When a Coup is the Right Thing to Do...

How far are countries willing to go to defend their democratic institutions in the face of danger? We got a glimpse of that this weekend in the Central American country of Honduras who – via a military coup d’etat – ousted its democratically-elected president, Manuel Zelaya. Via a court order issued by the country’s Supreme Court, the country’s military apparatus was put in motion to capture the president and fly him to Costa Rica to exile. Immediately following his touchdown in Costa Rica, he described the events as a “kidnapping” and a “coup” promulgated by his political opponents.

The reason for the sacking, and removal from office, had been the combative and insurgent-like demagoguery Zelaya used to incite the masses and score political points. Like his idols in Venezuela, Cuba and Bolivia, Zelaya wanted to further control the government in ways that the Honduran Constitution deemed illegal. And this is where this story begins to unravel for Zelaya. The strategy that he would begin to apply would be the one used by past despots with varying degrees of success throughout Latin America.

Zelaya intended to hold a referendum on whether or not the country should hold a constitutional convention to change the constitution and allow him to be re-elected president next year. Keep in mind that a presidential limit of one 4-year term only is expressly mandated by the Honduran constitution and was included as a result of the heightened probability and concern regarding the rise of would-be dictators, very common in Latin America. Thus, Zelaya’s views regarding the term limit clause was not a view shared by the vast majority of lawmakers, including some members of his own political party. Opponents argued that Zelaya wanted to change the term limit clause so he could hold on to power next year and beyond, possibly indefinitely.

According to government authorities, prior to June 28th, Zelaya covertly enacted a law – an illegal act in and of itself – that would have allowed him to bypass any referendum to request a new constitutional convention, thus allowing him to prevent new presidential elections from being held at all, and granting him authority to organize a new assembly empowered to draft a new Honduran constitution. The National Congress, hoping to thwart the power-hungry Zelaya, passed a law forbidding referenda no less than 180 days before the next general election. In addition, and most importantly, the Honduran Constitution expressly forbids amendments and reforms altering presidential term limits or allowing re-election, which explained Zelaya’s zealous approach journey to a new constitution, a clear and pathetic display of power grab. Zelaya urged the military to offer logistical support to hold the referendum, as is normally done by the armed forces, but the army chief denied his request because he didn’t want to break the law. Zelaya then fired him.

How Wrong is the World?

Zelaya was the democratically-elected president of the Honduran people when he was removed from his office for violating the country’s constitution. The world should be appalled not by his removal, but by the events that led to his removal. Zelaya’s utter disregard for that country’s constitution is as unbearable as President Obama disregarding the U.S. Constitution and deciding to change the term limits without amending the said constitution. It would be as if Obama were to say – like Andrew Jackson once said – to forget about the Supreme Court, they can enforce their own laws, similar to what Jackson did to then Chief Justice Marshall in the early 19th century when Marshall ruled against the former war hero. Jackson, however, never broke the law by going against the U.S. Constitution.

Indeed, what happened in Honduras is a blow to democracy, but only because there was no mechanism for the people to remove Zelaya from power. In the US, we have an impeachment process. The House of Representatives impeaches a President and the Senate tries him/her. The impeached president is removed from office and depending on the offence, could be tried by a civilian court. In Honduras, however, this process is lacked. The Honduran constitution, however, is clear regarding the illegality of changing its articles regarding presidential term limits: “No amendments, under any circumstance, shall be made… to the presidential term limits.”

It is also explicit in the way the Honduran Supreme Court should do its job, saying that the court has “original and exclusive jurisdiction” regarding whether any law is unconstitutional.
It is also very clear when it states that every public official is sworn by the following oath when they take their respective offices: “I swear to be loyal to the Republic, the Constitution and its laws.” A very explicit and concise phrase that encompasses all public officials, the president included.

How far are we willing to go to guarantee that our democratic institutions are there for us, but more importantly for our children and our children’s children? The crisis in Honduras has made many people ponder these same thoughts. Are we as a people in a democratic society going to sit idle while a president – elected democratically – maneuvers to the point where he is positioning himself to rule forever? Can we sit on our hands while this happens? Our own freedoms are trampled when a power-hungry individual attempts to cover our eyes while at the same time he tries to change the constitution to further his political goals.

What will happen with the deposed leader? Well, surely negotiations will take place and I wouldn’t be surprised if he were to return to Honduras. But, the people should remain resolute. If he were to regain power, it should definitely be only under the following circumstances:

(1) He will finish his term as president of Honduras till January of 2010 and no more;
(2) He will forgo planning referenda for the remainder of his term;
(3) He will be barred from again running for president in his lifetime;
(4) He will not incite people to violence

These are simple and protective measures designed to return law and order to the country and continue growing as a democracy. For Obama was right in that deposing leaders when they do something we don’t agree with is one thing, but deposing of leaders when they break the law – especially the country’s constitution – to strengthen their hold on power is another.It is the responsibility of the people and their elected leaders to act to defend their Republic. For sitting on the sidelines doing nothing is the greatest sin of all.

Neda and the Iranian Revolution

The seeds of democracy are planted in the battlefields and in the streets of places where the oppressed are overwhelmed by the intrusiveness, abuses and violation of an absolute power.

Indeed, absolute power corrupts absolutely, and in Iran it has not only corrupted the highest levels, but - thanks to the Twitter and Facebook revolution - the power of the masses has touched every corner of the world.

The coldblooded murder of 26-year-old Neda Soltan was not just heartbreaking and powerful, but it has solidified a movement that not even the M-16 rifle nor the tank can corral. Watching the young Iranian girl bleed on the streets and watching her life leave her body was truly heartbreaking.

The horrific scenes of carnage by the Iranian republican guard have touched the most primitive of human emotions, it has made us, in the West, connect with the struggling Iranians by more than just sympathy. Those magical chords of affection, support and love of your fellow brother have grown and strengthened themselves like never before. We are all Iranians now. Free Iran!

The state however is using its iron first to squash this movement. The time has come for Iran to ask itself whether or not they want to continue to live as an oppressed people or is further bloodshed something they can stomach. Breaking the bonds of oppression is not free, it is paid in blood.

The Troubles of TARP

The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) created by the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, commonly referred to as the “bailout” of the financial system, is a federal program managed by the federal government created to purchase “toxic assets” from many of the financial institutions that precipitated the current financial downturn.

These toxic assets, which are characterized as either (a) subprime mortgages or securities and (b) any other asset that the government would deem beneficial to purchase to help the financial institutions, were created mostly by the housing bubble that thrived for most of the early to mid 2000s.

The ‘Bubble’

The housing bubble saw average home prices increase by 37% from 2002 to 2007, from $228,000 to $313,600, respectively, creating a sense of wealth among the American consumer and led to a bullish attitude by many of the financial institutions that financed the demand. As more and more banks lent more money to Americans with low or “subprime” credit worthiness, they believed that home prices would continue to rise, as they had for the past forty years, therefore limiting their losses if they defaulted. This idealism and lack of preparedness, which was shared by other financial institutions around the globe, created a false sense of security that prevented them from making decisions that would make their companies financially solvent for the long term. Rather, they increased their lending of subprime mortgages to more Americans.

In the United Kingdom, as in America, the housing bubble reached unheard-of heights. Home prices in the UK went from around 70,000 pounds in the late 1970s, to over 170,000 pounds by 2006, or an increase of 142% in just 30 years.

In early 2007, the bubble that was built on the backs of hard-working people began to show cracks. In the United States, 25 subprime lenders declared bankruptcy, announcing losses and putting themselves up for sale. New Century Financial, the largest subprime lender at the time, declared for chapter 11 bankruptcy.

The market, however, was slow to react to the dreary news. In July, the Dow Jones closed above 14,000 for the first time ever. In the New York Times Business section, Vikas Bajaj wrote: “The stock market has charged past concerns about surging mortgage default rates, rising oil prices and higher interest rates.” In the same article, however, Citigroup strategist Tobias Levkovich, said that the market “was not as attractive as it was before, but it is not unattractive.” The Dow Jones’ 14,000 milestone was led in large part by IBM’s strong numbers, Exxon Mobil’s $76/barrel, but financial stocks, beginning to show signs of the sickness that was looming, had another rough day due to subprime worries.

Still, many experts doubted about the weakness of the financial institutions and claimed that the ‘mixed nature’ of the economy was going to help it avoid a calamity. ''The economy is mixed but not as weak as when a lot of people made their earnings expectations at the end of the first quarter,'' said Leo P. Grohowski, chief investment officer at U. S. Trust, a division of Bank of America that serves wealthy clients.

Timeline of a Collapse

• January 24: The National Association of Realtors (NAR) announced that 2007 had the largest drop in existing home sales in 25 years, and "the first price decline in many, many years and possibly going back to the Great Depression."
• February 2008: British bank Northern Rock, was taken into state ownership by the British government after a ‘run on the bank’ by the public which was panicked by the current credit market crisis.
• March 10: Dow Jones Industrial Average at the lowest level since October 2006, falling more than 20% from its peak just five months prior.
• March 14–18: Dropping valuations of mortgage securities caused by skyrocketing default and foreclosure rates forces margin calls to the Wall Street bank Bear Stearns for debts the bank used to leverage mortgage issuances, and threatens BSC with bankruptcy and causes worldwide market jitters. In a weekend deal brokered by U.S. Treasury secretary Paulson and Fed chairman Ben Bernanke, JPMorgan bank agrees to purchase BSC for $2 per share, compared to their 2007 high of nearly $170, in exchange for the Federal Reserve Bank agreeing to accept BSC's devalued mortgage backed securities as collateral for public loans at the newly created Term Securities Lending Facility (TSLF), effectively providing a mechanism to bail out Wall Street banks threatened with insolvency.
• March 1–June 18: 406 people were arrested for mortgage fraud in an FBI sting across the U.S., including buyers, sellers and others across the wide-ranging mortgage industry.
• June 19: Ex-Bear Stearns fund managers were arrested by the FBI for their allegedly fraudulent role in the subprime mortgage collapse. The managers purportedly misrepresented the fiscal health of their funds to investors publicly while privately withdrawing their own money.
• July 30: Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 changes the $250,000/$500,000 capital gains exclusion applying to second homes and rental property.

Congress Passes TARP

Public Law 110-343, more commonly known as the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, was passed by Congress and signed by President George W. Bush on October 3rd, 2008. The 169-page law created a $700 billion Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) among other provisions, but for the purpose of this paper, however, the focus will be on the TARP program.

TARP allowed the US government to purchase $700 billion worth of troubled assets and equity from financial institutions in order to jumpstart short-term lending and restart a sagging economy. The targeted assets or collateralized debt obligations were initially sold in a booming market in 2007, when the Dow was topping 14,000, and then the world came crashing down when they were hit by widespread foreclosures. TARP intended to purchase these assets, thus allowing participating institutions to stabilize their balance sheets and avoid further losses.

Another important goal of TARP was to encourage banks to resume lending at levels seen before the crisis, both to each other and to consumers and businesses. The reasoning was that if TARP funds were able to remove the toxic assets from banks, they would in turn restart lending again, and therefore increase consumer confidence. As banks themselves gained increased lending confidence, the inter-bank lending would resume.

The Treasury had authority to only spend the first half of the $700 billion, while the second half would only come once a report was submitted to Congress from the Treasury outlining plans for the use of the second part of the TARP funds. The initial monies were released in October 3, 2008, while the second part was released on January 19th, 2009.

Mistrust Between Administration and Congress

In mid October 2008, then Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and President Bush announced revisions for TARP. The Treasury reversed its earlier course and announced plans to purchase preferred stock and warrants in the nation’s largest banks instead of using the money to purchase toxic assets. The first allocation of the TARP money was, in essence, used to buy preferred stock, which is similar to debt in that it gets paid before common equity shareholders. This makes it possibly an ineffective way for banks to restart their lending because instead of clearing their balance sheets of toxic assets, they are repaying the government.

The initial plan in which the Treasury was supposed to buy the troubled assets form banks was scrapped in favor of purchasing preferred stock after Secretary Paulson met with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown. The British government, going through similar circumstances across the pond, merely infused capital into banks via preferred stock in order to clean up their balance sheets and in some economists’ view nationalizing the banks. “All these are investments being made by the government which will earn a proper return for the taxpayer,” added the Prime Minister at a news conference announcing the government’s plan. The British plan spends 50 billion pounds to partly nationalize major banks and a further 250 billion pounds to guarantee bank loans to shore up its beleaguered sector. “We are not talking about running banks,” said Alistair Darling, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, “the banks are going to be run as commercial operations, albeit with government help in restructuring.”

Problems with TARP

(a) Foreclosures not addressed - One of the major omissions of TARP was that it did not directly address the issue of foreclosures for middle-income Americans. The program passed by the Senate and signed into law by President Bush only addressed the economic impact that financial institutions would have on the overall economy if they did not resume lending. "Wake me up, can this really be happening?" the 42-year-old Bohnen says. As she tries to describe how it feels to have the nation's financial crisis land in her living room, the phone rings. She ignores it. "It's probably the bank -- again," she says.

(b) No oversight - The banks were left without proper oversight when they were given taxpayer money, and therefore, they spent it as they saw fit, on everything except new loans. Now making matters worse is the fact that the same banks who took bailout money, Bank of America, JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs, etc., want to pay off the money as quickly as they can so they can avoid further regulation. However, it is not as easy as it sounds since the way that TARP is currently structured, a bank would have to go out and raise a staggering amount of new capital to replace the government’s stake before it is permitted to return it.

(c) Banks returning to old ways - Since TARP was launched last October, banks have increased charges on a wide range of routine transactions, hiked rates on credit cards and continued making predatory loans. According to an ABC News story, the Congressional Oversight Panel, the body named by Congress to oversee the bailout, is working on a report examining instances of potentially inappropriate lending by banks that got taxpayer capital. This issues stems back to the speed with which TARP was passed in the first place, without finalizing oversight to avoid these types of scams. Accountability has been sorely lacking. Elizabeth Warren, chair of the TARP oversight committee, believes banks are engaging in predatory practices. "The people who are subsidizing the activities of the banks through their tax dollars are the same people who are furnishing the high profits through consumer lending. In a sense, we're asking taxpayers to pay twice."

(d) PR nightmare – Since the early discussions of the bailout, Congressional staffers did not use correct words to effectively communicate the message to the American people. The term ‘bailout’, especially when families are hurting all over, created resentment among the public. Questions like: “How is it that large banks that got us here in the first place are the first to get bailed out by the government?” were being asked from Santa Ana, CA to Montpelier, VT. Americans did not understand how the government could give more money to the same financial institutions that were bringing the country to its knees.

New Administration, New Stewardship

Timothy Geithner, sworn in as President Barack Obama’s new Secretary of the Treasury went before congress in February to explain to lawmakers what he proposed to do with the second half of the bailout money looking to assuage concerns in Capitol Hill. He proposed to create one or more “bad banks” to buy and hold toxic assets using a mix of private and public money. He also proposed to expand a lending program that would spend as much as $1 trillion to cover the decline of the insurance of securities backed by consumer loans. He further proposed to give banks new infusions of capital with which to lend. In exchange, banks would have to cut the salaries and perks of their executives and sharply limit dividends and corporate acquisitions. This, however, could be a recipe for disaster because the same circumstances that lead us in this mess in the first place are beginning to spring up once again. The administration’s plan of insuring almost all of the losses of toxic assets for investors would make it extremely easy for them to gorge on them and repeat the mess that got us into this situation in the first place.

Joseph Stiglitz writes on the New York Times the following:

The two have little to do with each other. The government plan in effect involves insuring almost all losses. Since the private investors are spared most losses, then they primarily “value” their potential gains. This is exactly the same as being given an option. Consider an asset that has a 50-50 chance of being worth either zero or $200 in a year’s time. The average “value” of the asset is $100. Ignoring interest, this is what the asset would sell for in a competitive market. It is what the asset is “worth.” Under the plan by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, the government would provide about 92 percent of the money to buy the asset but would stand to receive only 50 percent of any gains, and would absorb almost all of the losses. Some partnership!

On the other hand, the toxic assets are continuing to choke the financial markets and unless the administration does something drastic to change the course of the crisis, they will continue to be a drag on the financial institutions which are so crucial for the health of the overall economy.

How to Get The Bailout Going Again

(1) Repackage the Message: The first thing that the administration needs to do is to explain to the American people – in layman’s terms – why the bailout is needed. This was the first thing that needed to be done when the package first came out last fall, but since Secretary Paulson was in ‘emergency mode’ visiting every Congressman as far as the eye could see, getting the message across to the American people was the furthest things from everyone’s mind.

(2) Hearings, hearings, hearings!: Once the plan was chugging along, the government failed to show the American people who was really in charge of their money. This was in part due to the timing of the plan, a national campaign was in full swing, Congress was going to go into recess soon, and – once again – the message got lost in the translation. Oversight of the largest bill ever created in the history of man was put in the backburner. This created a sense of desperation for the American people because not only did they have to give up an exorbitant amount of dollars, but at the same time they saw that it went straight to the banks with the impression of being without “strings attached.” The only way that Congress can show the American people that it is in charge of their money and how it is spent is by having more hearings on where the money is going. The new administration has done a great job with websites that show where the money of the stimulus plan is going to, but Congress has to do a better job showing the American people where TARP funds are going as well. The information is out there but it is difficult to find.

(3) Oversight: This dovetails from the second recommendation for improvement. Congress needs to take a more active approach overseeing the people’s money and policing that these institutions do not take advantage of the public.

(4) Foreclosure help: This is beginning to be addressed by the administration. The problem is very difficult to address because it is such a sensitive issue with a lot of people. Responsible Americans that took out loans that they could pay for are screaming “bloody murder!” at the thought that a fraction of the foreclosures are people that irresponsibly borrowed money that they could not pay for. That is a small fraction however. Some people were taken advantage of by predatory lenders and promised different terms than the ones they signed up for.

In conclusion, the highly unusual circumstances that lead to the collapse of many financial giants within the past year and have lead the world economy to this slowdown could have been prevented if the right tools would have been put in place. The shortsightedness of CEOs and the greed and irresponsibility of many Americans have hopefully taught us a valuable lesson about borrowing and lending.

_____

Sources:

1. United States Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs.

2. US Government Accountability Office

3. A CBO Report: The Troubled Asset Relief Program: Report on Transactions Through December 31, 2008.

4. Median and Average Sales Prices for New Homes in the United States. United States Census Bureau (http://tinyurl.com/caoxe9). Retrieved Wednesday, April 15, 2009.

5. Nationwide Building Society of the United Kingdom.

6. “Dow Caps a 4-Month Surge, Closing Above 14,000,” by Vikas Bajaj. The New York Times. July 20, 2007. (http://tinyurl.com/dmpwy6) Retrieved: Monday, April 13, 2009.

7. “Home Prices Fell in ’07 for First Time in Decades,” by Michael Grynbaum. The New York Times. January 24, 2008. (http://tinyurl.com/cnatl4)Retrieved: Monday, April 13, 2009.

8. “The Growing Foreclosure Crisis,” by Dina ElBoghdady and Sarah Cohen. The Washington Post. January 17, 2009. (http://tinyurl.com/9uysgk) Retrieved: Tuesday, April 14, 2009.

9. “Bailed-Out Banks Face Probe Over Fee Hikes: Report.” ABC News Website. April 13, 2009. (http://tinyurl.com/dzxgvn) Retrieved: Wednesday, April 15, 2009.

10. “Bailout is a Windfall to Banks, if not to Borrowers,” by Mike McIntire. The New York Times. January 17, 2009. (http://tinyurl.com/9kxwbw) Retrieved: Wednesday, April 15, 2009.

Religion as the Opium of the Rulers

WASHINGTON -- Throughout the dawn of civilization, humanity has moved from nomadic tribes which had a simple ruling structure in which the elders told the younger members what to do and how to do it, through more complex city-states where power rested with either a sole proprietor or with a handful of people. Often using religion to legitimate their rule, many city-states drew on that power to their advantage.

Today in Latin America, countries still use religion – the church – to help them legitimize their rule in the eyes of the people often leading to autocratic rule as opposed to a more free democratic society. However, not all countries which are considered highly religious tend to see themselves as autocratic or vice-versa. Roman Catholic Latin American countries like Mexico, Peru, Chile, El Salvador practice democratic ideals whereas others, for example, Bolivia, Ecuador, Venezuela and Cuba are moving are have moved towards a more autocratic state. How can this be explained? This paper will try to answer that question.

Woodrow Wilson wrote in The State:

The probable origin of government is a question of fact, to be settled, not by conjecture, but by history. Some traces we can still discern of the history of primitive societies. As fragments of primitive animals have been kept for us sealed up in the earth's rocks, so fragments of primitive institutions have been preserved, embedded in the rocks of surviving law or custom, mixed up with the rubbish of accumulated tradition, crystallized in the organization of still savage tribes, or kept curiously in the museum of fact and rumor swept together by some ancient historian.

Wilson observed that government was adapting. It adapted to the times as its “primitive institutions” are preserved and codified in laws and customs. This, however, is one aspect of government and does help in solidifying support around the institution, but in order to be legitimate in the eyes of the people, government as represented by a ruler had to be legitimized from above.

As more and more people inhabited the planet, more and more people had to be governed, and governed more efficiently. The rulers of these different city-states or fiefdoms looked towards divinity to guide their hand and legitimize their rule in the eyes of the people. Many saying that their lineage was royal blood, or sangreal, and that their legitimacy came straight from heaven.

As John Simmons writes in his book Moral Principles and Political regarding the Doctrine of St. Paul:

The Doctrine of St. Paul was nearly universally accepted by political theorist and layman alike: Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore, he who resists the authorities, resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.The ruling authority of kings came straight from God and people could not question their authority unless they questioned God. This was a very powerful tool in granting legitimacy to rulers and the Catholic Church was the culprit for the castration of ideas as well as the lack of questioning of authority.

The Roman Catholic Church played a vital role in the early forms of government in the middle ages as many popes took parts in the coronations of kings in England, France, Spain, Portugal and later the Holy Roman Empire. This close tie between the Church and the State proved to be a very powerful symbiotic relationship.

Today, even though Catholic Church membership is in decline throughout the world, including Latin America, there still remains a strong presence in that region. Half of the world’s 1 billion Catholics consider Latin America their home. In Brazil, for example, a relatively stable – by Latin American standards - democratic country there are 100 million Catholics in a country of 180 million. Mexico, the country with the second -highest number of Catholics at 88 million- is by all contrasts a democracy which was able to withstand widespread riots in its last election.

How has the Catholic Church helped these countries move towards a more democratic society? Leaders of the Church took notice early on that authoritative governments committed atrocities to the poor and their justice systems were nothing more than words on paper. Oscar Romero, the beloved Archbishop of San Salvador, El Salvador, was murdered in cold blood by a right-wing death squad of the government for preaching fairness against the poor in his weekly sermons. He was one of the early casualties of the transformation of El Salvador from an oppressive authoritarian government to a democracy thanks to the Peace Accords of 1992.

When Mexicans went to the polls in 2000 to elect opposition presidential candidate Vicente Fox, they did more than simply change their government. His election ended 70 years of corrupt, single-arty oligarchy of the PRI, and helped Mexico become a more inclusive democracy. The Catholic Church in 1986 played a very important role in fomenting change in gubernatorial elections in the state of Chihuahua. There was fraud and disputed results in that election and the church through Archbishop of Chihuahua ordered all of the Catholic churches to go on strike. He said after the vote, “Someone was robbed last Sunday. That person was robbed on the way to the voting booth, and that person was the Chihuahuan voter.” His homily urged all the priests to shut down the churches in protest. Eventually, the Interior Minister intervened with the Vatican, and the word came down, “Stop messing in politics.” (Dillon, 2005)

Why has the Catholic Church felt the need to get involved in the political process in these countries as opposed to staying out of the matters of the state in the United States? There’s a very important reason at play here: There is a lack of democratic institutions used as springboards for change. Without these institutions, the church has brought it upon itself to move the masses, often advocating for them through their priests and bishops. They have used their legitimate power through divinity to foment change and bring about hope for their “subjects.” This is the reason why some Catholic countries have changed from authoritarian governments to democracies.

It has not been easy, however, as socialist ideals of equality for all lead countries like the United States to stigmatize these movements as “Communist” often leading to direct or indirect involvement.

This has cause two things, (1) to create a sense of anti-Americanism, and (2) to further move these movements toward the left in response. It is this second part that has lead to a cooling of relations between some Latin American countries and created an opportunity to rally behind a more autocratic state. This is the reason why countries like Bolivia, Venezuela, and Ecuador have found it easier to move from democracy to autocracy.

The state has usurped the institution of the church, at least temporarily to gain control of the hearts and minds of the people, to further their political capital. They have used the unquestioned loyalty of the people and turned it upside down for their political gain.

In Venezuela, the clash of these two institutions have created chaos in its society. Sara Miller Llana of the Christian Science Monitor writes:

Many expect the confrontation between church and state to pick up steam. Nikolas Kozloff, author of the "Revolution! South America and The Rise of The New Left," calls it inevitable. Unlike other Latin American countries, the Catholic Church in Venezuela never fully embraced the tenets of liberation theology. Yet today, Catholics and Protestants across the country have signed onto Chávez's message. "If you go to these [social] missions, you see a lot of people supporting Chávez, placing a big emphasis on social work," Mr. Kozloff says. "There is an overlap.

Chavez has not helped matters by verbally insulting church officials and creating a ‘me against them’ attitude which only creates more division. Sometimes, the church has just been a bystander in history and allowed the forces of populism to change their political system. In Bolivia and Ecuador, two charismatic leaders came to power through a wave of change which tapped into their countries cries for a new way of doing things. Evo Morales and Rafael Correa offered a new hope for the oppressed, for the unfairly treated, the oft-stepped on, the peasant, the person that has continually been forgotten by the elites, the indigenous. The same emotion that the Catholic Church used to foment change in countries like El Salvador, was used to bring about a socialist change which some people fear will look more like Venezuela and Cuba in the coming years.