward and the responsibility
A ministry handed out as a campaign reward comes with an implicit mission: to repay favors. The problem is not that a party member holds a position;the problem is that party affiliation alone suffices, and no one is required to demonstrate knowledge, objectives, or results. The post becomes a stepping stone in the party's internal career ladder, and the administration ends up funding it.
Governance becomes secondary when the criterion for remaining in office is keeping allies happy. Services fail, yet the official retains their position because they control a region or a political faction. Public accountability is replaced by a tally of loyalties. Consequently, the government may remain united while the country goes neglected.
The opposition must also demonstrate competence.
After a destructive experience, it is understandable that many citizens pin their hopes on ousting the incumbent ruler. That urgency does not absolve us from scrutinizing those aspiring to replace him. Having suffered persecution, gained notoriety, or secured foreign backing does not, in itself, guarantee a team capable of rebuilding justice, security, infrastructure, and the economy.
MVGA maintains that criticism of Chavismo loses depth when it culminates in prematurely placing trust in another political machine. Venezuelan social democracy must answer for its relationship with the "distributive state" and for the administrators it produced. An alternative is not proven simply by repeating that it is an alternative; it must explain what it is capable of doing and how it can be held accountable for doing it.
Professionalism without rule by an inner circle
Demanding competence does not mean handing the country over to specialists who answer to no one. Technical decisions involve priorities and costs that must be debated publicly. A good team requires expertise but also the ability to explain its decisions. Citizens retain the right to question the team, even if they do not hold the same professional credentials as the minister.
Elections legitimize access to government within established rules;they do not automatically make every decision correct. Renny allows us to reclaim this distinction without disparaging the vote. Venezuela needs leaders who can win an election and then meet a more difficult challenge: producing results, admitting mistakes, and stepping down when their performance no longer justifies remaining in office. Campaign applause cannot continue to serve as a license for incompetence.
Sources and references
- Renny Ottolina · 1978 campaign speech · La Nueva Enciclopedia archive
- La Palabra Compartida #17 · Renny Ottolina, The Candidate