The Legacy of Hugo Chavez (part 1) Or The Creed of Slaves
“Is it not necessity, which is always the plea of every illegal exertion of power, or exercise of oppression? Is it not necessity the pretence of every usurpation? Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants: it is the creed of slaves” William Pitt (The Younger) 18 November, 1783
The famous British Prime Minister uttered these powerful words four months after the birth of Venezuela’s most illustrious son: Simon Bolivar… and how they echo today, in the homeland of the hero of South American independence. Following the recent postponement of state governorship elections (originally due next month) without explanation, and of the oppositionbacked recall referendum… President Nicolas Maduro stated in his weekly television program that: “The priority in Venezuela is to recover the economy, to assist the people, to continue developing education and housing. Not doing elections”. In other words, the government decided to «suspend democracy» because of the «necessity» of dealing with other (more urgent?) matters. It beggars belief that any honest socialist, trade union member or left wing activist can continue to support the travesty which is the Venezuelan government… because of the shockingly naïve delusion that they are supporting a socialist government. Last March it was the anniversary of the late Hugo Chavez’s passing and there were a number of memorials and tributes to his legacy in London. I remember thinking that I seemed to be living in a parallel universe to these folk (many of which had probably never visited Venezuela) who sang his praises with nostalgia, even as his many mistakes and misdemeanours were coming home to roost. I remember thinking that I ought to write a piece about the real legacy of Hugo Chavez… so here it is.
The word legacy refers to something that has been transmitted from the past to the present, but it also refers to something that transcends time. For example: The Greeks have a rich legacy of literature, or The war has left a legacy of hatred. Individuals of a left-wing disposition believe that the Hugo Chavez legacy pertains to social justice: «Participatory democracy» and «21st Century Socialism» are said to be some of his gifts to the people of Venezuela and the world… but these things are a mirage. There is nothing democratic, participatory or socialist about what is happening in Venezuela today. The legacy of the late Hugo Chavez… in other words: that which will take future generations longest to «repair» are: the internecine social and racial mistrust (even hatred) that «he» created and fuelled for political purposes; the phoney democracy that he fashioned to sustain his perpetual hold on power; and the decayed moral standards of the society, which were always going to be the (planned?) result of his policies, narrative and style. So what did Hugo Chavez do for Venezuela? In a nutshell, he took the country back to the days when caudillos ruled the land; when democracy, her institutions and The Law were mere illusions… just words used by a warlord when it suited him, but ignored when they went against his designs. Venezuela fought long and hard to pull herself away from those harsh days, and then spent nearly half a century building a democratic disposition among her people. It is true, that her democracy was by no means perfect: the cement of its foundations was still hardening and it had not profited everybody equally. But much progress had been made. Hugo Chavez’s own presidential victory in 1999 and its wide-ranging «acceptance» was testament to the strength of Venezuela’s democracy. However, from his earliest days (and often wearing military fatigues) Hugo Chavez showed an inclination to bend rules (or create new ones) even his own… when it suited him; to subjugate institutions when they stood up to him; even to ignore the will of the people, when they stood on his way. Over time and by countless small and not so small footsteps, he accustomed the Venezuelan people once again… to the ways of the caudillo; so that by now many folk truly see nothing untoward when President Nicolas Maduro cancels elections (some even celebrate it). So the democratic façade is finally lifting in Venezuela, as events force the governing party to start taking off the veil of Hugo Chavez’s deception. As economic and social conditions worsen across the country, increasing numbers of its own constituents clamour for a change of administration… and this is the real reason why the government postponed the regional elections and the recall referendum. What is truly sad is that there are so many good people (both inside and outside Venezuela) that have been so mesmerized by the Hugo Chavez narrative that they continue to defend this autocratic regime and its phoney democracy. One understands why deprived, uneducated, uninformed and indoctrinated folk are «enslaved by his creed»… but one cannot fathom why learned individuals, some multinational institutions and neutral nations continue to do so.
For example, the Secretary General of UNASUR (the quasi United Nations of South America), former Colombian President Mr Ernesto Samper, was exceedingly critical of Brazil’s impeachment of its former President (Ms Dilma Rousseff)… even though the process had been legal, constitutional and it had been conducted by the Brazilian legislative and judiciary branches of government with the (tacit?) endorsement of its military. At the time, Mr. Samper went as far as daring to emit legal opinions on issues pertaining to Brazilian law and parliamentary procedure. Unfortunately, Mr Samper has had very little to say about the «suspension of democracy» in Venezuela… there have certainly been no legal opinions from him, on whether the postponement of regional elections is legal, constitutional or democratic. In the only official communique made on the subject, Mr. Samper made a sterile remark about the cancellation of the referendum, called on Venezuelan’s to resolve their political differences through dialogue, and carefully avoided any reference to the postponement of regional elections. Here is the link to the full communique: http://www.unasursg.org/en/node/994 Incidentally, there is a tendency lately to equate the Colombian peace process to what is now required in Venezuela to solve the political impasse. One notices how this line of thinking is stimulated by certain quarters. For example: «The bilateral ceasefire in Colombia serves as an example to Venezuela in achieving peace»… starts a recent blog in UNASUR’s website. In my humble opinion (but I admit that my knowledge of Colombia’s conflict is at best very limited) there is nothing remotely comparable between Colombia’s wars on its Marxist revolutionaries and Venezuela’s current political impasse. In the one country… you have a whole nation (and all its major political parties) conducting a 50-year war against criminal guerrillas; while on the other country… you have one political party unwilling to abide by the will of the people (who are tired of its negligence and transgressions) who want a change of administration. One suspects that this ludicrous comparison between Colombia and Venezuela is part of an elaborate stitch-up to find a way for the Chavista leadership to step down and hand power to the opposition. The reason is simple: eighteen years of unbridled corruption, nepotism and other questionable vices make it literally impossible for the leadership of the governing party (and those hooked-up to them) to even consider handing power to the opposition, unless there are rock-solid assurances of amnesty from prosecution (and presumably unless they are also allowed to keep some of their ill-gotten fortunes). And of course, in the more interconnected world that we live in, gone are the days when a dictator could just abscond and live the rest of his days in relative peace and luxury. However, until now, the opposition has not appeared interested… hence the need for dialogue (preferably cloak-and-dagger) and consequently, the need to build the absurd parallels between Colombia and Venezuela. In the above-mentioned communique Mr Samper ends: I want to finish this statement (regarding Venezuela) by describing what is currently happening in Colombia, my country. After fifty years or armed conflict and 280,000 fatalities we are moving towards peace. The process of dialogue and negotiation in Havana has not been easy. It has required great forgiveness and tolerance with regards to the pain from the past and the desire from revenge in the future. As I am aware that Venezuelans are peaceful people, I think that, without giving up their claims for change, they can tread their own path towards reconciliation. And they will have our support”.
Here are a couple of things for Mr Samper to consider: the Venezuelan people do not want revenge… they want accountability. The Venezuelan people want the rule of law to apply once again… instead of the rule of the caudillo: that Westphalian system of «Might makes Right» which has ruled the country since Hugo Chavez came into power. The Venezuelan people want to live in a real democracy once again… So here is an idea for Mr Samper: instead of suggesting that political parties have a dialogue to find a path towards reconciliation… how about suggesting that the political parties let «The People» decide the direction of travel? How about reminding the governing party of the sacrosanct importance of having free and fair elections, as the cornerstones of democracy and Venezuela’s constitution? It is clear that folk such as Mr Samper are trying to find a way out… but history has shown time and again, that one gains nothing by placating a bully or villain; not for nothing did Winston Churchill say that “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile”. Mr Samper and the rest of the leaders of the hemisphere should «do a Churchill» instead of «doing a Chamberlain». The government of Venezuela has pled necessity for its oppression, for its violation of the human rights of its people and for its suspension of democracy and good and honest men do the people of Venezuela no favours, when they acquiesce to the argument of tyrants.
Virgilio Mendoza