While in America, one may see a scenario of boys growing up dreaming of owning their own businesses, becoming professionals, or perhaps quarterbacking an NFL team to the Super Bowl, more than a few boys in Latin America grow up immersed in radical politics and Marxist theory with dreams of becoming the savior of their country. If they are like Hugo Chávez, they feel rejected early in life, and humiliated by the power structure, impotent to rise above the disdain and snobbery of the elite classes of exclusion. Add to this scenario, a less than perfect home life lined with some heavy resentments and one can see a picture of a young boy intent on rising above his loneliness and separation, with a fierce desire to climb to the top.
Hugo Chávez is the second of six brothers, his father a humble teacher and his mother a reluctant mother, who followed the conventional path of marriage and family. At the age of four, Chávez and his brother Adán went to live with his grandmother because of economic problems at home. From this time, until he left for the military academy at 20, he lived with his grandmother, who according to the authors of Hugo Chávez Sin Uniforme (Hugo Chávez Without Uniform), he thought of as his real mother. In this book, the authors speculate a relationship between his fiery character and what happened to him in boyhood—the development of a permanent aggressiveness stemming from the resentments of his childhood, most specifically his mother, who, at one time in his life, he refused to speak to for two years.1
A psychiatrist linked to the left and a former rector of the University Central of Venezuela, Edmundo Chirinos, became friends with Hugo Chávez after the failed coup of 1992, and began to counsel him in regard to personal problems. In Hugo Chávez Sin Uniforme, he offers the opinion that Chávez feels genuinely snubbed and disrespected by the upperclass. He postulates that in Chávez’s character there is an evident bipolarity of closeness to the humble masses and rejection of the very powerful.2
As a boy, Hugo Chávez, in his own words, had two passions: drawing and baseball. He dreamed of playing in the major leagues. He worshipped the Venezuelan pitcher of that time, Isaías Latigo Chávez (no relation), who had a future in the American major leagues but was later killed in a plane crash. In this aspect, Chávez walked down the same path as his “big brother” in Cuba, Fidel Castro, who also had dreams of playing in the major leagues.
Later on, his dreams reached a more advanced level, possibly as a result of his widening consciousness of the world, and a chance meeting with the then president of Venezuela, Carlos Andrés Pérez. From this chance meeting, he developed a mental grasp of the meaning of political power. In 1982, Chávez told his friend and military school companion, Federico Ruiz, that “some day I am going to be president of the Republic.” According to Ruiz, the words were said in a tone of perfect sobriety and seriousness.3
More than a few people have pointed out that Hugo Chávez is more of a lover of power than an ideologist, a Marxist, or even a socialist. He is reported to enjoy female companionship, expensive clothes and watches, luxurious accommodations and fancy cars. During the two coup attempts, in 1992 and 2002, when push came to shove, he chose life rather than the self-immolation of Allende, or the martyrdom of Guevara. In 2004, in the hands of his enemies and fearing that he would be murdered, he listened to the advice of Fidel Castro, who spoke to him by telephone, and survived to live another day.
People who know Chávez report that he had visions of power from an early age. Luis Miquilena was a former Minister of the Interior in Chavéz’s government and a one-time mentor, who resigned in 2002 because of disagreements with Chávez. It was Miquilena, a former communist, who was the driving force behind Chávez’s presidential campaign in 1998. Ironically, when Chavéz got out of jail in 1994, he lived in Miquilena’s house for five years, and was supported by him during one of the toughest times of his life.
In Cuentos Chinos, a book by Andrés Oppenheimer about Latin American politics, Miquilena provides a vision of Hugo Chávez and an analysis of his character now visible on the world stage. Miquilena refers to him as intellectually limited, impulsive, temperamental, surrounded by yes-men, incredibly disorganized in total aspects of his life ("intellectual minestrone in his head"), unpuntual, erratic, ignorant of financial matters and a lover of luxury.4
Another prominent Venezuelan in the leftist world, Teodoro Petkoff, a one-time ally of Chávez, has described him as a megalomanic, a lover of power and possessed of “authoritarian tendencies.” Petkoff is the editor of a daily newspaper called, Tal Cual, a former guerilla and the founder of the leftist party, MAS, Movement for Socialism.
“We’re suffering from the inefficiencies of a system manipulated by the megalomania and delirium of one man,” said Mr. Petkoff in a July 2006 interview with the New York Times. “Chávez thinks this country is his private ranch.” 5
Petkoff broke with the party he founded when it supported Chávez in 1998. He knew Chávez and believed that his authoritarian military temperament, his lack of knowledge of the country, and the naive nature of his fundamental concepts combined with a primitive leftism would “produce a disaster” for the country.
An experienced guerilla who spent time in prison in the nineties, Petkoff has been critical of the Venezuelan opposition to Chávez and sees the oil company strike as a major error, believing that the strikers had no exit strategy and only ended up delivering more power to Chávez. Petkoff has stressed that the opposition has not countered Chávez in a rational and goal-directed manner, and has concentrated too much on his personality, leaving themselves without a positive alternative to the socialism for the 21st century.
A one-time candidate for president in opposition to Chávez, Petkoff, 74, has thrown his support behind Manual Rosales as presidential candidate. He believes that it is wrong to label Chávez a dictator and a fascist as many in the opposition do, and that it does not benefit the program of the opposition to employ name-calling tactics in place of a workable program. He stresses the point that one must distinguish between a totalitarian regime and a caudillo-type of Latin American, strongman regime reminiscent of Chávez's government.
Another critic of Chávez, Raymundo Riva Palacio, who writes for El Universal of México one of that country’s major newspapers, calls Chávez a demogogue and a populist, a growing danger to those dispossessed people he offers to protect. He goes on to say that Chávez has neither the talent nor the span of Castro, nor his strategic objective, but that his petrodollars make him an extremely elevated risk for the stability of Latin America.7
Carlos Fuentes, the Méxican intellectual, another observer and critic of Chávez, has commented that Chávez "has attitudes of a tropical Mussolini."
In a November 2006 interview with the Agence France, Alan García, the president of Perú, referred to Chávez as intolerant, simplistic, bossy and opposed to the integration of Latin American countries. In referring to Chávez as simplistic, he spoke about Chávez's attempt to split Latin America in two, between those allied with the U.S., and those opposed. García went on to add that Chávez had no right to refer to leaders as traitors if they don't agree with him, referring to this attitude as intolerant.8
While the English-language media stresses the Bush administration’s opposition to Hugo Chávez, what is not well known is that much of the opposition to Chávez comes from people close to him, the Latin American left, and from politicians and countries describing themselves as socialist. Most of these countries, Chile, Perú and Uruguay are governed by self-described socialists intent on a democratic and constitutional path. Then, too, in contrast to the Bush administration, these are people highly experienced in the history of the politics of their hemisphere and less apt to fall for the rhetoric of another Latin American caudillo intent on fulfilling a messianic dream of unity and power in the southern hemisphere.
Socialism for the 21st Century
Richard Nixon, during his presidency, was quoted as saying, Latin America just didn't matter. Until recently this may have been true in regards to American diplomacy, but now with the arrival of Hugo Chávez that is changing. He lurks as an enormous, new figure on the world scene. Besides his oil resources, he is the major source of the Castroite, anti-liberal, anti-capitalist left, and now a transmission belt of Islamic fundamentalism into the Americas.
With his money he has started his own cable network, Telesur, has bailed out Argentina by buying large quantities of their debt bonds, is supporting candidates all over Latin America, and is offering to build refineries, pipelines and gas stations in countries like Panama and Costa Rica, all hard hit by rising oil prices. According to Latin American newspaper reports, he is involved in over 125 projects with the Iranians, including cement plants, tractor factories and housing projects in Venezuela. Recently, he has moved into supporting Marxist social organizations in Argentina and indigenous groups in Ecuador and Bolivia. The fiercely anti-American and pro-Castro, Piquetero leader in Argentina and ex-functionary of the Argentine government, Luis D’Elia, who is an ardent supporter of Iran, has visited Venezuela on many occasions, supporting the regime and its Iranian ally.
At this time, many opponents of Chávez refer to him as a dictator. One could define the characteristics of a dictatorship as: one party rule; summary executions, farce trials, censorship and expropriation of private property. Using this criteria, Venezuela still falls far short of a dictatorship. (As of November 2006). Harassing or threatening the opposition does not constitute a dictatorship. These things take place in many countries in Latin America. Reporters in Argentina regularly receive critical and threatening calls from the executive branch and the opposition has proof that their calls are being monitored. How many reporters in Mexico have been murdered? Even in Costa Rica, two reporters were recently murdered, and Costa Rica is supposedly the flagship country of "democratic" government in the hemisphere. Besides this, none of the reputable and major media outlets in Latin America refer to Chávez as a dictator, even in countries where he has a negative reputation.
More than anything, Chávez has gained ground so far by philosophical and ideological default. The main thrust of the opposition, which until recently lacked a powerful leader to counter Chávez's charisma, so far has been to attack Chávez, centering the fight on him. They have been hard pressed to find a positive strategy of their own, and with the money coming in from increased oil revenue, it is hard for them to counter his checkbook. (Gas costs a about 17 cents a gallon in Caracas and one can fill up a SUV for much less than five dollars.) Then, too, a part of the opposition is made up of the same elite groups that Venezuelans were so contemptuous of when voting Chávez into power: the so-called "oligarchy" known for their corruption and disdain for constitutional rule.
For the December elections of 2006, the opposition candidate Manual Rosales, the governor of the oil-rich state of Zulia, is striving to match Chávez’s social-justice platform, with a proposal for a minimum wage for all unemployed people and a debit-card program (la tarjeta negra, negra being a term of endearment) for poor people, who would receive monthly payments from oil revenues. Rosales is his own man, has criticized Chávez sharply for squandering money on domestic and foreign adventures, and is not afraid to campaign and appeal to lower-class neighborhoods, where previous opponents of Chávez were afraid to go. According to private polls Chávez has a comfortable lead in the race, but these polls could be misleading, and Rosales is confident of victory on December 3rd. The government has used many tactics of harassment against opposition voters, and there is fear of voter fraud during the election.
Even though, Rosales is his own man, he no doubt labors at a disadvantage. Chávez has the ideology and the ability to communate it in graphic details with slogans, colors and imagery. It is Chávez who sets the tone and shapes the issues. It is Chávez who has a national treasury at his disposal.
Without a doubt, Chávez is sitting in an enviable position. He controls all areas of the government—including the electoral power and the power for the defense of the people—almost an executive with unlimited powers. Chávez supported governors control 20 of the 23 provinces, and he has wide support amongst the military. Additionally, his brother runs the State oil company and the revenues from this company are used as an exclusive weapon of the party in power.
The only power he doesn’t control is the privately owned media, newspapers and television stations--very much a source of irritation to his regime. Along with this, there are opposition parties in Venezuela and an opposition media that readily criticizes him. There are no secret police arrests at three in the morning, nor are there summary executions. For the most part, opposition leaders are not jailed or tortured, and everybody is free to leave the country at will. There have been expropriations, mostly giant farms called latifundios, and non-functioning property of international companies such as the Heinz Corporation. Opposition leaders have been harassed and threatened. Without a doubt, his government is engaged in heavy-handed tactics--sometimes violent in nature--and his use of state money and power to advance his cause is out of control. No one is going to accuse him of advancing a society with constitutional guarantees and a strong system of checks and balances. Yet, all this falls short of dictatorship that is so imprinted in Latin American history--Castro's Cuba, Pinochet's Chile, Alfredo Stroessner in Paraguay and of course, the military dictatorship in Argentine from 1976 to 1983, responsible for deaths and disappearances in the thousands.
For the most part, Chávez is accomplishing his revolution by the use of a social justice platform, "a new socialism under the precepts of Jesus Christ," powered by billions of petrodollars. His power base is supported by neighborhood missions where educational, medical and recreational benefits are distributed to the inhabitants. At these missions people can gain educational benefits, get medical attention for their children, buy food and medicine at reduced prices and receive instruction in different types of sports. News reports have estimated that 20,000 Cuban medical personal are operating in Venezuela, as well as many more teachers and sports trainers.1
Chavez—having schooled himself in Havana at Castro’s postgraduate course in acquiring state power—is building a new society in the name of altruism, a socialist revolution using the precepts of Christianity to build a new world where everyone will work together to build a more humane society. He is constantly attacking capitalism as selfish—“a system based on bloodsucking at a much higher level than Count Dracula.” Or a system that even leaves "Jack the Ripper coming up short." This, of course, coincides with attacks by the Catholic Church in Latin America that, at times, refers to "savage capitalism" as a system that calls into question the laws of God. Add to this, Chávez's calls to sacrifice oneself to defend Venezuela against the “Gringo” invasion--his militaristic nationalism--and one has another story of a charismatic leader using a social justice platform as a means to power and glory.
Ironically, in contradiction to what many envisioned for him, rather than following the same path of Fidel Castro and total state ownership of the economy, Chávez is following a path similar to Juan Perón—the often acclaimed Third Way between totalitarianism and classical liberalism. Perón was the champion of a national-socialist-style economy headed by a strong charismatic leader where the government controls major aspects of life but leaves most property in private hands. He was opposed to a liberal form of government and once said that freedom under liberal forms of government, “is the freedom to die from hunger.” Peron was also very critical of the United States and used the “gringos” as a convenient scapegoat in order to gather support for his regime.
One of the fundamental bedrocks of Peron’s philosophy was a call for social justice and a redistribution of wealth by means of state power. He saw the powerful state apparatus as a means to do this, and spent vast sums of money on social projects such as hospitals, health clinics, schools and community centers.
When he traveled to Argentina for the Conference of Americas in 2005, Chávez commented positively in regard to Perón and mentioned him as one of his heroes. Peron’s regimes were marked by a strong cult of personality and heavy state control of individual lives, yet his regime always fell short of being dictatorial. During his reign, opposition newspapers and parties criticized him, censorship was limited, people were free to leave, and no one was placed up against a wall and shot.
In opposition to the popular belief, Chávez’s association and alliance with Castro doesn’t mean he will follow a similar path as Castro. The fact that he refers to himself as a socialist—a socialism he claims his revolution will redefine—doesn’t mean he will follow the communist path of Castro and a complete regimentation of the economy, something that, now, in Latin America has little support or appeal.
In the book, Todo Chávez, by Eleazar Díaz Rangel, a book styled as an expanded interview with Hugo Chávez, the author refers to the failed socialist systems of the 20th century (statist economies, lack of individual freedom, disdain for the population), and asks Chávez in what way, his “new socialism” will be different. Chávez readily admits to the failures of the past experiments in socialism, and stresses that his socialism will be oriented toward the path of Christianity--brotherly love, solidarity and treating others with a sense of morality. He goes on to add that in his "new revolution" it will be necessary "to fight against the demons that are the foundation of capitalism: individualism, egoism, hate, privileges."
In the interview, Chávez denies that there are any plans to rid Venezuela of private property. "We are not planning a socialist revolution to eliminate private property." He cites as an example China’s motto of “one country, two systems.” Chávez goes on to stress that Venezuela must define its “new socialism.” Without a doubt, he says things will be different in Venezuela, and that the country is on a different path.
In this regard, and as a backdrop to his “new socialism” one should remember that Hugo Chávez arrived to power as a dark horse. He was elected overwhelmingly as a crusader against the corrupt forces in power in Venezuela, the so-called "oligarchy" made up of the elitist elements of government, the corrupt bishops of the Church, the protected businesses of privilege, and the distant upper classes, which tended to disdain and ignore the plight of the lower classes. This populist touch of his and his ability to reach out to the "humble masses" is one of his great strengths. He knows how to appeal to their fears, resentments and hopes for the future. His talk of a "new socialism" is nothing more than the appeal to the dream of the lower classes to be included in the future of the country--their aspirations for a better future. While the old conservative classes ignored and even disdained the great mass of people from the lower level, Hugo Chávez speaks to them from a lifetime of experience.
An example of this is a speech he gave in front of a group of public university students, one of whom complained about the lack of equipment and poor transportation they had at their public university. Chávez responded to the female student by criticizing the "capitalism" of private universities, where "the only interest is to make money and where it has nothing to do with quality education." He went on say they that the government planned to construct 17 new technical colleges and eight other general universities, and that the students "had to train themselves to serve the revolution." 2 (El Universal, Pedro Pablo Peñaloza, 2006/11/06/ "Chávez lanza en Punto Fijo la Misión Alma Mater")
To people and especially to young people who are excluded from the opportunities of society this is a powerful and intoxicating message. It speaks to their hopes and dreams, and their desires for a place in the world above the grinding poverty of the lower classes. This is the power of his message, a message wrapped up in a package with a socialist ideology at its very core. Yet, to the hungry masses the slight of hand manipulation of his ideology is lost in the promises of a better life all wrapped up in an attractive package deal.
There is no doubt that the message of Hugo Chávez involves a strong messianic appeal to the longings and deep-seated dreams of the dispossessed masses of Venezuela, a message that could eventually mean another failed revolution dying at the feet of the hopes and dreams of the lower classes. In this sense, many true socialists in Latin America have classified Chávez as a powerluster—a fraudulent socialist—using socialism as a ruse to gain adherents and followers. If this is so, Chávez would not be the first to use social-justice rhetoric in order to advance his agenda of personal power. Socialism has a long history in Latin America and has failed in every country in which it has been tried, from Juan Velasco Alvarado and Alan Garcia in Peru, to Victor Paz Estensoro in Bolivia, to Allende in Chile, to the most prominent example, Castro’s Cuba and its new Marxist man, dedicated to serving the revolution on ten dollars a month.
Yet, the failure of socialism in the past has not destroyed the ideal of building a new socialist society of the future, a society of peace and harmony in Latin America. The dream of Che Guevara’s better world is still alive and is in harmony with the altruistic teachings of the Catholic Church, and its call for an unselfish society. Socialism speaks about a moral ideal, while capitalism is, often, associated with selfish and individualistic pursuits, seen by most people as amoral or immoral. Then, too, there is almost a complete lack of knowledge and support about what capitalism is and how it works in Latin America. Along with this, in Latin America, the fundamentals of capitalism are beyond the reach of most people. Bank loans, stock market investments, the legal creation of small businesses, career advancement, and legal protection of private property and titles are absent, for all, but a privileged few.
In Latin America, capitalists are often seen as part of the privileged elite, an elite closed off to the rest of the population. Access to this world is often restricted or blocked. Then, too, many in the elites just don't want anyone to have access to their privileged club. Along with this is the philosophic barrage from the left, the incessant unanswered propaganda against free markets, neo-liberalism, and savage or predatory capitalism as it is so-often called south of the border. Their message, and it is often a very strong one, is that capitalism is the problem, the very root of everyone's poverty and misery. Of course, corrupted and half-hearted attempts at opening up markets while stealing half the national treasury all under the name of neo-liberalism or capitalism, as occurred in Argentina and other countries, give the Marxists all the intellectual fuel they need to slander the concept
Thus, once again, we see another attempt at the “noble experiment,” a new, unselfish society in Venezuela where everyone will work together in order to produce the common good. Reading the English-language media, one would have to think the country was on the verge of a great, revolutionary leap forward into a new world. Yet, one wonders in what way Hugo Chávez will succeed when all the other experiments in socialism have failed? Of course, the media fails to ask this question, as if to ask it, would require a peak into the dark past and a lurch into an even darker future.
The Latin American Left
During the inaugeration of Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías in February of 1999, a diverse mixture of Latin American politicians were in attendance. Hugo Banzer, the ex-Bolivian dictator turned democratic politician was there as was Alberto Fujimori, the Peruvian president. Although Fujimori and his right-hand man, Vladimero Montesinos had a good relationship with the United States, there was also a special connection to the regime in Venezuela. After the failed attempted coup of 1992, many of the Venezuelan military fled to Peru under the protection of Montesinos. Many years later, when Montesinos fled Peru and went into hiding, he wound up in Caracas under the protection of Hugo Chávez, who later claimed that he captured him and turned him over to the Peruvians. When the Peruvians learned that Montesinos was hiding in Caracas rather than being captured there, newspapers all over Lima ran headlines proclaiming that Chávez was a “payaso” or clown. This led to a diplomatic crisis and eventually both countries withdrew their ambassadors. Such are the interwoven relationships of Latin American political affairs, often transgressing party lines.
Also in attendance at Chávez’s inauguration was Fidel Castro, a sign of the special relationship that was developing between the two men. When Chávez was released from prison in 1994, Castro extended a hand of welcome and a reception in Havana. He praised his election in 1999 as a great step for democracy and called Chávez a great champion of liberty. When Chávez was overthrown during a two-day coup, it was Castro who counseled him by phone not to “self-immolate” like Allende and to surrender to the events so that he could live another day.
Chávez is very much part of the Latin American, Castro-inspired left that has as its moral ideal the ex-guerrilla leader Che Guevara. Guevara is often portrayed as the heroic example of self-sacrifice and service to others, a noble crusader, who wanted nothing for himself, fighting against the selfish and savage capitalists who want to dominate the world and enslave the worker. In many Latin American countries, his image as a romantic and heroic revolutionary willing to fight to his death to bring about his better world is a symbol of a heroic and noble ideal to be followed toward a better world.
To add to the image, Guevara is held out as the apex of self-sacrifice and service to others, a genuine man of his word who was willing to give his life for the revolution. The fact that Robert Redford, Gail Garcia and Bernicio del Toro make movies of him in Latin America, and that others in Hollywood support this effort, adds to his legend. In Latin America, he becomes a magnet for the young and rebellious who want to fight the often corrupt societies they live in. These young people are told that Guevara is a carbon copy of Jesus, a true revolutionary who fought for a better world where people will happily serve their fellow man as they work toward a collective society of equality and abundance. Having little in the way of people to look up to, many young people, especially the most idealistic, often see in Guevara a symbol of a better world.
In regard to Che Guevara, as with Fidel Castro, one has a metaphysical question of what is reality, and how much public relations and a supportive media, especially Hollywood, can distort and cover over the real picture. To help manufacture this image, Castro's State apparatus constantly recruits and charms potential allies, especially artists, writers, musicians, journalists and teachers. The state apparatus invites artists to Havana, charms them, treats them as special, and no doubt favors them with money and other artistic opportunities. In Latin America, any number of prominent writers are allied with the Cuban regime, including best-selling author, Gabriel García Márquez and noble-prize winner José Saramago. Americans friendly to Castro include Oliver Stone, Robert Redford, Harry Belafonte and Danny Glover. Diego Maradona, the Argentine ex-soccer superstar, known and loved by millions in Latin America, is a devotee of Castro and wears a tatoo of Che Guevarra on his right bicep as well as one of Castro on his lower leg.
What this accomplishes is to give sanction to the Cuban state as a humane organization and bolster Castro's claim that he is fighting for a better world free of capitalistic selfishness. If humanistic and openly creative artistic types are patrons of Castro, the question goes, how bad can he really be?
Even more, Castro, over the years, has prevailed and this adds to his legend. Castro is philosophical and ideological, and he knows his enemies will never fight him on these grounds. He speaks often of hating individualism and selfishness and has compared his plight with that of Jesus, talking often about the similarities between Christianity and communism. It is not a random happening that Hugo Chávez recently came out in the open, and proclaimed himself a Christian socialist.
While Guevara is gone and while Castro now hovers in he twilight zone of the past, his protégé and little brother, Hugo Chávez, is very much alive and dreaming of the future and his new revolution.
The Bush Punching Bag
Hugo Chávez, the day after the November 2006 elections in the United States, referred to the results as a "paliza" for the "truly savage" goverment of Bush. The word "paliza" would interpret as a beating or a thrashing of severe dimensions. The use of the this word is psychologically revealing as to the way Chávez has used the less-than-astute Bush administration, and more specifically, George W. Bush as his ready-made psychological punching bag.
In October of 2006, in Teodoro Petkoff’s newspaper Tal Cual, Hugo Chávez is quoted as saying George Bush has no idea of what politics is about. A close ally of Chávez, the former presidential candidate in Ecuador, Rafael Correa, was quoted in the press as referring to Bush as "tremendously dimwitted." Evo Morales, another ally of Chávez, has also joined the parade, reigning down epithets on Bush and demeaning his ability and intelligence. Diego Maradona has referred to Bush as a “murderer” and “human garbage.”
Along with this, even more moderate presidents such as Alan García of Perú, Michelle Bachelet and Vicente Fox of México have commented in negative tones on the abilities of the commander-in-chief of the United States.
At the 2005 Conference of Americas in Argentina, that took place the first week of November, George Bush sat quietly and listened to the president of Argentina, the host of the Conference, blame America for doing a great deal of damage to Latin America. He said nothing in his defence and previously had commended the president for improving Argentina’s economy. He also made a reference to Manu Ginóbili, the Argentine NBA basketball player, as a way of ingratiating himself to his hosts. During the Conference, Hugo Chávez, Evo Morales, and the superfamous soccer star, Diego Maradona, noted for his friendship with Fidel Castro, vilified George Bush, insulting his intelligence and referring to him as the world's premier terrorist. Chávez alluded to him as the devil, an alcoholic and an incompetent. Later on, with riots breaking out and with over 50 private businesses being trashed in Mar de Plata, Bush quietly exited the country as if nothing had ever happened. He made no comments to the press on the bashing that took place in Argentina, and very little appeared in the American press.
Hugo Chávez, on the contrary, had a field day. He trashed the president of the United States as if he was a vagabond stealing candy out of a supermarket. He referred to him as Mr. Danger, called him an alcoholic and disparaged his intelligence. He also made a telling psychological reference to the five musketeers (Chávez, Morales, Kirchner, Lula and Maradona) with their swords at a high position, winning the duel against Mr. Danger. He drew a picture of a great battle against the Empire and against Bush, and maintained that his forces won a historic battle.
Here are some of the quotes of Hugo Chávez that appeared in the Spanish-language press.
"The Empire wanted to put us on our knees and beat us. But no, he (Bush) left beaten."
"From the conference I take away the taste of victory, the taste of the sweetness (honey) of victory. The defeated one was Bush. He left in silence with his tail between his legs."
"The man (Bush) left beaten. Didn't you see his face? The great loser was Mr. George "the Devil" Bush and because of that he left in a hurry." He said this in the company of his smiling ministers in the lobby of the luxurious Hotel Republica.
"In the history of South America one will have to speak in the future of before Mar de Plata and after Mar de Plata. Yesterday, occurred an event, a historic and unrepeatable event that marks the new road, the new history for the people of the south. The ALCA is dead."
Meanwhile, in the English-language media this "historic event" was never reported as such nor did the sharp words of Chávez ever see print. Only months later, at the U.N., did his reference to Bush as "the Devil" become public knowledge.
It is psychologically revealing how much contempt the left has for Bush's intelligence and ability and what this means for the future of the United States in Latin America. It is one thing to be anti-American and collectivist in one's approach to the world, but this position does not necessarily mean contempt for the ability of the leader of the United States, something that was generally absent during the Clinton administration. Now however, one sees an additional component to the traditionally hostile and anti-American attitude of the Latin American far left.
This tactic of using America as a scapegoat is a familiar one in Latin America and Chávez is a skilled tactician of this method. As an example of this, in November 2006 on the campaign trail, he told his followers that “that the American Empire would never return to enslave Venezuala” and that the country was now free, and would remain free under his revolution of the people.
As practiced by the Castroite left in Latin America, one crucial element of ideological strategy is to always have an enemy, a scapegoat, a punching bag readily available as an outlet for any type of internal frustration, and as a means of gathering a cohesive base for one’s goals and purposes. United States and capitalism have been a long-standing scapegoat of Castro as well as the fundamental structures that support them egoism and individualism. With the arrival of George Bush to the presidency, another dimension was added: a ready made and willing punching bag, who apparently would do most of the work himself.
Fidel Castro has successfully employed this tactic for close to 50 years. Yet, never has there been a target so readily available to disparage himself and his country as George Bush. He is the dream of every person who wants to destroy the American dream, a perfect target who readily complies and colludes with his enemies, providing them with all the ammunition anyone could ask for. Hugo Chávez has a ready made intellectual punching bag who never defends himself, no matter how much or how bad, the accusations appear. While in the United States, Chavéz's remarks get little play, they are heard all over Latin America. Day after day, the former paratrooper attacks the most powerful man and country in the world, and there is never a response. Newspapers all over Latin America carry his attacks, and many of them make front-page headlines. More than anything, this tactic puts him on the front page, and increases his stature and popularity before millions of people who feel powerless and excluded from life, and looking for a leader to take them to the promised land.
It is ironic that George Bush, the son of a former president who has attended some of America's best schools, falls prey to the former "golpista" and paratrooper from the Venezuelan lower classes. One would think that a graduate of one of America's premier universities would be able to dance around the former paratrooper and one-time prisoner. Apparently, beyond the surface, there is some type of ancient class-war resentment in effect here, far beyond the boundaries of socialism and the so-called capitalism of the United States. Perhaps more than an anti-American and anti-capitalist rhetoric, what we see from Hugo Chávez is a deep-seated resentment of George Bush because he is the child of the upper class, supposedly a well-bred patrician born with a golden spoon in his mouth, while on the contrary, Chávez has risen to the top by his own wits and ability.
To go along with this, media observers have pointed out that one of Chávez’s major weaknesses is his lack of intellectual preparation and his inability to match wits with other leaders in Latin America. Once one gets past the glib outer surface of Hugo Chávez, there is a different story to the public image. During the Peruvian elections of 2006, he clashed with Alan Garcia, president elect of Peru, and was soundly thrashed by Garcia, a formidable communicator, writer and intellectual. Alejandro Toledo, the former Peruvian president and graduate of Stanford University, also clashed with Chávez and has referred to him in less than complimentary terms. Michelle Bachelet, the Chilean president and herself a medical doctor, who has studied in both the United States and Europe, has distanced her government from Chávez. Vincente Fox, the ex-Mexican president and himself an accomplished businessman, clashed with Chávez during the Conference of the Americas in Argentina in 2005. Intellectuals such as Andres Oppenheimer, Alvaro Vargas Llosa, Carlos Alberto Montaner have all written negatively about the ability and tactics of Chávez and his attempt to become another Latin American caudillo.
After Chávez’s display of questionable behavior at the United Nations, Teodoro Petkoff described his tactics as that of a "chabacano" or someone acting cheaply, crudely or tastelessly. Whether he does this intentionally or whether it stems from defects in his personality is open to question. Whatever the case, while appearing tasteless and cheap in the world arena of international politics and in the media in the United States, Chávez's carnival atmosphere of orchestrated acts of "chabacano" is always directed at a low-level audience only to happy to see the rich and powerful under attack. At times, his intellectual range seems to be limited to referring to his opponents as fascist, and attacking savage capitalism. Yet, strategically, Chávez is acting as the crusading Robin Hood slaying the powerful and the mighty without hesitation or fear. To the powerless and disaffected masses in Latin America this has a strong attraction, and affords them an outlet for their great anger and frustration at being left out of life.
Hugo Chávez, so far, has found himself in a very favorable position in regard to the fate of world events, especially with the Iraq War and escalating oil prices that has provided him with a war treasury far beyond his wildest expectations. Yet, nothing he has done has been as favorable as having George W. Bush as his scapegoat, a ready made and available punching bag for everything that is bad and wrong with the world.
The Socialist New Frontier
Hugo Chávez, unlike some of the other socialist crusaders—especially his mentor in Cuba— is sitting on a unique situation never seen before in Latin America. With the war in Iraq and the sky-high rise in oil prices, Chávez has billions of dollars of oil revenues to spend on social programs in Venezuela, and on foreign policy interference in other governments in Latin America. Imagine how history would have changed if Fidel Castro—considered to be intellectually and strategically superior to Chávez by most observers—had access to billions of dollars of oil money in order to export his collectivist revolution?
How exactly he will accomplish his revolution is still open to speculation. Along with the use of his enormous wealth to win friends and influence people, one of Chávez’s main goals is to use the military as an instrument of social change. In this sense, he is borrowing from a book that influenced him in military school, a book by Claude Heller about the process of using the army as an agent of social development and change. This along with his community programs such as the circles based on his hero, Bolivar, that are apparent in many communities will form a bedrock of support for his revolution.
Ironically, and very much to the core of American foreign policy problems, the major portion of these revenues, that Chávez is using to further his revolution, comes from the United States. Here again, one sees the sacrificial and suicidal foreign policy of the United States coming back to haunt the country, perhaps a repeat of the whole Castro fiasco that has lasted, now, for almost 50 years.
With his petrodollars, Chávez has established his own cable television network in Latin America that has a working relationship with the Arab network Al-Jazeeri. He has invested heavily in Argentina, with both gas stations and by bailing out the government of Nestor Kirchner by buying their debt bonds owed to the IMF. He is keeping Cuba afloat with billions of dollars of oil shipments in exchange for Cuban doctors, sports advisors and military personal. In Bolivia, it was rumored that he helped to finance Evo Morales’ presidential campaign and is now providing monetary and military assistance. These same reports were numerous in regard to the presidential campaigns of Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua and Rafael Correa in Ecuador.
In October of 2006, both the Bolivian and Venezuelan government announced the establishment of 21 new military bases in Bolivia on the frontier with neighboring countries, Chile, Brazil Perú and Paraguay. Already, the Venezuelan military is in charge of security for Evo Morales and is reported to be training elements of the Bolivian army. .
During the Conference of Americas in 2005, Chávez revealed a plan to build an oil pipeline from Venezuela to Argentina that would pass through Brazil. Elaborate models and sketches were released to the media, and Chávez—much like a profit-seeking capitalist who he continually rails against—walked around hailing the great benefits of this state-run entrepreneurial project. Critics, however, speculate that the estimated $70 trillion dollar project will never see the light of day and the project is more of Chávez’s megalomania that is being tolerated by his allies in Mercosur as a response to his tremendous oil wealth.
The "regaladera," or the policy of using Venezuelan oil money as means of bestowing gifts on foreign countries is a controversial issue in Venezuela. In 2006, Chávez made a tour of Central America and the Caribbean offering to sell oil to these countries at reduced prices. In Panamá and Costa Rica, he talked about the possibility of building refineries, and to sell them oil at a cheaper price than Mexico. He is selling heating oil to poor neighborhoods in the United States at reduced prices. There is talk of a refinery for Vietnam, a road for Jamaica, projects with Ecuador.
He defends these "regaladera" programs as part of his socialist revolution, a way of showing solidarity with the poor nations of the world. Those familiar with the morality that underlies socialism would simply reply that he is following a social-justice course, an altruistic road lined with unselfishness, where Venezuela's wealth and resources are placed in service to her neighbors.
In the fall of 2006, Chávez started his campaign for the Latin American seat on the United Nations’ Security Council. He traveled all over the world strengthening his ties with the Arab world and courting China and Russia, where he signed billion-dollar agreements to buy arms for the Venezuelan Army.
At the U.N. in October, Chávez made his famous speech where he referred to George Bush as the “Devil.” Later on, he suffered an unexpected defeat in losing every vote for the Latin American U.N. seat to the Security Council to Guatemala. Apparently, his U.N. theatrics had backfired, just as his interference in the Peruvian elections had backfired against his friend Ollanta Humala; and just as his theatrics had hurt his favored candidate in the Mexican election.
Yet, Chávez took these defeats in stride and soon experienced successes in Nicaragua and Ecuador, when his favored candidates, Daniel Ortega and Rafael Correa won election victories for the presidency. In late October after Fidel Castro appeared on CNN looking lost and bewildered, Chávez rushed to his defence, maintaining that he was making a quick recovery and would soon be his old self. Chávez told the news reporters that Castro was an "uncontrollable dirty old man" who goes crazy in front of the stewardesses on his private jet. Without any concern of how this would play in feminist circles in Europe or the United States, he referred to Castro as an "atacón" or a womanizer, no doubt saying all this as a way of lifting his mentor's fading spirits by alluding to his virility. Much more than an ideological partnership, the relationship speaks of a male bonding experience, and the omnipresent need amongst males for support in a hostile world.
As of late November 2006, Chávez is preparing for the elections in Venezuela that will take place December 3rd. As of now, Chávez is far ahead in the polling and is reported to be heading for an electoral win. With his ideological approach to politics and his overstuffed wallet, he is in an enviable position. Able to throw money at the electorate, at this time, he has little need to use state power in order to achieve his goals. One can only speculate where he would be at this time, without the enormous sources of money pouring into Venezuela.
In a speech in early November in Puerto La Cruz, Venezuela, in front of workers for his state-run oil company, Chávez stated he would cut off all supplies to the United States--"not even a drop"-- if the "Empire" and its "lackys" in Venezuela didn't stop trying to undermine his regime, a threat he has made several times before. He went on to add that the oil company (PDVA) is a "revolutionary institution" and the workers will be expected to support the regime and the revolution in the election in early December. Predictably, this threat to cut the oil supply and the attempt to make PDVA a revolutionary institution never saw the light of day in the English-language press.
In early November, Transparency International, issued its 2006 report on the status of corruption amongst the countries of the world. Venezuela rated out as one of the most corrupt countries in Latin America, tied with Ecuador for the position number 238, while Chile rated out at position 20 as the least corrupt country in the hemisphere.
Thus, the revolution goes forward in Venezuela, perhaps a tainted and corrupt revolution but a revolution nonetheless. The government’s control over the individual and the economy becomes more extensive as Chávez's executive power goes unchecked. His ability to spend money without congressional oversight or judicial review puts him in a unique position. He is a virtual monarch with pots of gold at his disposal to be spent at his discretion.
The "Socialist with Money" has a two-barreled shotgun—the petrodollars pouring in and his social-justice approach to politics. Not only does he have the weapons but he knows the general ideological approach he wants to pursue. The ideological coaching he received under the auspices of Fidel Castro will serve him well in the future, if his "megalomania" doesn't bring down the house of cards before it fully develops. With this knowledge under his belt, he expresses a confidence in his approach to the world which gives him an advantage over his non-ideological opponents, who basically center their attack on Chávez, and not the ideological issues of individual freedom versus an all-powerful, welfare state.
The Wall Street Journal Americas had an article a few years ago emphasizing the pragmatism of Hugo Chávez. They pointed out that he wasn't taking a strict ideological approach but was pragmatically doing business with the United States, selling the major portion of his oil to the Empire to the north. The problem with this definition is that it overlooks the fundamental approach of his regime. The fact that he does business with the United States does not necessarily make him a pragmatist, but perhaps just a leader taking strategic steps along a guided ideological course.
Political ideology is nothing more than a guided course that follows along the path of philosophical ideas. His stated goal of socialism for the 21st century can follow many routes, but fundamentally it is based on collectivism and altruism: State control of large portions of the economy and individual self-sacrifice and service to others are the foundation of this new society. Everything he has done so far has followed along this ideologically line, and will likely be same in the future.
Without a hint of doubt, Chávez is openly supportive of an ideological approach to politics. He has been quoted as saying that education must be ideological because it is about ideas. His Education Minister has offered a similar viewpoint. In a news report that appeared in La Prensa of Panamá (October 29, 2006) he said, "Each teacher has to be married to the model. Our political ideology has as an objective the construction of the ideology of socialism for the 21st century,
In this sense, Chávez and his team are following an ideological map heading for a certain direction. In contrast, their opposition, not only in Venezuela but in the United States, is groping in the dark, reacting to Chávez rather than promulgating their own philosophy. Here, one sees all the signs of a pragmatic approach to politics, a short-range projection of goals and an absence of cohesive ideas that would lead them toward a productive future.
The prime example of this would be the the Bush Administration. It seems to have little idea on how to deal with Chávez, their strategy absent of a long-range philosophy, mired in pragmatic, range-of-the-moment decisions ignoring the big picture. What is more, like many American administrations before them, they seem to be contemptuous of philosophy and political ideology, disdainful of the need to communicate ideas and geared to a foreign policy of appeasement and supporting some nebulous idea of democracy, without defining exactly what this idea is.
In this way, in the face of a pragmatic and floundering opposition, Hugo Chávez has a great advantage philosophically and ideologically. Much more than a “tropical Mussolini” or another Latin American strongman, he is a social-justice crusader heading down a direct path. While the journey along the trail may be chaotic and filled with range-of-the-moment whimsical effusions of megalomania and the intoxication of power, the light at the end of the tunnel is always shining brightly—a new socialist world of equality and brotherly love where all Venezuelans will work together under the fatherly and benevolent concern of Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías.
***************
In the elections of December 2006, Chávez prevailed with just shy of 63% of the vote, including all the states of Venezuela, something he had never done in the three previous elections. This win gave the appearance to the world of a robust and functioning democracy and, himself, as a popular and beloved leader. In many ways, the government of Chávez is following the road of the Peruvian government of the nineties, headed by Alberto Fujimori and Vladimero Montesinos, often referred to by the press as a “democratic dictatorship.” In this regime, state power and influence were used overtly and covertly so as to give the appearance of a democratic government while the reality, under the surface, was a much different story. Under the surface, opposition legislators were brought off or blackmailed, newspapers were manipulated and stories planted, the intelligence service harassed opposition leaders, and money and favors were accorded to those friendly to the regime.
The word democracy has a wide and varied meaning. It can include a constitutional government with legal rights and checks and balances to off-set executive power as well as chaotic governments where some type of election is held while the executive rules with unrestricted will or power. In many countries, especially in Latin America, government support derives from large client bases made up of government workers and monopoly unions. In other countries, political leaders spring up overnight with their own parties, at times gathering a vast following in a short time with mystical appeals to a new society based on a sweeping out of office the corrupt leaders of the past.
Surely, this was the path to power of Hugo Chávez. He sprang to fame after his failed coup, when he was put on television to appeal for a surrender of his followers and became a national celebrity by proclaiming that “for now his forces were surrendering.” He later went on to political fame by attacking the corrupt elites and appealing to the poverty of the masses. Yet, his appeals to social justice and his new socialist society, are nothing new and are no excuse for the accumulation and abuse of power, and his manipulation of the country as if it was “his private ranch.” This is not a new society, a new revolution, but a simple return to the iron man, caudillo rule of the Banana Republics of the past.
Without a defined constitutional guide to control his actions and no opposition in the legislature, Chávez will have six more years of free reign to impose his goals on the country. He has spoken about a law allowing indefinite reelection of the president and a referendum to strip the opposition television stations of their licenses. With the government totally in his hands, he has access to a vast world of patronage, and can hire and fire people at will. The future of his government, no doubt, points to a greater consolidation of state power and an executive branch free to act at will, constrained, perhaps, only by his image of himself as the leader of a free and democratic Venezuela
Yet, the key to the whole Chávez structure is the vast amount of oil revenue at his disposal. With this money, he can solidify his social programs and fortify his voter base by doling out enormous sums of money. Strip Chávez of his petrodollar base and force him to rely on his socialism of the 21st century without its capitalist foundation, and his revolution will be nothing more than sandcastles in the sky, a house of cards with no foundation, and no economic base in which to build: a façade of words, created and supported by the very things he attacks—the petrodollars of the advanced semi-capitalist world.
No doubt in the future, the house of cards will collapse, and a time will come when the Chávez government will have to choose between staying in power and its image as a free, democratic society. If the price of oil collapses, this process will occur rapidly. Yet, when push comes to shove, the intoxicating allure of power, without billions in petrodollars, will prove the reality of the Chávez government and his claims to a “new socialism” and a new society based on Christian love.
No comments:
Post a Comment