Comrade Chavez Wins Glorious Victory

If you don't mind I'll withold any applause for yesterday's electoral victory by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

I find nothing redeeming in the record of this former Army Colonel and former coup plotter who-- with the solidarity of comfortable cafe revolutionaries in London and New York-- now fancies himself the embodiment of Radical Democracy. For those who want to pursue that delusion click here to read the gushing report from the Cuban Communist Party mouthpiece, the very Orwellian Granma Internacional.

Not every leftist, thank God, has been taken in by this blustering con man. After interviewing Chavez in 1998, Gabriel Garcia Marquez said he felt he had been speaking to two different men: 'One a self-styled visionary who had been granted the opportunity to save his country. The other... an illusionist, who might pass into history as just another despot.'

I'm convinced the latter is on the money.

Comments

[Michael Turner]

It's really too bad that democracy is this horrible system that only happens to be better than all the others that have been tried from time to time. Perhaps if some of Chavez's opposition had tried something a little more like democracy from time to time, Venezuela would be doing better than Chavez.

Three cheers for democracy? Sometimes you can't muster more than one. That's certainly how I feel about my own country at the moment.

I persist in the delusion that democracy would improve if it voters were required to know something about what they are voting ond, and so does James Fishkin at Stanford

http://cdd.stanford.edu/

[Michael J. Totten]

The Chavez opposition would be wise to consider that when their guy runs the country he is the president of all Venezuelans, not just the oligarchy. But let's not kid ourselves that Chavez is an iota more democratic than they are. Because Human Rights Watch would beg to differ.

http://hrw.org/doc/?t=americas&c=venezu

[Michael Turner]

Totten, as usual not bothering to check facts: "But let's not kid ourselves that Chavez is an iota more democratic than they are. Because Human Rights Watch would beg to differ."

Gee, I looked at the numbers from before Chavez and after, on HRW pages. In the first year of Chavez, HRW recorded a 45% drop in extrajudicial killings by the police. In general, the whole tone of the reports seems to change from "blood-drenched" to "well, still got some problems here."

Of course, if you need that particular statistic to be zero before you'll grumpily admit some improvement, then that's your standard. However, I doubt that even the U.S. is free of extrajudicial killings by the police.

Chavez's margin of victory was 1.5 million votes, a number that couldn't be faked even if you assume he was trying to do that; so far, election monitors are saying it's clean, and Jimmy Carter is even saying he's never seen such a big turnout in all the years he's been working on problematic elections. Chavez's opponents are crying foul, saying the count is wrong, that this was a travesty of democracy. Well, some of those opponents were associated with suspension of the national legislature immediately following the Coup of '02, even as diplomats in Washington begged them not to take that step. If you're wondering why Chavez survived, you might look for that "one iota" of democratic difference between him and the oligarchy pols.

Democracy isn't pretty. Democracy has led to tyranny in the last century - iconically so, in the case of Hitler. In my brief glances of Venezuelan history, the trend seems to be that it's gained more than Totten's "iota" of democratic difference over the pre-Chavez era. Just because many of those gains are real doesn't mean they are some unalloyed good. Just because many of those gains might actually be bad doesn't mean they aren't an expression of the general will of the people. If you're looking for a political system that delivers perfect results all the time, please don't spend a minute on a democracy. (But DO spend a minute writing me e-mail about the system you find - I'll be all ears.)

If you want to insist that everyone, in using the word "democracy", SHOULD mean "liberal democracy, with protection of minority rights, especially property rights," then I suggest writing the editors of the world's English language dictionaries. Of course, in this case, you might also tag those Spanish lexicographers as well. Best of luck to you, on that project.

[rosedog]

Arrrgghhh. Depressing. I think you and Gabo have it right, Marc: Chavez believes himself to be a visionary, but is actually a despot with a couple of good slight of hand tricks and whole lot of self-delusions. (As was further illustrated by GM's Human Rights Watch cites re: Chavez' self-serving fiddling with the country's Supreme Court structure)

Unfortunately Jimmy Carter seems to have certified the election as democratic. Which brings us to Michael T's above referenced proposition for a "deliberative democracy." Oh, would that it were possible!

[GMRoper]

Michael Turner writes: "Chavez's margin of victory was 1.5 million votes, a number that couldn't be faked even if you assume he was trying to do that;"

Gee, you must have been really impressed then with Saddam Hussein's massive 99.99% of the vote.

[Marc Cooper]

What's going on in Venezuela is most analagous to the rise of Peronism in Argentina. A military-bonapartist regime headed by a charismatic populust hordes power for itself, supplants the rest of the political parties (democratically) and while throwing some handouts to the masses, proceeds to contaminate the political process for the next 60 years. Argetina had paid the bill for the by seeing its onced bountiful national economy collapse. Venezeula is headed down the same road-- but much quicker. (Not to worry, however, for when it implodes the cafe revolutionaries will blame US imperialism for the disaster depicting Chavez as a victim).Unfortunately, Venezuelan politics for the next several decades will be polarized into pro- and anti Chavez fanatics thereby short-circuting any rational debate or inquiry. There were idiot leftists who supported Peron as well (see The Montoneros). That support presisted until right-wing death squads (also Peronists) wiped them out.

[Michael J. Totten]

Michael Turner,

Give the "Totten can't his check facts" shtick a rest, willya? I didn't mention any rise in extra-judicial killings. Only you did.

If you think power-consolidation is democracy-improvement then make a case. Otherwise, drop it.

[Alex Higgins]

Marc,
i wouldn't describe myself as a supporter of Chavez - rather as someone who is serious about supporting the aspirations of the poor and the expansion of democracy in Latin America.

On the whole, i've found what you have written on Venezuela disappointingly shallow. Take your comment: "I find nothing redeeming in the record of this former Army Colonel and former coup plotter".

This comes from a BBC report looking at attitudes towards Chavez:
_________________________________________________
'High up in one of the shanty towns that overlook Caracas, Doris Mendez and her 10-year-old daughter Gidailis wait to see the local doctor. Gidailis is asthmatic.

'In the past, the family could not always afford the drugs she needs, and when she had an attack, they struggled to get her to the hospital on time. Few ambulances ever make it up the narrow, winding streets.

'"Now," says Doris, "I've got everything right here. If my daughter starts to get a chill or an allergy, I can get hold of the medicine she needs and give it to her straight away."

'Nine months ago, there was no doctor here. Now, Daisy Machado runs a brand new surgery, right in the heart of the community.

'She is part of a programme which has brought thousands of doctors from Cuba to work in the most deprived areas. Indeed, it is in these areas that Hugo Chavez draws most of his support.

'Walk around the barrios, as the shanty towns are known, and it is hard to find anybody who says they will not vote for the president in Sunday's referendum. One elderly man said: "Mr Chavez is the only politician who has ever given a damn about us." '
_________________________________________________

Plenty of reasons to criticise Chavez, but how can you discuss Venezuela without even giving a hint as to how much of its population feels or why? I take it you don't think that Doris Mendez or that most Venezuelan shanty-town dwellers are 'idiot leftists', or proto-Stalinists, or blame-America-firsters, or 'cafe revolutionaries'. Did i exhaust the repertoire of lazy insults? Or are there still a few more?
How can you discuss Venezuelan politics without bothering to discuss the likely prospects for the poor if Chavez is defeated by the grossly misnamed Democratic Opposition? Where is Gidailis supposed to get treatment for her asthma? What is about expressions of concern for people like her that is contemptible?

I can see the "comfortable cafe revolutionary" stereotype about to be dropped on me, so i'll add that i'm a classroom assistant working on one of Britain's lowest salaries in one of London's poorest boroughs. It's been a while since i was last in a cafe. I'm not a supporter of the British Labour Party or of Tony Blair, but i wouldn't trivialise any of his policies that actually improved the quality of people's lives here or scoff at the prospect of their termination in the event of the victory of our own unlovely Opposition - becuase i can see what they mean to people.

I find your comparison of Chavez with Peron a little off, but interesting - you are certainly right to point out the real dangers here and the need for a Venezuelan left to develop a base independent of Chavez.
Currently, however, the most likely prospects in the event of Chavez's defeat at the hands of his more powerful opponents is real suffering for the country's poor and an increase in repression.

At the risk of making this post even longer, i also find it find odd that serious commentators can discuss contemporary Venezuelan politics without ever mentioning the Caracazo or its legacy.

[Marc Cooper]

I'm perfecttly willing to discuss the Caracazo. Indeed that event has chilling similarities with the famous 17 de Octubre in Argentina, the same sort of "azo" uprising that led to the populist Peronist dictatorship. No, I dont think that shantytown dwellers given a free handout are idiot lefists-- I think they are poor and often ignorant people who understandably grasp at the best immediate option.,, as we all would. But, if you will, this care revoltuionaries who have the the time and the leisure to ponder different alternatives might just come up with a "model" more fitting than Col Chavez. I may not have mentioned the Caracazo until now, but then allow me to also mention that of all the commenters here I am the only one who has met Hugo Chavez and that is why I KNOW he's a thug.

[Jaime Olivares]

Ganó Chávez el referendum y el mundo financiero internacional reaccionó con alivio. El Dow Jones subió más de 129 puntos en la Bolsa de Nueva York y los precios del petróleo bajaron de inmediato.

No es que las grandes corporaciones sean partidarias de Chávez sino que tenían demasiado temor a lo que pudiera haber ocurrido si el presidente venezolano hubiera sido destituido de su cargo.

Un conflicto interno en Venezuela que desestabilice el país pondría en riesgo el suministro petrolero a Estados Unidos y eso tiene consecuencias graves para la economía de todo el mundo.

¿No existe el mismo riesgo de desestabilización si la oposición se decide ahora por una estrategia de mayor confrontación? Creo que no. Sería más dañino para sus mismos intereses y para el bienestar de Venezuela.

[Alex Higgins]

"I am the only one who has met Hugo Chavez and that is why I KNOW he's a thug."

OK, unfortunately, i'm aware of the truth in that - i was looking at a Human Rights Watch report and was shocked to read about the army's use of straight murder to prevent looting during the mudslides of 1999, and Chavez's initial dismissal of the matter until public protests forced him to change his tune.
The corollary of that is he is not the only thug in Venezuela, nor the most dangerous.

The point of bringing up the Caracazo and subsequent massacre is to stress that Venezuela was not a functioning democracy before Chavez.
Discussion of the prospects of democracy in China without mentioning the Tiananmen Square slaughter would be considered odd - if not outright apologetics for the regime. Similarly, the fact that almost no Western commentator ever mentions the Caracazo when discussing Venezuela - or have even heard of it - highlights a remarkable level of contempt for the Venezuelan poor. Not even the killing of 2,000 of them is enough for people to notice.
Much of the mainstream commentary on Venezuela discusses Chavez's authoritarianism in a kind of vacuum, as though there was nothing seriously dysfunctional about Venezuelan politics before he turned up.

Given the prospect of a much more serious-minded and bloody effort to oust Chavez through sheer force than the farce of 2002, i think serious commentators should not frame the issues as though Chavez is the only - or primary - force for political malice in the country.

Michael Totten, in replying to Michael Turner illustrates part of my point when he says: "I didn't mention any rise in extra-judicial killings. Only you did."

No, Totten did not mention extra-judicial executions (which declined under Chavez according to Human Rights Watch, though not nearly enough). Why on earth not? Too trivial to waste time on?
Here Venezuela risks becoming for us not a country of real people with lives and feelings but an abstraction for cheap point-scorers to play with.

Human Rights Watch provides a good year-by-year overview of what is good and bad about Chavez. Their criticism of Chavez is worth reading - as is the fact that their research demonstrates that Venezuela is, on balance, less repressive under Chavez than before.

"...cafe revoltuionaries who have the the time and the leisure to ponder different alternatives might just come up with a "model" more fitting than Col Chavez"

On that i agree totally.

[Marc Cooper]

Alex, just for the record. My principal objection to Chavez is NOT his human rights record. It is marred and worrisome but in no way horrendous. I object to him because I am convinced that his demagogy and megalomania, his mostly phony populust posturing, and the tone and substance of his rhetoric are likely to eventually retard Venezuela's political development for decades to come-- precisely like Peron in Argentina. A curse, a veritable curse.

[dsquared]

But Marc, you actually recommended a "Si" vote to Venezuela's electors. What was it about the opposition's program that you thought was better? You might also note that Perez was still quite loudly voicing his support of the antichavistas from Miami and they weren't exactly falling over themselves to disassociate from him.

In Venezuela as it was three days ago, a Si victory would have meant a President picked from the Globovision gang (unless you're trying to tell us that Pompeyo Marquez was going to sweep to victory). That would have meant no end to phony posturing, no end to class war, but a certain end to land reform and a probable end to education for the poor as soon as oil went below $40/barrel. Even if, per impossibile, MAS won an election, do you really think that the rightist opposition and the ex-manageriat of PDVSA would just say "fair enough" and start paying their taxes like good citizens?

I think that Alex has a very real point here - that the problems with Venezuelan democracy are much more to do with a group of thuggish, rich, antidemocratic white people than a single thuggish, antidemocratic brown person - and that you really ought to tell us and the Venezuelans what you were actually wishing on them.

[dsquared]

Not to worry, however, for when it implodes the cafe revolutionaries will blame US imperialism for the disaster depicting Chavez as a victim

This is also something of a strawman assertion; when and if the Venezuelan economy implodes, there will be much more obvious candidates for blame, because the former ruling class have 1) taken vast amounts of capital out of the country into offshore bank accounts and 2) organised politically motivated strikes with the specific aim of crippling the economy. If they keep up to these tricks, I doubt anyone will really need to bring the Americans into it.

[Marc Cooper]

Dsquared: Thanks for ur comments even if we disagree somewhat. I wasnt wishing anything "on" the Venezuelan people-- they had the ability to make their own decision on Sunday and they did. So be it. I was, instead, lamenting that they have been given some pretty awful choices. I dont think you can fairly brand me as someone blind to the foibles and crimes of the Venzuelan political class-- I prefaced my remarks with a quite negative characterization of them. I also said, in the same vein, that Chavez was a grotesque product of the system's failure. He's a shitty model-- no matter what his skin color (which he uses quite demgagogically as well). Other than that, I'm going to refrain from any more comments on Chavez for the moment-- it all seems rather moot in any case at this point. Thanks for joining in and hope to see more from you. Dissent here is not only welcome, but warmly encouraged.

[Alex Higgins]

Thanks for your replies to my comments.

Marc writes: "I'm going to refrain from any more comments on Chavez for the moment-- it all seems rather moot in any case at this point."

Marc, please, NEVER refrain from making comment on any thug/tyrant/despot or crackpot. It is precisely the comments of true liberals, true conservatives or perhaps even true fence sitters that eventually everyone will sit up and take notice. When that happens, things change in the human condition, more often for the better.

[gmroper]

Sorry, didn't mean to make the "never refrain" comment anonymous.

[steve]

Gee, you must have been really impressed then with Saddam Hussein's massive 99.99% of the vote.

--ah yes, the old, "Chavez=Hussein" analogy...bring on an invasion, Chavez has WMDs...

[GMRoper]

Steve writes: "--ah yes, the old, "Chavez=Hussein" analogy...bring on an invasion, Chavez has WMDs..."

Stevie, Stevie, Stevie, wilt thou never stop setting up thy strawmen arguments. Even a cursory reading of my comment about being Mr. Turner's being impressed with Chavez' 1.5 million vote victory would indicate that he must, perforce, have been impressed with Hussein's 99+% victory. It has to do with the NUMBERS Steve, the Numbers!

I said nothing about Chavez being the equivalent of Hussein, or wmd's or anything of the kind.

I realize now that you are indeed a troll, not arguing to expound just arguing to argue, not pointing out fallacy in another's argument, just setting up strawmen.

So, hence forth, I'll not respond to your trite little comments, I'll scroll down and see who wrote it, and if it was someone else (even if I typically violently disagree with their POV) I'll read. If it's yours, I'll save my eyes and brain for something to read worthwhile.

[steve]

Stevie, Stevie, Stevie,

--i guess you think you're talking to someone who is younger than you [i.e. those who disagree with GM must be less mature than GM]
-------------------
I said nothing about Chavez being the equivalent of Hussein, or wmd's or anything of the kind.

--and you're saying the recall was somehow similar to Hussein's utterly fake and irrelevant elections? what was the point with the Hussein comparison? rape rooms for those who voted the wrong way?
-----------------------------
I realize now that you are indeed a troll, not arguing to expound just arguing to argue, not pointing out fallacy in another's argument, just setting up strawmen.

--au contraire, you were called on your making a completely irrelevant analogy.

[gmroper]

Marc, according to the Int. Trib. the Chavez vote may have been a total fraud....

http://www.iht.com/articles/534518.html

[Marc Cooper]

GM This is fascinating stuff and I'll probably post on it tomorrow... Whether or not the vote was fraud, I surely know that Chavez himself is one.

[steve]

It's funny to see rightwingers concerned about vote fraud in Venezuela. Touching really.

[steve]

Roper, read and weep:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4435157,00.html