Welcome to Tijuana

Why freedom of speech and freedom of press are usually threatened in Latin American countries?

Lets define what freedom of speech is: is the freedom to speak freely without censorship or limitation.

Why do I say that such freedoms are threaten? First of all because it is the rule and not the exception that cases as the following occur in daily basis:

1. Last year Hugo Chavez, former president of Venezuela, did not renew the license for transmission to Radio Caracas Television. He replaced it for another pro government channel so as he can use it as a propagandistic tool.

2.In Mexico the political party called Partido Revolucionario Institucional decided several times to cut the supply of paper for the newspapers who talked against their party.

3. In the case of Argentina .two nespapers received financial help from the governement and created a paper factory and canceled imports from Canada . The name of the factory is Papel Prensa and is a legal monopoly.

So, what are the two most important reasons to explain why Latin American countries can not practice both liberties without being punished for their opinions?

1. Because the civil liberties are not guaranteed. Then, how can we expect the freedom of speech survive when the government does not respect private property? Is the case of Argentina during the crisis in 2001 and during the actual decision of nationalizing private retirements.

2. The presidents believe that the only way of gaining legitimacy and ,therefore, power is by oppressing those against their ideas or ideals. The so called "symbolic power" is not built by confidence but by fear and terror. They need to find scapegoats for their problems and create their identity as opposite as that of their enemies. As they continue oppressing others opinions they will become like Fidel or Raul Castro in Cuba. They will become dictators. That's the case of Chavez, Ortega and Correa. What can a democracy be without pluralism? The freedom of speech is a human right, such as the right to your own property. Without freedom of speech we can not have freedom of press.

Moreover, there are no mid terms here. Or yet you have freedom or yet you don't. There's no such thing as "little freedom".

In conclusion, if governments and people want to live in a democratic regime they ought to foment the pluralism of ideas. The State should not be the peoples' guardian angel that protect them from the horrible opinions of those who think differently from the former government. They should create their power not be terror, not by silencing the opposition, but in credibility and legitimacy of their actions. Then, they should be respected. Not before. Not before.