Big State, low capacity
A society can coexist with an administration that authorizes too many things yet resolves very few. Citizens apply for permits, submit documents, and await decisions, all while encountering substandard services and scant protection against abuse. Authority makes itself felt during every bureaucratic procedure yet is nowhere to be found when an actual answer is needed. The scope of its powers does not translate into effectiveness.
In the concluding section of Arturo es el hombre, the work La Palabra Compartida presents an interpretation of Uslar that balances the performance of key public functions with limits on State power and guarantees of freedom. The authors cite education, healthcare, security, and justice. While this interpretation does not simply cast him as a proponent of a "minimal state," it does allow for a discussion on the distinction between fulfilling functions and subsuming social life.
The strength the citizen needs
A capable State enforces legal decisions, protects individuals, and maintains predictable procedures. Its strength lies not in imposing an unfettered will, but in carrying out established responsibilities. If a State can arbitrarily confiscate assets yet fails to protect property rights against third parties, it possesses coercive power but lacks a fundamental republican safeguard.
Limits do not weaken that capacity;they make it reliable. An official required to justify their decisions—and whose actions are subject to review—has less opportunity to turn a bureaucratic procedure into a threat. Legal certainty protects the citizen while also facilitating investment and employment. Arbitrary action may command immediate obedience, yet it destroys the trust necessary for anyone to undertake a lasting venture.
Social democracy and the State as distributor
MVGA directs its criticism at a tradition that fosters dependency on the state budget and portrays the administrator as an indispensable intermediary. The issue goes beyond the mere amount of spending. What matters is who decides, under what conditions, and with what scope for review. A transfer payment might address an urgent need, whereas a permanent structure of favors can institutionalize political subordination.
Chavismo radicalized the appropriation of the State and its identification with a specific cause. An opposition that aspires merely to manage that concentration of power more efficiently perpetuates part of the problem. Reconstruction requires asking which activities can be pursued without discretionary permission and what powers the ruler must relinquish so that citizens may gain autonomy. Changing the administrator is not enough if the underlying relationship remains unchanged.
The criterion of function
A concrete discussion begins by identifying objectives, resources, and outcomes. It is not enough to defend or reject an institution based solely on its name. One must examine whether it meets a need, whether it duplicates functions, and whether its decisions are subject to oversight. It is also necessary to acknowledge the costs imposed on those the institution aims to serve. Public capacity requires administration and evaluation, not just political will.
The reading of Uslar revisited in this library invites us to move past two common confusions: labeling any form of expanding power as "strong," and labeling any state-funded dependency as "social."Venezuela needs institutions that act where they have responsibility and stop where individual rights begin. A Republic is measured as much by what it allows its citizens to do as by what its government does.