If we were to judge a man by the company he keeps, then the late Muammar Gaddafi would give us a very interesting impression. From Berlusconi, to Blair, and even GW Bush, the authoritarian leader had an erratic mix of acquaintances. However, of these easily the most controversial was Venezuelan socialist demagogue Hugo Chavez, who has stayed loyal to the old regime in Libya, announcing earlier this month that he would refuse to recognise the new government and labelling his fellow anti-westerner, a “martyr”. Such a comment is typical of Chavez, divisive and controversial and this combined with a long line of other stances, ranging from nationalising his country's oil supplies, to accusing the US of trying to execute a coup against him, has transformed, Venezuela into something of an ideological battleground for the West. It represents a clash of ideals between free market conservatives and liberals, for whom he is a dictator, constantly extending his constitutional powers and trying to silence media critics, and anti-American leftists, for whom he is a lone wolf, howling against the winds of neo-liberal hegemony, the victim of a constant negative media campaign from bias corporate networks. Godwin's law tells us that the longer an internet discussion goes on for, the more likely Hitler or the Nazis will be mentioned, but increasingly the same could be said of Chavez and his so called “Bolivarian Revolution”.
Of course, the danger is that we may lose sight of the facts in a duel of pre-formed opinions. By using Venezuela as a tool to criticise or defend socialism, depending on their views, both sides may be too selective in their perceptions, overlooking certain truths they do not like, or only subscribing to single sources. All too often have I heard a critic of Chavez only using reports from the right wing media, or supporters referring entirely to John Pilger's somewhat outdated 2007 film, the “war on democracy”.
It is difficult to accuse Chavez of full dictatorship given his democratic electoral successes in 1999, 2000, 2006, as well as winning a 2004 recall referendum and surviving an undemocratic, shady coup in 2002. all these elections have been approved as legitimate by respected bodies like the OAS (organisation of American States) and the Carter Centre, while he does face a very hostile media, who routinely invoke Godwin's law against him. Illiteracy has gone down 10%, real GDP growth rates have boomed and extreme poverty has collapsed by a considerable 72%. Hence claims that Chavez should be the “next” leader to go after Gaddafi seem a little glib.
Yet it is even worse for idealistic opponents of neo-liberalism to so blindly support Chavez, as do John Pilger or Sean Penn, overlooking the increasingly fascistic approaches of his regime, vowing to stay on until 2021, or closing down various media outlets, no matter how bias they may be, it simply does not bode well if a leader shuts down those that would criticise him. Most recently, and perhaps worryingly, he has reformed education to introduce socialist teachings so as to eliminate “capitalist thinking” in the young. Often forgotten by his sycophants, are his own attempted coup in 1992 and his 'enabling act' of 2000 and 2007 (although admittedly, this was just as prevalent under previous Presidents). And obvious, we have the aforementioned pandering to other 'anti-western heroes' like Gaddafi, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran, that can only serve to undermine his claims to humanism.
To claim that Chavez only acts in this way, as it is the only way to fight “American Imperialism” is too apologetic. Other Latin American leaders have adopted a similarly socialist approach without courting controversy or tyranny. President Lula in Brazil, for example, turned Brazil into a potential future economic powerhouse, lifted 25 million Brazilians out of poverty and rarely made any enemies in foreign policy. Unlike Chavez he knew when to quit and stepped down with 87% approval ratings.
Quite frankly, many of the middle class champagne socialists that support Chavez in the West would not want to live in his Venezuela. Crime and gang activity are rife in Caracas, the capital. The murder rate has increased to 220 per 100,000 people a year since Chavez came to power, a total of around 70,000 more deaths due to violent crime. Stories pervade of policemen who sell bullets to young gangs and prisoners being randomly decapitated, despite the nation not having an official death sentence. Slums still number around 100,000, and decreasing approval polls, suggest Chavez is no longer seen as the saviour of the poor he once was.
Therefore, it is time for both sides of the argument to realise the truth about Venezuela, rather than continue to ignore facts and trends that contradict their ideologies. Chavez is not the great Bolivarian Liberator he wants us to see him as, he is far, far, from perfect. Yet neither is he, as an article in last week's Zahir remarked a total “dictator”. For ultimately, seeing another nation purely as an ideological battlefield, overlooks the ordinary, everyday Venezuelans, for whom the debate is most important, and should, consequently, be least ideological.
No comments:
Post a Comment