By Jeremy Morgan
Latin American Herald Tribune staff

CARACAS – Education Minister Héctor Navarro hit out at critics of the government’s proposed law on the schooling system and universities and accused detractors of telling lies about the legislation without even having read it.

It was untrue, he said, that the “educational community” was set to disappear under the terms of the Education Organic Law, and that community councils – President Hugo Chávez’s preferred vehicle for promoting “social participation” in his version of grass roots democracy – were to be in charge of everything at the expense of the needs and views of families.

The leadership of the Catholic Church in Venezuela, the media and “some” state governors were all telling untruths about the legislation and the plan behind it.

The Bill, which at least in theory dates back to 2001, when it was passed at a first debate, sets out penalties for individuals and institutions which fail or refuse to comply with its requirements.

Navarro said that, contrary to what was being asserted, the penalties set out in Article 50 of the Bill were “almost the same” as those stipulated in the existing law – which he dismissed as a “dead letter” in what was taken to be a reference to it not being enforced in reality.

Navarro argued that critics simply didn’t have the grounds for refusing the state a role in education, or insisting that this was an issue of parental choice alone. Then he urged parents to spend more time occupying themselves with their children’s futures even if they didn’t live in the family home. This was apparently a reference to the high rate of single parent families in the country.

Senior academics and other opponents of the Bill claim that the legislative text now before parliament has little to do with what was voted through eight years ago. They also warn that the traditional autonomy of universities in Venezuela would evaporate once the new law was on the statute book.

Navarro denied this was the case, but insisted that that the state, being responsible to the people, had a duty to “intervene.” As to religious instruction, private schools would be within their rights in organizing this – but outside the curriculum set by the state. The implication of this is that religious matters could be taught, but outside class time and optional.

On Wednesday, the Archbishop of Caracas and head of the Catholic Church in Venezuela, Cardinal Jorge Urosa Savino, had issued a statement calling for the teaching of religion to be allowed at schools.

He pointed out that religious instruction had been included in the legislation voted through in 2001, but was no longer present in the text now under discussion. He also took note that Article Six of the Bill emphasized the state’s lay role in educational matters, and endorsed the principle of parents having “the right and responsibility” for religious education.

The cardinal said that giving the state a lay role in education was a “positive” thing. “But this does not justify the state omitting its obligation to permit and make possible the exercise of the rights of citizens, the religious rights, among others,” he continued.

Urosa Savin’s statement said Article 59 of the Bolivarian Constitution – which was proposed by Chávez during his first year in power, 1999, and implemented by a referendum – enshrined the rights of parents for their children to receive religious instruction according to their wishes. But, he added, once Article 50 of the current law was omitted, this would no longer apply.

Earlier, Urosa Savino had pointed out that the National Assembly was debating the legislation during the vacation season, and questioned why. His statement called for the second debate to be put off until the second half of September in order to allow time for proper public discussion of what was afoot.

Senior academics made a similar demand during a march to the National Assembly on Tuesday, when the second debate was originally expected to plough ahead, possibly to a final vote. While their petition was formally received, there was no response from either the government or National Assembly President Cilia Flores.

The debate was delayed – apparently at the behest of Deputy María de Queipo, head of the education committee at the legislature and a supporter of the Bill – but for only two days.

Opponents claim this gives no time to study the text, which was only released to the public domain last Tuesday. They also want the entire Bill to be debated line by line, point by point, Article by Article, as required by the constitution, and warn that the present headlong rush simply hasn’t and won’t allow for this.

However, there seems small chance, if any, of the advocates of delay getting their way. Deputy Edy Gómez, a member of the education committee, said the Bill could be passed at a second debate on Thursday.

University professors had requested the right to speak in the chamber in support of their proposals for changing the legislation even at such a late stage in the procedure. But, they said, they’d been told there wasn’t time.

However, there were scattered signs that the Thursday timetable wasn’t necessarily set in stone. There was talk in the corridors to the effect that some further delay might be possible.

For all that, the widespread assumption on both sides of the argument was that Chávez’s ruling United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) and its minor allies were set to steamroller the Bill through the legislature without much further ado, if any.