On the 5th of March, the dreams of many hopeful Venezuelans were destroyed as Nicolás Maduro, vice-president of Venezuela, tearfully announced the death of Hugo Chavez. The 58-year-old succumbed to terminal cancer after repeated visits for treatment in Cuba, and 14 years ruling the country.
The events that follow have shown, and will continue to show, the widespread impact Chavez has had on the world. Devastated Chavistas mourned on the streets of the capital Caracas, allegedly resembling a “ghost town”, while others revelled in silence and muffled cries of joy. Meanwhile, migrant dissidents of Chavez’s ‘Bolivarian Revolution’ took to the streets of Miami in celebration, while Western left-wing intellectuals took to their Macs and iPads to begin the flow of tribute. Tribute to the man who challenged, who was unafraid and who joined the ‘alternative’ to the neo-liberal agenda superimposed by the U.S.A (above all) and abhorred by those who understand its hypocrisy and ineffectiveness.
Chavez went from growing up in a poor rural area of Venezuela in Barinas to joining the military, where his experiences changed his career motives from that of a wannabe baseball player to a self-proclaimed revolutionary. In 1992 his attempted coup, which had only failed “for the moment”, put him in the political limelight. Later, embracing the more peaceful principles of the established democracy, or interpreted by the cynics rather as seeing the political power of left-wing ideology, Chavez’s movement gained support from other left-wing parties and he eventually won the presidential elections in 1999.
The European leftists’ hunger for socialism peaked and found meaning in a symbol that could be analysed from an observer’s perspective. This was supported by Chavez’s nationalistic rhetoric and social policies. His rhetoric represented a strong Venezuela, one capable of freeing herself from the inescapable influence of the West and the United States, pervasive since colonial times.During his rule, poverty and absolute poverty diminished if measured by incomes. Through a series of missions he aimed to replace existing policies for poverty reduction with new ones – to improve access to food, healthcare, education and better housing for the many living in slums. On top of this, he connected with the people who had felt marginalised by politics. His TV show “Aló, Presidente” gave him a personal touch. It ran with no official time limit from the morning and featured the President in talk-show format addressing issues ranging from the trivial (his episode of diarrhoea included) to replying to critical journalists and rival politicians. The people responded and as political participation increased, he won subsequent elections. To the European left he became almost as much of a hero as to fervent Venezuelan chavistas. For a dogmatic socialist the syllogism is obvious: “Socialism is good. Chavez is socialist. Chavez is good”.
Here is when several important questions regarding Chavez should be raised. Indeed, upon some of these being answered, the Western leftist who sees substance before the label has been made to think twice. Chavez’s regime is an elective autocracy. Effectively, he has found loopholes within democracy to sustain a dictatorial form of leadership. Keep the institutions, remove the substance. A series of constitutional changes since his coming in to power have meant basic principles of democracy are violated. The executive branch of government is no longer kept in check by an independent Supreme Court of Justice under the new 1999 constitution. The case of unfair (recognised as so internationally) imprisonment of Maria Afiuni, magistrate, illustrates this. One of the most widely publicised ways in which his repressive form of rule is shown is his arbitrary monopolisation of the media through the shutting down of TV and radio channels as well as intimidation of those involved in the opposition or who question aspects of his regime. Globovision, the last TV station in critique of Chavez, has been under strong governmental scrutiny, fined, and sees it license under threat. Reporters are ridiculed and belittled on “Alo Presidente”. To add to the confusion, he unashamedly showed his admiration for former Venezuelan dictator Perez Jimenez on the same show.
Finally, it will come as no surprise that the true social effectiveness of Chavez’s policies can be questioned. Falls in poverty are on a similar level to those in other Latin American countries. In a country where oil exports are close to 90% of total GDP and where the price of oil spiralled more than a 10 fold, that achievement looks as a resounding failure. His 2003 missions can easily be considered short term solutions for a problem needing to be addressed with the longer-run in mind, and acts as a form of giving money in a way that is not self-perpetuating and financed by a surge in oil prices. This was lucky, considering the disastrous effects on productivity, and safety, that Chavez’s ‘nationalisation’ of the oil industry incurred. In fact, the industry was already nationalised; under Chavez the experts were just replaced by political supporters. And for those so committed to the principles of equality, it is important to look at the very rich “boli-burguesia” (Bolivarian bourgeoisie) which is extracting all these rents (the proportion of social spending relative to oil revenues is relatively low). Cabello, Chavez’s military right-hand man, is but one of them.
So where does this leave us? The legacy is complicated. To call Chavez merely ‘controversial’ is to ignore this. Many of those loyal to chavismo are loyal to the person and not the government and given a fall in popularity shown in the previous elections, including the poorer ‘barrios’ such as Petare in Caracas, people are beginning to feel the effects of an embarrassingly high and increasing death toll (almost 20,000 deaths in 2012), a rise in the cost of living, and poor living conditions characterised by greater need to import food and frequent blackouts. The public is divided, and his supporters are divided. The chavismo which follows will have to juggle tensions within supporters (the military, the poor, and some business leaders) and the re-strengthening of the opposition. But it will prevail for some time to come, and his figure will not be forgotten. In terms of the West, he will inevitably be hailed by most of the left. After all, what is more romantic than a necessarily oppressive regime to free an elitist country from its chains? The term “revolutionary” will cover all manner of sins. I invite the left to reassess their views, even if secretly. Would a Chavez in the UK have your support?
This is a very insightful article. I am so glad I read it.
It is nice to read a well-informed, balanced piece instead of the usual hysterical bile from both right and left. A superb article.
The attitude of the left in Europe is very shocking for the Venezuelan exiles with left wing views.
For example, a brutal fact ignored by them is the repression to Union members (much more likely to die in the hands of gangs), the permission to vote in union election by non union members. The killings of critical chairs of tribal groups, like the Yukpas or the killing of entire villages of Yanomamis, are unknown in the British press. But anybody can check online that a system of proportional representation of minorities existed in Venezuela before Chavez, and now, thanks to the new 1999 constitution, this right is gone.
Superb, indeed. I think is the best thing I’ve read about the issue so far. Thanks!