I was reminded yesterday by a number of recent comments about Venezuela from notable international personalities, on the left-side of politics, of an unanswered letter I once wrote to Mr. Tariq Ali, a leading figure of the British and international Left. The reason for my letter had been the occasion of his keynote speech at the Hugo Chavez Memorial Lecture in London, in February 2014. I attended the Lecture together with mostly British folk partial to left-wing politics. The letter, which I sent Mr. Ali (added at the end of this note) gives my personal opinion on why the “Bolivarian Revolution” was destined to fail, and on the critical role which the international Left (including people like Mr. Ali) has played in its demise but more about it later. I want to focus first, on the few developments which recently caught my attention and made me think of the unanswered missive. A few weeks ago, during an interview given to an argentine web-based news agency, the world-renowned MIT professor and leading representative of the international Left, Mr. Noam Chomsky, made these comments about Venezuela: “In Venezuela something similar happened” (he had just held, in his previous remarks, that in Brazil “the magnitude of corruption was so huge, that the (governing) party discredited itself and essentially sacrificed its opportunities”). According to Mr. Chomsky’s reported comments, there had been proposals in Venezuela, efforts and initiatives but things were “unbalanced form the beginning”. He reportedly went onto say that “There were some changes instituted from above, with little connection with popular initiative” and “It is very unlikely that things will work. There were many failures on the road afterwards but at this moment, again because of the tremendous corruption and the incompetence of the country, they were unable to free themselves from the almost total dependency on its only export, petroleum”. When asked about his opinions regarding populism, and after some comments pertaining to populism in other regions of the world, Mr. Chomsky went onto say that “In Latin America, I believe that the Chavez model has been destructive”. Needless to say, these comments were deemed provocative, incendiary and misinformed in Venezuela; although the problem, for the government, is that they come from Mr. Chomsky… the most renowned international supporter of the “Bolivarian Revolution” and an undeniably leading thinker of the international Left… whom Chavez admired – so his words carry much weight. The following URL links to the actual article http://www.perfil.com/internacional/NoamChomsky-La-corrupcion-fue-tan-grande-en-Sudamerica-que-se-desacreditaron-a-si-mismosy-desperdiciaron-grandes-oportunidades-20151025-0008.html The next interesting development happened this week: the Secretary General of the Organisation of American States (OAS), Mr. Luis Almagro, published an open letter via its website last Monday, addressed to Ms. Tibisay Lucena, the president of Venezuela’s National Electoral Council (CNE), regarding the forthcoming legislative elections. To say that the letter was critical would be an understatement. Mr Almagro questioned, in very direct and combative language, the fairness of the electoral process in Venezuela, and took Ms. Lucena (and her Council) to task, for her failure to address the inequities. Mr. Almagro did not pull any punches! Needless to say, the Venezuelan government reacted to the provocative, incendiary and misinformed interference, according to established practice. The problem, as with Mr. Chomsky’s remarks, is that Mr. Almagro is a respected member of Uruguay’s Left… having served as Foreign Minister to the much revered Mr. José (Pepe) Mujica, the best-known and often cited of Latin America’s left-wing leaders; a man, who many would say, is the only true socialist. To following URL links to Mr. Almagro’s letter http://www.oas.org/documents/eng/press/letter-Mrs-Tibisay-Lucena.pdf
These two developments alone would not have sparked my memory-bank, were it not for a couple of private conversations about them, which I had with an old Venezuelan friend, who happens to be strongly supportive of the Venezuelan government, of Chavez his legacy and the “Bolivarian Revolution”. My friend will remain nameless, so let us call him Bob. The tenor of our discussions (about Venezuela) has recently taken an increasingly bizarre tone… Bob is an intelligent and well educated man, and I have no reason to believe that his motives are not genuine. I don’t believe him to be an “enchufado” (as we call the people who benefit from government favours). Bob has a good heart! However, as Venezuela continues to move inexorably towards the edge of a cliff (both from an economic and social perspective) and as it becomes increasingly clear that the problem is not lower oil prices or foreign conspiracies but… to use Mr. Chomsky’s own words, corruption and incompetence, Bob’s opinions have become as entrenched as they are increasingly absurd. When I mentioned to my old friend about Mr. Chomsky’s comments and about Mr. Almagro’s letter, and asked his opinions about them (I was particularly interested to hear what he had to say about Mr Chomsky’s comments, because I knew that he respects him, and has quoted him in the past) his response is summarised in the following: Mr. Chomsky is entitled to his opinions and as for the rest, I should stop interfering in the internal affairs of another country (I should add that I do not live in Venezuela) and that was the end of it! Bob seems trapped by an internal conflict. I am sure that he knows that what Messrs Chomsky and Almagro say is factually correct. I am sure that he knows that Venezuela is descending into an economic and social catastrophe… How could he not? And that the government is directly responsible for it. But he is unwilling to admit it (maybe even to himself) perhaps because… to do so, would seem to suggest that Chavez and his “Bolivarian Revolution” were a destructive force – something which would be anathema to Bob. I remember thinking – when I was reading his last comments, that Bob would be a very interesting experiment in behavioural science: at what point will he allow himself the opportunity to admit that the whole thing is a disaster? Will he rather see Venezuela in ruins before doing a Chomsky, or will he do so before the end? What is his limit? This is what reminded me of the letter which I had written nearly two years ago to Mr. Tariq Ali… in which basically, I suggested that the “Bolivarian Revolution” would collapse because of the accumulated weight of the government’s mistakes and misdeeds; and that the international Left’s refusal to admit that there were problems, in the face of undeniable evidence, was also one of the main reasons for the demise; and that as such, I believed that some of the culprits for the expiry of the revolution were people like him (Mr. Ali) and Mr. Chomsky himself. After all, when Mr. Chomsky claims that Venezuela is a tremendously corrupt and incompetent country, he would do well to remember that she did not turn this way overnight. If she is, as he claims… corrupt and incompetent, she must have been this way when he was “singing her praises” not so long ago. When Mr. Chomsky claims that the Chavez model is “destructive”… he would do well to remember that this is the same Chavez for whom he was reported to have said (upon a visit to Caracas): "What's so exciting about coming to Venezuela is that I can see how a better world is being created and speak to the person who's inspired it". For those interested, below is the original letter to Mr. Tariq Ali (with some, mostly stylistic changes, to make it more readable).
Letter to Mr. Tariq Ali on the occasion of his Hugo Chavez Memorial Lecture of 20 th February 2014
Dear Sir, I attended your Hugo Chavez Memorial Lecture at University of London last month and feel compelled to write this open letter to you, because your remarks left me anxious about Venezuela. They also left me feeling frustrated and powerless but I must say… I also took some comfort from them but maybe not for the reasons you might think. As we know misinformation (from both sides of the political divide) has been rampant in Venezuela and this makes it very difficult for anyone to distinguish between truths, exaggerations and lies. So we prefer to form views based on what we see ourselves, rather than what the media tells us. We also form views from what we hear from friends and relatives. But we remind ourselves that Venezuela is so polarised these days that we need to take what we hear from our loved ones “with a pinch salt”. Of course, we also talk to people on both sides (we all have friends and relatives on both sides) because we know that the truth is likely to be somewhere in the middle. But obviously this approach is difficult for non-Venezuelans, who have no direct access to the facts. So I went to your Lecture because I wanted to hear for myself... what you had to say about what is happening in Venezuela. Of course, much of the Lecture was about recalling the good reasons for the rise of Hugo Chavez and about highlighting everything that (in your view) is wrong with capitalism. You attacked and derided the United States for what it represents, for what it does across the world and for how it does it… with examples and a narrative that we have become accustomed to. The audience duly applauded, cheered and laughed… or gasped, shook heads and jeered in the appropriate places. However, this is not the aspect of your remarks that worried me. The introduction by the young man from the Venezuelan Embassy, coupled with some of the things that you said (or rather, didn’t say) was what worried me, as it highlighted to me one of the main problems which Venezuela has at the moment (in terms of what is projected abroad) but which, oddly enough, is also one of the main problems the real Left has in Venezuela too… because it is, in my view, one of the reasons the “revolution” will ultimately fail there (unless there is massive changes, which does not appear likely) and I take comfort from this. The young man told the audience a story about a recent trip to Venezuela, to illustrate the attempts of the opposition to misinform. “The opposition talks about crime being a big problem in Venezuela” he told the attentive audience “But let me tell you what happened when I went to Caracas a few weeks ago”. He gave us a tale about a visit to a part of town which was a notorious crime-spot (the area around the Colegio de Ingenieros underground station) and shared with us his surprise at the happiness, colours and music that he found there. See? Crime? What crime? Here was another first-hand example from a reliable source that proved the lies told by the opposition. Well frankly, the story was nonsense. He knew that… I know that… every Caraqueño (person from Caracas) knows that… and I suspect that even you know
that too. But the vast majority of the people in the audience had no way of knowing that (as most were not Venezuelan) so who are you kidding with these stories but yourselves? The irony is that the young man picked the very same crime-spot where my 73-year old father has twice been robbed in the last couple of years. The last time, he was ambushed at night and was left unconscious on the pavement, waking up disoriented some time later without his wallet, replica watch, old mobile phone etc. But of course, according to the young man, these stories are part of the destabilising narrative of the opposition. Before attending the Lecture I had asked a family member whom I love dearly and who is also a resolute and proud Chavista, whether the complaints of the protesters in Caracas regarding crime, corruption, lack of foodstuffs and other basic necessities etc. were true, or whether they were exaggerations by the media? I explained that I didn’t want to be manipulated by misinformation, that living so far away made it difficult for me to tell between truth and propaganda. To my surprise, her response was: “Yes they are right, things are delicate, there is insecurity, shortages, and inflation… the protest is fair.” But of course, according to the young man from the Embassy, this would be another example of the type of destabilising propaganda of the opposition. So I guess an audience such as that which attended the Lecture must not take any notice of it. In fact, perhaps they should not be exposed to it, even if it comes, supposedly… from a Chavista. Then again, maybe the tone of this note itself makes me sound like a rabid capitalist and a member of the opposition: a good enough reason to disregard it altogether? Incidentally, to be sure, my relative then went onto criticise the protesters for the manner in which they are exercising their right to protest but this is unrelated to the point that I am trying to make here. So what is the point? The point is that the pretence is a big problem, because the complaints (and the protests) are fair! And it is certainly a problem for any country and its people (and for democracy) when their governments pretend that their problems are illusions or lies. But beware, because this is also a problem for the governments themselves, because unless they stop pretending and address the issues properly, the problems will only get worse. Therefore, the pretence is also a problem for you (the real international and domestic Left) because by going along with it, you are not protecting your “revolution” (if this is what you are trying to do) … you are just giving the failing government the license to keep on pretending and hence, you are ultimately jeopardising your own cause… because eventually the people will despair and do whatever it takes for them to overcome their problems (the cause of which they will see as being the government and its “revolution”). At the point in your remarks when you talked about where the revolution had been internationally just before Chavez appeared on the scene (when you talked about what had been happening in a number of communist countries), you made me wonder what indeed had happened, to put your revolution on the back foot in so many places? I am no political expert or historian, but after listening to your Lecture and reflecting upon it… and if present form is a guide to past behaviour, perhaps the constant pretending must have been part of the reason why your revolution was failing on so many fronts. But if this is the case… you seem to have learnt no lessons from it.
Everyone in Venezuela knows that violent and petty crime has reached intolerable levels, that society is losing its moral compass, that the cancer of corruption has grown enormously during the Chavez era (instead of being eradicated, as he had promised in his first election manifesto), and that the economy is in shambles and that the economic foundations of the country are crumbling (even though oil prices have given the incumbent government a unique historical opportunity). I imagine that you already know all this… perhaps even better than I do and yet, you said nothing at the Lecture!
When the government is not saying that the problems are illusions, they claim that they are the result of an evil plot by capito-imperialist forces, in cahoots of course with the opposition. But everyone knows that this is nonsense; even if there is intrigue, plotting and some destabilisation by some sectors of the opposition (of which, incidentally, I have yet to see any evidence) the most likely cause of the chaos is government incompetence and inefficiency, coupled with shamelessly excessive cronyism and corruption. I cannot believe that you are unaware of this and yet, you chose to say noting at the Lecture… as if admitting your child’s misbehaviour was not the first step towards correcting it. Your British supporters… be they members of the trade unions, the Labour Party, or from any other walk of life would be horrified if they knew half the (Venezuelan) story! But they don’t know it, so they rely on folk like you and others of your knowledge and eminence, to tell it to them… and yet, you chose to say nothing at the Lecture. Of course, I understand that it was meant to be a Memorial in honour of Hugo Chavez and therefore, it was always going to be a nostalgic look at the past, a celebration of his life and legacy. But you did make a few passing remarks such as “of course there are some problems” and other soft observations made very dismissively. I suspect that you know that the country is descending into chaos, both socially and economically and to gloss over what is happening in such a way… or worse still, to pretend that none of it is true, is frankly indefensible! When you talked about his coup attempt of 1992 and his first presidential election, you mentioned that in those days public opinion in Venezuela had been aligned with his narrative. This is true (although irrelevant in the present juncture). We were all hopeful when he won his first presidential election and in truth, he did achieve some good things initially. For example, he did put the poor of the country at the centre of the political debate and at the apex of the government’s agenda. But let me tell you that many people in Venezuela today, many original Chavistas, feel cheated by Hugo Chavez. The government is now against the ropes (and I am not talking just about the events of the past month) and not by the actions of the opposition but rather, because of the accumulated weight of so many mistakes and misdeeds. But as the tide turns against it, the Psuv is becoming increasingly and incredibly oppressive, reaching levels of repression not seen in Venezuela for a generation or more. What one sees in the streets of Caracas at the moment (and many other places across the country) should bring tears to the eyes of those who know what a lovely place Venezuela is; or to those who know anything about its history and democratic credentials. The government is trying to keep a lid on recent events (although not very well, thanks to new
communication technology)... not only in terms of police and military brutality but also, in terms of the actions (and its apparent tolerance, some say support) of the so-called ‘Colectivos’... The government is trying to keep such things tucked away from the eyes of the international community (and even its own people) through the increasingly vicious grip it has over the media; and by telling (and showing) international observers, including folk such as yourself and your audience at the Lecture, only what you want to hear (and see)… At the Lecture you said that the revolution had been on the back-foot for some time and that there had been a collective sigh of relief among activists from across the world, when Chavez burst onto the scene; and that therefore, Latin America and particularly Venezuela, represented the frontline of your battle against capitalism. I firmly believe that what is happening in Venezuela has nothing to do with political doctrine, even if there is a political narrative surrounding it. It is nothing more than a sad tale about greed, incompetence and lack of morals. The irony is that a responsible and effective socialist government might have brought Venezuela much closer, and much more enduringly so, to your vision of a just society… without the need to sacrifice its social and economic fibre. The fact that most of the original left-wing political parties of Venezuela (not all of course, but certainly Bandera Roja, La Causa R, MAS, URD, and MIR etc.) stand with the opposition… Does it not surprise you or your constituency? That the CTV (original workers trade union federation) was so trampled by Hugo Chavez, that they became staunch critics… to such an extent, that he had to abolish them and created a new one; and that even today there are regular complaints from many trade unions… Does this not make you or your constituency wonder? Sir… you are frankly deceived, if you really think that the Venezuelan government is waging your war against capitalism… they are not! There may be some genuine advocates among the rank-and-file but many (most?) government officials and their so-called “enchufados” (i.e. people who benefit from government favours) are the biggest capitalists of them all... But I suspect that I don’t need to tell you this, as they flaunt their “capitalist credentials” for the whole world to see. I believe that Venezuela is no longer a clash between the Left and the Right… perhaps it has not been for a long time (perhaps it never was)… even if you, the trade unions and the rest of your constituency would like it to be so. You seem willing to ignore the clear signals and I cannot fathom why. But my principal complaint to you… to the real international Left is this: if Venezuela is indeed the frontline of your battle against capitalism and therefore, Venezuelans (on both sides) are your foot-soldiers in the trenches of this conflict... Then sir, you are simply using Venezuelan people as cannon fodder. Why else would you see the country pushed to such depths and not speak up against it? Socialists, of all people… should stand for and protect the people. Is there no price which the international Left considers too high for Venezuelans to pay? For the sake of a revolution which appears to be on its last legs anyway, because of the faults of your own “colonels” at the front. How much sacrifice is it fair for you to ask (of Venezuelans) while sitting in the comfort of your offices and homes in London? At what point do you say... enough? Do you wait until there is nothing left to salvage? Can you seriously not see, that the only reason the revolution has not already imploded, is because of high oil prices?
I wonder whether you would remain so blasé about government failures to tackle violent crime, corruption, cronyism, shortages of staple foods and basic necessities, the crumbling economy etc. if you and your loved ones lived in Venezuela. Would you still suggest that these are teething problems? Would you still so readily accept government propaganda? But you don’t live there and yet… not only you accept the government’s misinformation at events such as the Lecture but you endorse it by your silence and thus, you sell the message yourself to your constituencies. I can only assume that maybe you believe that admitting the errors, deficiencies and vices of the government might risk losing support for the cause abroad; that perhaps you think it is better not to hang one’s dirty washing in public. But you are mistaken, to speak up against what is happening is precisely what you should have done; transparency would have been the most effective way to encourage positive change. Moreover, by staying silent, you are sowing the seeds for the demise of your revolution… because one day (and I don’t know if this will be soon or in many years) the whole country will wake up and “smell the coffee”, and Venezuelans from both sides will put an end to this madness. The international Left will once again have to scamper about, searching for another Hugo Chavez to continue the fight; and you will all end up once again wondering where it all went wrong… Well I believe that it went wrong in places like your Hugo Chavez Memorial Lecture, where you had an opportunity to do the right thing but you chose not to!
Virgilio A Mendoza