Empathy is a two-way street

A few days ago, at a TV studio in Doral, I listened first hand to an interview of Lillian Tintori, the wife of Leopoldo Lopez, the Venezuelan opposition leader imprisoned by the Maduro government.

Even acknowledging the power of TV as a medium -and I grew up not just under the spell of TV, but also within a family that made a living from it-, there is still no substitute for first hand impressions like those no TV monitor will ever be able to convey.

Ms. Tintori’s performance in the interview was nothing short of superb, and it confirmed and strengthened my conviction that the world will be a much better place once it is run by women, as I foresee it will eventually be. Her fortitude, and her ability to display that fortitude and generate empathy in those who listened to her, makes the use of the word “performance” unworthy as a description of what she did. Because if anything on our TV screens deserves to be known as “reality TV”, interviews as hers are it.

But it was one specific comment she made in the interview that drives me to write these short lines. While explaining the obstacles the Venezuelan Justice system is placing in the way of those who seek a fair trial for her husband, including the illicit refusal to receive pleadings prepared by his lawyers, Ms. Tintori said she could feel and see in the eyes of those who work for the Venezuelan Justice system a certain empathy toward her and her husband’s cause, as if they, as individuals, were willing to accept those pleadings their bosses ordered them to reject.

Ms. Tintori’s perception of those sitting behind the windows at the Justice Department in Caracas may be right or wrong –I am willing to bet that they are right, coming from a woman, and a very perceptive woman of her evident strength and stature- but even more important than whether those perceptions are right or wrong is her ability to see those people working for the Justice system in Venezuela as she does, as capable of feeling that empathy towards her. Because empathy is a two way street, even if we seldom remember it is.

Ms. Tintori taught me a lesson about what is deeply wrong among Cubans –as well as among the members of many other societies markedly polarized, ours at the Old USA too-, mainly our inability to see in those we define as “the others” the ability to feel the way Ms. Tintori felt those bureaucrats at the Venezuelan justice administration system felt towards her predicament. But again, it all begins with her own ability to see them as fellow Venezuelans, and not just as “Chavistas”. And that ability is something we Cubans in the exile community, for one, can and need to nurture within ourselves, since it is also the first step to truly understand what it is that those we see as “the other Cubans” really want, which may not be exactly what we think they want nor what we want for them.

Ms. Tintori also said in the interview that the reason Mr. Maduro keeps her husband behind bars is because he fears him, and she is absolutely right. And Maduro fears Leopoldo Lopez –as did Chavez, from Day One- because of his ability to empathize with the masses “chavismo” caters to. No wonder he does with such a woman by his side. But that empathy comes from seeing his Venezuelan people as a single unit, from knowing and experiencing, through direct and permanent contact, their wants and needs. The kind of knowledge he could never attain from, say, exile in Miami or in Weston.

My dear Jose Manuel

I'm glad Ms. Tintori taught you a lesson but I'm not sure whether you'll pass the exam.
To generalize the Cuban exiled community as one that needs to learn to see what other Cubans "want" seems you may need a little more time to digest her lesson. She sees the individual and understand his/her position and predicament. Look in the eyes of your fellow Cubans, norture within yourself and you'll see we all want the same. A free and democratic Cuba.

What "exam", my dear Marta?
If it is the exam about knowing what the Cubans in the island want, I should have no problem passing it. All I need to do is call you, who, I am certain, has ALL the answers (and the "right" ones as well), because I know you will share them with me.

You only know about what the Cubans in the island want? if that is the case, my dear, you struck out on final examination. Repeat the course.

Ask around and you'll find out what Cuban exiles all over the world want. You may even agree with them.

As to whether I have ALL the answers, that's only for those who have few questions. And yes, I'll share them with you. Who knows, you may even get a B. .
Love & saludos

I am not sure I can follow you, Marta, but I think you're missing the point I tried to make in my little and humble piece. Maybe if you re-read it?...

I have never seen myself as vested with the power to put others through "exams" of any nature -maybe because I am a late arrival to these Miami beaches, and even after 35 years here I can barely read the flow of their tides-, and, to me at least, that smacks of practices similar to those of people we often criticize.

I do believe that when we claim to be trying to foster participative democracy with regard to Cuba, we mean to say "in Cuba", among Cubans in the island. But maybe I got this one wrong too.

And no, I do not "know" what the people in Cuba -the majority of them- want; but I can think of no better way of finding out than by freely interacting with them.

As to what you and other Miami exiles "want", Cubans as well as from the several other exile communities among us, I think I do know what that is, not just by reading it in your eyes but by listening to what is said in the kind of meetings you patronize and even organize. But preaching to the Church choir about our many shared "wants" is no exercise in participatory democracy either, the way I see it, and maybe I fail another of your exams by pointing this out. It is just a nice way to declaim about those many "wants" we all have by trying to re-define the abstract (institutional I think you would call it) world we would like to live in, and then we all go home until the next meeting.

When you really "want" something you find a way to go for it. In the US you go buy it -thanks to one of our sacred institutions known as instant gratification- after convincing yourself you do not just want it but "need" it too. But with regard to other countries, Cuba included, it is not such an easy matter, specially if you try to do it from Miami (or through internet, as seems to be the fad these days). And that's where the art of participatory democracy comes in: because it is not just about what you want and think we all need, its about convincing "others" -without exclusions- that they want and need the same think you do, and opening yourself (and this is KEY) to what those others think they need and want.

There is another way of trying to get what you want, of course: writing a letter to Santa Claus (or to our representatives in Washington, which is more or less the same thing). And that is how some of these many "declaiming contests" held every week in Miami come off, at least from my "F" student view point.

All these said with true love an respect, as I am sure you know.

Aside from any doubt on my part on whether "the world will be a much better place once it is run by women", considering what Christina is doing in Argentina and what "Isabelita" did before her, just to mention two examples, women are as good and often better (such as Angela Merkel) than many men in government. But that is not the case of Venezuela or Cuba, where men dominate the political spectrum despite the wonderful example of the Women in White in Cuba and that of Ms. Tintori or María Corina Machado in Venezuela.

However, that is not the main argument presented in this debate by our friend Palli. I tend to agree with his argument, as I understand it, sharing the idea that we must be tolerant and comprehensive rather than succumbing to schemes that radically separate us from "the others". That is precisely the strategy of totalitarianism, i.e., the wicked tactic of dividing the masses between "friends" and "enemies". And the enemies are not "the people" but a sore bunch of worms to be crushed, as this kind of dictators loudly proclaim.

The point of dialogue in politics is the willingness to accept that "the others" are also part of "the people" and to show that we are always ready to negotiate and look for solutions agreeable or at least acceptable to the vast majority of "us" and "the others".

Totalitarian governments do not want to entertain such a dialogue. For them, we are "the others" and they must crush us to oblivion. That is their evil choice, but it shouldn't be ours. We must be ready to open our arms to everybody who may be willing to enter a civilized debate, no matter whether they apparently support the repressive government or has taken a clear stance as political adversaries.

That does not mean that democratic forces should subserviently accept totalitarian conditions in a masquerade the abusive government presents as "dialogue". In the case of Venezuela, it was good to accept the first round of talks (it did not reach the level of a real "dialogue") just to put the cards on the table. Such willingness has demonstrated to the world the sordid kind of Government Mr. Maduro is leading and has given the opposition the opportunity of clarifying their legitimate preconditions for a civilized negotiation aiming for a return to democracy in Venezuela.

However, when a civilized dialogue is not possible, the people has every right to use any means available to fight for freedom and democracy.

Note: Our readers may watch THIS VIDEO containing the opinions on this topic of some of the members of the Continental Forum for the Promotion of Democracy. Their brief statements are either in English or Spanish.
Additional statements from other participants are also available HERE