Hugo Chavez: Despot or Savior?

“Socialism, this is the direction, this is the path to save the planet, I don't have the least doubt.  Capitalism is the road to hell, to the destruction of the world.  We say this from Venezuela, which because of socialism faces threats from the U.S. empire—“ Hugo Chavez, speaking at the 15th International Conference of the United Nations on Climate Change, Denmark, Wednesday, 16 December 2009.

“Liberalism seemed to have triumphed—not merely capitalism but democracy and the rule of law, as represented in the West, and particularly in the United States”(Keohane and Nye, 2001, as quoted in Kegley Jr & Blanton, 2010, 108).

             An interesting dynamic is taking place internationally; even as globalization is spreading capitalist ideals of individualism and entrepreneurship, many are turning away from its principles and embracing socialism instead. Francis Fukuyama’s optimistic “End of History “(1992) theory implies that the tenets of capitalism and democracy have been accepted as valid by most nations (Kegley Jr & Blanton, 2010), but even a cursory glance beyond the western hemisphere creates some doubt as to the validity of that thesis. China, although espousing many aspects of free market principles and encouraging foreign investment, is far from becoming a democracy; studies in China have found a majority support of the communist government (Almond, Powell, Dalton, & Strom, 2006, 423). Venezuela, although profiting from its rich oil reserves, has also veered away from capitalism and embraced a form of populist socialism that violates most principles of privatization; its leader, Hugo Chavez, has continued to portray capitalism as an evil to be eradicated. Is his brand of socialism a new paradigm or simply an attempt to use the poverty and deprivation of his compatriots for political advantage?  This author feels that Chavez’s struggle to empower the poor of Venezuela is more than political posturing, but cannot represent a real paradigm shift in that it does not represent any new ideas, does not have the support of all Venezuelans and is thus  doomed to create continued conflict and worsen the situation of those whom he proclaims to wish to help.

            Venezuela’s position as a major player in the world economy is based upon its oil reserves, which account for 90% of its exports earnings and 50% of its federal budget revenues (Venezuela, 2010) .  Almost one half of its people, however, live below poverty levels (Venezuela, 2010) and the per capita GDP is only $13,000 (Venezuela, 2010). Between 1958 and 1978, Venezuela became a model of democracy—“successful, institutionalized, stable and legitimate” (Lander, 2005 , 25). The people, although living in a multi tiered society based on income disparity, experienced a sufficient degree of upward mobility to lead them to expect the creation of a “modern integrated society” (Lander, 2005, 26 ).This growing affluence lasted until the oil crisis of 1978, after which its economy was characterized by a gradual downward slide in individual prosperity and a doubling of total poverty in the country, from 36% to 68% (Lander, 2005,26 ). Because of its fragile basis, the financial system did not have the resilience to withstand any serious shock; the social fabric of Venezuela, also basing its legitimacy upon the expectation of ever increasing material wealth and modernization, was equally flimsy and quickly disintegrated along with the economy (Lander, 2005 ). Political elites, determined to maintain their status and wealth, aggravated the situation with their attempts at institutionalizing democratic processes without seeking to legitimize the government by seeking the participation of the majority; instead, they created an exclusionary system that favored their own (Lander, 2005 ). It was in this increasingly polarized and unstable environment that Chavez was elected on a populist platform.

When Chavez came to office 1998, he sought to counter the neoliberal policies being promoted by the United States and other western nations, which included privatization, trade liberalization, deregulation and encouraging direct foreign investment (Washington Consensus, 2003). These approaches were seen as creating opportunities for exploitation by multinational corporations and as a means for a furthering of the concentration of power and wealth in the hands of major corporations at the expense of the workers (Lander, 2005 ). Edgar Lander has commented that the neoliberal policies of western nations exacerbated inequalities in Latin America and that “…democratic political processes became progressivley emptier,(and) the recommendations of the multinational organizations came to be more important than the will of the voters, public opinion or parliamentary decisions…” (Lander, 2005,24 ). Thus, Chavez’s approach emphasizing popular and national autonomy, his willingness to oppose the wealthy elite and his apparent empathy with the plight of the people resonated with the majority of Venezuelans and have given him a platform from which to promote his agenda of socialist populism.

Hugo Chavez is, according to Steve Ellner of Oriente University (Venezuela), the first freely elected head in Latin America (since Alan Garcia of Peru) to openly “defy the hegemonic powers of the “new world order” (Ellner, 2002) as well as powerful multinational corporations and political actors (Ellner, 2002). His thesis, which emphasizes “globalization’s unequal distribution of wealth,” (Ellner, 2002) also brings out the concept of a multi-polar world which would be in direct opposition to American hegemony (Ellner, 2002). Ellner contends that Chavez is worried that globalization will increasingly marginalize the governmental institutions of small nations, making them subject to the directives of large hegemonic states and federations (such as the EU). This concern has led to increasingly confrontational encounters with state leaders and has led to calls for his removal or even his assassination (see “Pat Robertson Calls for Assassination of Hugo Chavez,” USA Today 8/22/2005). His nationalization of the oil industry and redirection of the profits to benefit the poor and rebuild the infrastructure of Venezuela, along with other socialist type approaches to wealth distribution, have made him a pariah among the wealthy elites and led to a number of attempts to remove him from office. The rhetoric on both sides has become increasingly vitriolic as those who profit from the current world economy struggle against any intrusions or challenges to the favorable status quo, while those who would change the balance of power attack those holding it.

The question of whether Chavez is altruistically trying to equalize Venezuelan society or simply using popular discontent as a propellant for his own political ambitions is difficult to answer, considering the “fog of emotion” that surrounds him, both negative and positive. Amy Chua describes the controversy surrounding Chavez as being caused in part by his flamboyance:

“He stopped privatization of the oil sector, outlawed large landowners, and guaranteed free education and worker benefits for housewives. He decreed almost fifty anti-market laws. In 2001, Chavez threatened to nationalize all banks that refuse—in accordance with one of Chavez’s new laws, to grant credit to small farmers and small businesses” (Chua, 2003,143).

In addition, Chavez “played the ethnic card,” (Chua, 2003, 143), using his own mixed ethnic background to create a sense of commonality with the dispossessed of Venezuela, most of which come from indigenous or mixed ethnic heritage (as opposed to the wealthy elite, descendants of Spanish colonialists). These actions polarized Venezuelan society and led to marches and rallies by the wealthy and (worried) middle class—marches held in the wealthy quarters of Caracas—while the poor marched in support simultaneously in the slums of the city (Ellner, 2003). Kurt Weyland feels that “populism” per se is “best defined as a political strategy” (Weyland, 2001, 18), is successful when “personalistic leaders base their rule on massive yet mostly uninstutionalized support from large numbers of people” (Weyland, 2001, 18), and is basically nothing more than a quest for power. If this is true, then Hugo Chavez’s “Socialism for the 21^st century” is nothing more than posturing and an excuse for despotism. This seems too dismissive and simplistic to me; I feel that Chavez could have easily rested upon his laurels when first elected and accomodated the oil industry’s magnates to enrich himself as have so many despots in Latin America and other regions of the world. Instead, he championed the poor and has made some serious enemies as he continues to revamp the Venezuelan politcal system into what can best be called a form of socialist democracy.

            In conclusion, it seems fair to say that “Socialism for the 21^st century” does not necessarily represent a new alternative, nor is it exactly an excuse for despotism. Instead, there is some evidence that Hugo Chavez represents a legitimization of the anger of the poor, who have been the disproportionate victims of the economic policies of their own government, designed to favor the wealthy elites. Whereas neoliberalist market reforms and trade policies have in general made the business environment better for corporations, the resulting affluence has not “trickled down” to the people. Although there is considerable debate about the real effects of liberalization in Latin America, there is consensus about the fact that poverty rates have almost doubled in the past decade and a half and that inequality continues to plague the region (Korzeniewicz & Smith, 2000).  Inasmuch as the wealthy elites running governments control the police forces and military, and the poor have little or no access to weapons, any social unrest that threatens the interests of those in power is generally quickly quelled with violence. This instills a sense of fear and reluctance to voice opposition to policies that threaten their own ability to survive, much less thrive. Hugo Chavez and other populist leaders such as Evo Morales are speaking up for the oppressed and poverty stricken; whether or not this was their original intent is unclear. What is apparent is that they have created considerable discomfort for those who would prefer to continue with “business as usual” without having to confront the human consequences of their choices.

 

Almond, G., Powell, B., Dalton, R., & Strom, K. (2006). Comparative Politics Today. New York: Longman.

Chavez, H. (2009, December 21). Socialism Is the Path to Save the Planet. Retrieved February 27, 2010, from MR Zine: 15th International Conference of the United Nations on Climate Change, Kingdom of Denmark, Wednesday, 16 December 2009

Chua, A. (2003). World on Fire: How Exporting Free Market Democracy Breeds Ethnic hatred and Global Instability. New York: Anchor.

Dougherty, J., & Pfaltzgraff, R. (2001). Contending Theories of International Relations: A Comprehensive Survey. New York: Addison Wesley Longman.

Ellner, S. (2002, November). he "Radical" Thesis on Globalization and the Case of Venezuela's Hugo Chavez. Retrieved February 27, 2010, from Latin American Perspectives: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3185001

Ellner, S. (2003, Feb). The Contrasting Variants of the Populism of Hugo Chavez and Alberto Fujimori. Retrieved February 27, 2010, from Journal of Latin American Studies: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3875581

Kegley Jr, C., & Blanton, S. (2010). World Politics: Trends and Transformation. Boston: Wadsworth.

Korzeniewicz, R., & Smith, W. (2000). Poverty, Inequality and Growth in Latin America: Searching for the High Road to Globalization. Retrieved February 27, 2010, from Latin America Research Review: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2692041

Lander, E. (2005 , March). Venezuelan Social Conflict in a Global Context. Retrieved February 27, 2010, from Latin American Perspectives: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30040274

Venezuela. (2010). Retrieved February 27, 2010, from World Factbook: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ve.html

Washington Consensus. (2003). Retrieved February 27, 2010, from Global Trade Negotiations Home Page: http://www.cid.harvard.edu/cidtrade/issues/washington.html

Weyland, K. (2001, October). CLarifying a Contested Concept: Populism in the Study of Latin American Politics. Retrieved February 27, 2010, from Comparative Politics: http://jstor.org/stable/422412