Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Should egalitarians support Chávez?
The Venezuelan leader's strong-arm tactics and redistributionist policies present progressives with a real dilemma.
Francisco Rodríguez
Many of those who identify with the desire for redressing Latin America's deep social and economic inequalities face a real dilemma when confronted by the figure of Hugo Chávez. On the one hand, his strong-arm tactics are not exactly what progressives who believe in democratic and open societies have in mind when we think about the future.
On the other hand, as Richard Gott recently pointed out, Chávez seems to be redistributing the country's wealth to the poor, has been democratically elected and re-elected, and is immensely popular.
I know the tension. In 2000, as a young Venezuelan assistant professor in a US university, I decided to take a leave from academia and go work towards the transformation of Venezuela. I left excited at the possibility of contributing to the building of a new society.
During four years I headed the Venezuelan Economic and Financial Advisory Office to the National Assembly, a recently created team of economists roughly modeled on the US Congressional Budget Office. Our task was to help deputies craft legislation while advising them about the potential economic effects of their law projects. I was able to put together a group of committed economists who had the greatest desire of helping shape historical changes in their country.
What we found was very different from what we expected. It wasn't just that the government did not understand the difference between dissenters and opponents - perhaps understandable in a climate of heightened political polarization. Nor that they seemed genuinely disinterested in anything that was not directly connected with their staying in power - also understandable when the opposition seems to only think about how to oust you from power. It was that they really didn't seem to care much about any of the reasons we were there: improving the well-being of the poor and making Venezuela an open, democratic society.
My first assertion will surely seem puzzling to many readers. Wasn't Chávez reelected because he has reduced poverty? If he doesn't care for the poor, why do the poor seem to care so much for him?
There is a broad gap, however, between what the government says it is doing for the poor and what is actually going on. Did you know that the percentage of underweight and underheight babies has actually increased in Venezuela during Chávez's administration? That, once you take out social security - which, in Venezuela, benefits mostly the middle and upper classes who work in the formal sector - the fraction of social spending in the government budget has actually decreased? That, despite the government's claim of having eradicated illiteracy, its own Household Surveys revealed more than one million illiterates in Venezuela at the close of 2005, barely down from pre-Chávez levels?
Yes, Chávez just won reelection by a wide margin. So did Alberto Fujimori in Peru in 1995 and Carlos Menem in Argentina that same year. They won not because their policies were pro-poor, but because they produced very high rates of economic growth. In the case of Menem and Fujimori, the growth came from huge capital inflows generated by the support that the World Bank, IMF, and financial markets gave to their economic reforms. In the case of Chávez, it has come from a five-fold expansion of oil revenues, which has allowed his government to enjoy double-digit growth for the last three years.
But there is a dark side to chavismo which should not be discounted. If you believe the government's claim that it has respected freedom of speech and other political liberties, I suggest you take a minute to look up the case of Angel Pedreañez, a 20 year old soldier who was burned alive in a Maracaibo fort prison. According to his family's attorney, this was in retaliation for having signed the petition to hold the recall referendum against Chávez. Francisco Usón, a former Chávez finance minister, is currently under 5 years imprisonment for insulting the Armed Forces when he said that the soldier's death could not have come about, as the government claimed, from smoking in his cell.
Indeed, what is most worrying about Chávez's repression is how systematic it has become. The government has built a detailed list - the Maisanta database - that documents the political leanings of 12.4 million Venezuelan registered voters. The list is routinely used to deny opposition supporters access to public jobs and government social programs. Last week, the government confirmed that it will not renew the concession of RCTV, the nation's oldest TV station, which is closely associated with the opposition. During his inauguration, President Chávez promised to abolish more than 200 mayoralties, thus "paving the way for one communal city where municipalities and mayors will not be needed, only communal power." Chávez's intolerance of dissent is so high that he has even ordered the nation's Communist Party to disband itself, in order to become a member of the government's "Unified Socialist Party."
Venezuela's poor do not live in a better society. They live in a society whose government is systematically squandering the nation's largest oil boom since the seventies while at the same time restricting basic political freedoms. Those of us who want to build a truly democratic and egalitarian future for Latin America should support democratic movements committed to the respect of civil and political liberties and whose leaders genuinely care about the region's poor. We should not support Hugo Chávez.
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
This article should be most welcome by those who want to have a rational and correct understanding of Hugo Chavez. First and foremost, when he was first elected he was supported by members of all social classes, including the elite. He was also particularly favored by young professionals who had dreams of devoting the best years of their lives and their advanced intellectual and professional training to the service of a new society in Venezuela.
Mr. Rodríguez is exemplary in his objectivity. Chavez did not need to resort to either populist of fascist measures to advance a new reality in Venezuela. However, he proceeded to polarize the social classes, destroy a sense of national unity, and gradually dispose of freedom of speech and the separation of powers. What has been truly scandalous is the aquiescence of the international press to all this. Chavez retained freedom of the press in Venezuela to cancel any alarm abroad. After all, no alarm from the Venezuelan press would make any difference to an aligned Assembly, Supreme Court and Electoral Council. The gamble has paid off. Now that his power is consolidated, the mask is off and he can eliminate the thorn of the press from his side.
It is a very tragic affair. Some will assess that Chavez is a strategist of the first order, who can outwit the moves of entrenched power-bases and even the United States, in order to pursue the socialism that he believes will benefit the masses in Venezuela. It depends on what the ultimate objective is. He will succeed up to a point, and then a horrendous collapse will ensue. No nation can survive through quelching dissent and alternative ideas. After all, Chavez--even though he speaks with Biblical rhetoric--is only a man. He makes mistakes and will continue to make them. At a point when the creativity of others should assist him, he will be alone among castrated sycophants; and his paranoia will be at this point even more intense, with catastrophc effects. He will have to restrain the internet, satellite radio, and any other forms of communication with the outsdie world. He believes that Venezuelans will behave like the Chinese, or like the Cubans, but I do not believe that when the crisis comes Venezuelans will remain submissive. There is an anarchic streak among Venezuelans that will awaken at his time.
The social and economic inequality in Venezuela has been alarming in a country rich with oil. However, progress was made during half of the 20th-century, as long as oil prices were sufficient to pay the international debt. And now, as long as that equation remains favorable, the poor in Venezuela stand a chance of improving their lot. The old parties also reacted against American imperialism at some point, and also nationalized the energy section. There were rich scholarship programs and attempts at agrarian reform. The old parties were contemporaneous with the Cuban revolution, and chose to avoid that path. The old parties however did not act aggressively enough to improve education, nutrition and health for the whole population. And like Mr. Rodriguez says, Chavez has not done any better. He just has better marketing strategy, that all-American gift to the modern world.
With some luck there is someone behind the scenes who can and will outmaneuver Chavez from inside his circle, and channel his charisma and his wild energy into something that will be really lasting after he is gone. After that happens, in 6 years or in 40, poor Venezuelans could perhaps see an improved lot, but the fabric of the society willl revert to what it has always been, and Chavez will be the butt of jokes.
Mr. Rodríguez is exemplary in his objectivity. Chavez did not need to resort to either populist of fascist measures to advance a new reality in Venezuela. However, he proceeded to polarize the social classes, destroy a sense of national unity, and gradually dispose of freedom of speech and the separation of powers. What has been truly scandalous is the aquiescence of the international press to all this. Chavez retained freedom of the press in Venezuela to cancel any alarm abroad. After all, no alarm from the Venezuelan press would make any difference to an aligned Assembly, Supreme Court and Electoral Council. The gamble has paid off. Now that his power is consolidated, the mask is off and he can eliminate the thorn of the press from his side.
It is a very tragic affair. Some will assess that Chavez is a strategist of the first order, who can outwit the moves of entrenched power-bases and even the United States, in order to pursue the socialism that he believes will benefit the masses in Venezuela. It depends on what the ultimate objective is. He will succeed up to a point, and then a horrendous collapse will ensue. No nation can survive through quelching dissent and alternative ideas. After all, Chavez--even though he speaks with Biblical rhetoric--is only a man. He makes mistakes and will continue to make them. At a point when the creativity of others should assist him, he will be alone among castrated sycophants; and his paranoia will be at this point even more intense, with catastrophc effects. He will have to restrain the internet, satellite radio, and any other forms of communication with the outsdie world. He believes that Venezuelans will behave like the Chinese, or like the Cubans, but I do not believe that when the crisis comes Venezuelans will remain submissive. There is an anarchic streak among Venezuelans that will awaken at his time.
The social and economic inequality in Venezuela has been alarming in a country rich with oil. However, progress was made during half of the 20th-century, as long as oil prices were sufficient to pay the international debt. And now, as long as that equation remains favorable, the poor in Venezuela stand a chance of improving their lot. The old parties also reacted against American imperialism at some point, and also nationalized the energy section. There were rich scholarship programs and attempts at agrarian reform. The old parties were contemporaneous with the Cuban revolution, and chose to avoid that path. The old parties however did not act aggressively enough to improve education, nutrition and health for the whole population. And like Mr. Rodriguez says, Chavez has not done any better. He just has better marketing strategy, that all-American gift to the modern world.
With some luck there is someone behind the scenes who can and will outmaneuver Chavez from inside his circle, and channel his charisma and his wild energy into something that will be really lasting after he is gone. After that happens, in 6 years or in 40, poor Venezuelans could perhaps see an improved lot, but the fabric of the society willl revert to what it has always been, and Chavez will be the butt of jokes.
Chavez did not and can not "order" parties to dissolve. He has stated that it is his desire that all revolutionary parties dissolve and a new single revolutionary party be formed in their stead. So what's wrong with that? There is no state mandate in his political proposition whatsoever.
"However, he proceeded to polarize the social classes, destroy a sense of national unity, and gradually dispose of freedom of speech and the separation of powers. What has been truly scandalous is the aquiescence of the international press to all this."
Anyone who makes a comment as completely ludicrous as this is clearly not a source to be trusted. Chavez is *hated* by the international (ie Western) press.
As for the one (one!) alleged incident of a anti-Chavista being murdered, what about the fact that the anti-Chavistas were responsible for a number of deaths during their brief coup in 2002?
Anyone who makes a comment as completely ludicrous as this is clearly not a source to be trusted. Chavez is *hated* by the international (ie Western) press.
As for the one (one!) alleged incident of a anti-Chavista being murdered, what about the fact that the anti-Chavistas were responsible for a number of deaths during their brief coup in 2002?
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$230.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network