This interview took place on March 07, 2021 between Ana Teresa Torres and journalist Hugo Prieto, and was originally published in Prodavinci under the title, “Ana Teresa Torres: “Vivimos en una gran distopía”
IQLatino has acquired the rights to translate and publish this interview in English.
I will not be the one to say, without harboring a doubt, that coincidences exist. I would have to go to science to prove it, which is flatly denied. I write down a series of facts that, like two vectors, point in the same direction and send a red signal every time they intercept an impression, a conclusion or a piece of information, on their parallel path. The first vision is from the writer Ana Teresa Torres*, reflected in her book Viaje al poscomunismo (Journey to postcommunism). They are annotations, sharp as befits an intellectual of her worth. The second vision is that of the American journalist David Remnick, who wrote an iconic piece of investigative journalism, “Lenin’s Tomb,” which was awarded the Pulitzer Prize. It would not be daring to affirm that the autocracy of Nicolás Maduro is, at best, a parody of the autocracy of Vladimir Putin.
I have proposed to Ana Teresa Torres that we pay attention to those signs. The result is the first part of this interview. Later we will talk about her most recent novel, Diorama …
A new business class in Russia, “the oligarchy,” and also in Venezuela, “the Boliburguesía.” In your opinion, what would characterize them?
I clarify that mine is only an impression, but the phenomenon is similar, in the sense that after the collapse of the Soviet Union, what is called oligarchic capitalism took place in Russia. A number of people, linked to the structures of power, seized “the opportunity” to do business in very important sectors (oil, banks, gas, gold) and formed a new class. Somehow, one could say that something similar happens in Venezuela with the appearance of super luxury stores in Caracas, high-end trucks and cars, exclusive bodegones, luxurious parties in emblematic places, such as the Humboldt Hotel. That is, what we see is the reflection of a group of people who have managed to link to power and run large businesses.
Some of the impressions that you relate in your book Viaje al poscomunismo can be found, not as the testimony of a writer who takes notes throughout her journey through Russia (and the former satellite countries of the former USSR), but in a meticulous and detailed report entitled “The Tomb of Lenin,” whose author is the journalist David Remnick.
One of the characteristics of that class, according to Remnick, is that it has to be faithful, extremely faithful, to power. Otherwise things do not go well. He cites the case of a businessman (Mikhail Khodorkovsky) who tried to do business on his own, without the consent of the Kremlin, and ended up in prison. So, that phenomenon, which Remnick defines as oligarchic capitalism, we can see in Venezuela.
Here we could mention the case of businessman Ricardo Fernández Barrueco, who did business with Chavismo and ended up in prison.
For this to work, requires absolute loyalty. Otherwise, it does not go well.
You say, in your book, that you cannot avoid the comparison between what happens in Russia and what happens in Venezuela. The Soviets built, but they also destroyed. Chavismo, on the other hand, has been a load of demolition. The country is destroyed. Could you add to this approach?
We cannot say that a communist state has been established in Venezuela as happened in the Soviet Union and other Eastern European countries. Maybe it was a project, I can’t know. In any case, it was not consolidated in the sense of the collectivization of the means of production, for example, which is something basic in a communist state. The communal state; soviet is commune. I think that did not work in the same way. Many expropriations were made, but almost all of them ended in the destruction of the factory or agricultural production. Of those companies that were expropriated, have the workers who worked in them been able to enjoy the benefits? It does not seem so. I am not going to defend the Soviet state at this point. But there was an evident social construction, in terms of education and health. Of course, linked to a brutal repression. Likewise, it must be said that we have not had the degree of totalitarianism that prevailed in the former Soviet Union. What has taken place here is a selective repression, a destruction of the media and a suffocation of freedoms. But I don’t think it is comparable to the degrees of persecution and control of citizenship that existed in the Soviet empire. This, we could say, is a kind of parody. But no less destructive at that.
I would like to clarify this aspect, because later you write: “A scene of usurpations, corruption, judicial battles, oligarchs, all of which supports my hypothesis that Venezuela reached post-communism without having gone through communism.”
Yes, that’s what I was saying, right? It is a very personal hypothesis, of a writer, not of a political scientist, which I am not. But one can see very evident manifestations of this oligarchic capitalism, it is enough to go around certain parts of the city. But as I said before, it is only the footprints that we can see.
To give continuity to the coincidences, I quote a phrase from the epilogue of your book: “In time the Russia of the tsars and the Russia of the great Soviet empire ended up in the autocratic Russia of always.” While Remnick writes: “After a thousand years of feudalism, tsarist autocracy and totalitarian communism, could we expect the advent of a liberal democracy, prosperity, truth and justice?” Sure, there is an element of geopolitics that could not go unnoticed. You say, in addition: “Venezuela, formerly aligned with the Western bloc, became a pawn on the new geopolitical board that seems to resume a Cold War of the 21st century.” Iran, Turkey and, of course, Russia, in this international alliance.
If anyone thought that after communism a liberal democracy would come to Russia, it turns out it did not. That is, historical phenomena are not like that. That new class appeared – oligarchic capitalism – as Remnick points out. But let’s talk about Venezuela. Part of the political project was to de-westernize and de-modernize the country. Certainly, that has been achieved. Venezuela clearly belonged to the Western world. At this time, Venezuela’s ties are outside that orbit and concentrated in the countries you just mentioned. I think it has to do with the fact that the alliance with countries that have liberal democracy as a political system, which are the ones that impose limits and sanctions, is not of interest, but rather with countries that are precisely autocracies. It is these new alliances – after post-communism – where Venezuela is noted. Which tells you that the project was not to lead the country to a liberal democracy, as we knew it in other periods of our history.
There is another distinctive element. During the liberal democracy that we knew, the repression and the violation of human rights was not as widespread and significant as it is today. New icons: The tomb, The Helicoide. The United Nations fact-checking report, which accounts for crimes against humanity. The destruction of political parties. The persecution that has led its leaders into exile. I am not going to say that the repression is similar to that of those countries, but there is a very significant change.
Of course. There is a radical change. One can see that the fundamental elements of a liberal democratic system have been falling apart. One, freedom of the press. How many newspapers are left? Very few. Media outlets have been taken. Two, we entered the phase of destruction of universities via budget suffocation, via destruction of academic material (robberies, looting, vandalism in university centers). Three, those who hold a certain leadership must go into exile. Four, the political parties expropriated and sold to other groups. Of course, that allows us to say that there is an opposition. And here I point out a feature mentioned by Remnick. The state can allow political parties, but not coalitions. Obviously, coalitions can be far more dangerous. And it is very difficult to find a coalition at this time. Five, there is another element, I cannot know if that has happened the same in those countries, but crime also influences this a lot. That is, “special” groups, which can deprive people of their property or take away their businesses. All kinds of bribery, impositions, threats, for people who need, in quotation marks, the “benevolence” of the Government to receive food or some other gift, if they do not behave politically as desired. All this opens up a panorama, where the democratic system, I would say, has been destroyed.
What do we have left?
That is not why I am going to say that there are no people with a conscience and with a democratic intention. But what makes a democratic system, in terms of political parties, in terms of freedoms, in terms of communication, in terms of respect for human rights (not to mention the number of incarcerations without a trial formula), all of this tells us that, if the objective was to destroy the democratic system, is well advanced. It has been quite successful. At this moment there is the memory of other political periods in Venezuela and the aspiration of many people that this could, in some way, be rebuilt. That it may rise from the democratic ruins and be re-established. We do not know that, it is an impossible future to determine.
We have Remnick’s mention of a dystopian novel (The Day of the Oprichnik), whose author is Vladimir Sorokin. The oprichnik were Ivan the Terrible’s KGB. Sorokin describes an authoritarian Russia, set in 2028, under the rule of a dictator. On Thursday you present Diorama, your dystopian novel. I only mention both books. What led you to write that novel?
I think we live in a great dystopia, unlike last century, which was a century of great utopias. Socialism was one of them. Also the democracy that is installed in the countries of Western Europe. Scientific progress. The 20th century was built on great utopian tales, many of which managed to materialize. But we are entering the 21st century and it seems that it is the other way around. The period of dystopias, right? In fact, there is a great literary production, right now, of dystopian novels and stories. Reality has become hazy, difficult to understand or comprehend. From Venezuela, it seemed to me that I could not write anything that did not go through that channel of dystopia. To find a reality and ask myself, is this possible? Is this happening? And it turns out that it is. So we live in a dystopian atmosphere. Now complicated with the issue of the pandemic. Although when I wrote the novel, the pandemic was not present. But it’s part of that end-of-the-world feeling.
Is there continuity between Viaje al poscomunismo and Diorama, the novel you present next Thursday?
I make a retrospective consideration in relation to your question. Yes, there is a continuity. Because, as I said before, socialism was a great utopia of the 20th century. And now, what it has generated is a great dystopia. Obviously, this was not the outcome that was expected, neither in the USSR nor in the other Soviet republics. There is no coincidence in this. There is a spirit of the times, where we are feeling that those great stories of emancipation ended in situations like the ones we have spoken about: the oligarchic capitalism of criminal groups, which in Russia are famous. They ended up the opposite of a utopia.
It must be said. Criminal groups that colonized the state or associated with power structures.
Sure. It is a structural link between intelligence services and criminal groups, at least in Russia. That creates a dystopian world. Dystopian novels were written during communism, due to the censorship that was brutal. Now, the circumstances are different. And from what we can see, there is greater freedom of production. It is in the Russia of Sorokin’s novel and also in Venezuela. You guys at Prodavinci have just published a section on dystopian stories. I do not think it is something that the writer seeks, it is something that reality imposes on him. He does not find another way to express what he lives other than through the description of a fictional world, in terms of dystopia.
In your novel, reviewers have to write according to guidelines that come from a power structure. It seems that allegory is the mechanism, or the tool, that can best serve the purpose of writing a dystopia. Is that so?
From a narrative point of view, I think there would be two ways. One would be the novel report, with the pointing out of data, and another would be the creation of a fictional world that is alluding, allegorically, to a real world. That is the one I chose and I think many writers are in that line. My novel takes place in the Kingdom of Joy, where it must be said (obligatorily) that everyone is happy. So, it is not good to review texts where people can perceive unpleasant realities. A totalitarian world has to be a happy world. You cannot suffer when the political regime boasts of having ensured the happiness of the whole world. There is a fictitious freedom, because you have to write about how happy we all are, the writers, the university professors, who are some of the characters in the novel.
How do you describe power in your novel?
It is anonymous. You never talk about a person. Do you remember the novels that allude to the Latin American dictators? In the Dominican Republic (Trujillo), in Guatemala (Manuel Estrada), in Paraguay (Alfredo Stroessner)? I think we are in a different phase. There is no dictator, there is no so-and-so, there is like an invisible power. It is an anonymous power.
Omnipresent?
But that you can’t see, like Gómez or Pérez Jiménez. I believe that the atmosphere, at this moment, is not that of a dictator, but that of an invisible power, which is there and is directing the life and destiny of the nation. It is, if you like, even more sinister.
Yes, because by not having a face, an identity, it becomes a ghostly presence. What would be the distinguishing feature?
Joy has been declared, it is almost mandatory. Maybe it has to do with North Korea, where everyone is happy. You can’t talk about anything else. You can only cry if Kim Jong-un dies. They are not the dictatorships that we knew in the twentieth century. It is another type of power, where the alliance between economic power and the criminal world can come to exercise absolute control.
*** * Ana Teresa Torres is a narrator, essayist. Member of the Venezuelan Academy of the Language. She has won various national and international awards. Among other works, she has written La herencia de la tribu, Del mito de la Independencia a la Revolución Bolivariana (2009), Nocturama, La Escribana del Tiempo, Viaje al poscomunismo, Diorama.