Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez yesterday showed off his new look — a shaved head due to the chemotherapy treatment he has been undergoing for an unspecified cancer. Reports say he nonetheless seemed in good spirits, “criticising the opposition, discussing Friedrich Nietzsche and recalling a comic he enjoyed reading as a child”.
There are more important thing to worry about, however, than Chavez’s appearance. Observers are looking for any signs of a policy shift in his autocratic regime before elections scheduled for next year, and also for hints about the succession should he die in office or retire due to ill health.
As has so often happened with Chavez, the signals have been mixed. Last week, celebrating his 57th birthday, he again promised to run for re-election, and joked that he could still be in power in 2031. But the following day he gave tantalising hints of a change of front, saying “We need to reflect and introduce changes in our discourse and in our actions” and promising greater respect for the private sector and the middle class.
Most of Latin America has seen a big swing to liberalisation in the past 20 years. Brazil, Argentina and Chile, which at different times have all been bywords for dictatorship, are now stable democracies with flourishing economies. But Venezuela under Chavez has moved the other way, concentrating power and marginalising opposition forces.
In particular, Chavez has always looked to Cuba as a model and professed great admiration for Fidel Castro (although unlike Cuba, Venezuela has retained at least the trappings of democracy). In turn, Chavez has become a cult figure in his own right among several far-left groups worldwide.
Last week, however, the Cuban example was offering a different lesson, as Chavez pointed with approval to the reforms and “process of self-criticism” undertaken by Raul Castro, who replaced his ailing brother three years ago.
Cuba’s national assembly has this week approved a package of reforms proposed by Raul Castro, including reducing the state’s role in the economy and encouraging private businesses. If Chavez is serious about going down the same road, it will be a significant break with the trenchantly socialist rhetoric of his past.
But the two countries are importantly different. The Castros have a party apparatus behind them, with reasonable prospects of a disciplined, orderly succession. Chavez’s regime is much more a one man band; if he goes, no one really knows what would happen.
Autocrats do sometimes mellow with age, so it is quite possible that Chavez, having been forcefully reminded of his mortality, will become a bit less obsessed with maintaining his own grip on power. But he may also think that if a change in direction is required that is all the more reason for him to stay in power to see it through and prevent the chaos of a power vacuum — or (from his point of view) worse, an opposition comeback.
Either way, the old-fashioned Chavez of red shirts, creeping autocracy and three-hour speeches looks to be on the way out. “Why do we have to always have to wear a red shirt?” he asked last week. Why indeed? But it remains to be seen whether Venezuelans will get more than cosmetic change.
I dont know what world Charles Richardson lives in but it more than coincidently resembles a early CIA tinged vision of the 1970’s. What next Charles, coup to rid the people of Venezuela of their elected President just like Chile in 1973? Oh thats roght that was tried and failed. Just because a president , aparty and a country isnt compliant in their explotitation dosent mean that they are not democratic. Its a shame that the 75% of newspapers in our country are allowed untrammelled rights to lie and distort as they wish with no control. To lable Venezuela’s democratically elected government as an autocratic regime is compliant with a destablisation campaign planned and implemented directly from Langley. Shame Charles Richardson Shame.
Charles, this is so disappointing coming from you, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I suggest that you visit Venezuela as I did a couple of years and spend a week or two in the barrios as I did and talk to the ordinary people who have been incredibly empowered during the Chavez years. This is why they keep voting him back in with 60% plus of the vote. His government responds to the needs of the people, and the people in charge of the social programmes (using 60% of the oil revenues) are incredibly efficient and committed to delivering social outcomes at a reasonable cost. The people that I spoke to have a political and social awareness and sense of responsibilty that we can only envy.
All of this is happening with a virulent opposition partly funded by the USA, a right wing hate media which makes Fox look tame, and an entrenched middle class that wants him to die, soon. But the 70% who are climbing out of poverty want him to stay, why, because for the first time in history the entire population of a large South American country has free 24 hour healthcare, better literacy than the USA, and a far larger proportion of their population at University than ours.
Go and have a look Charles.
Oh dear! What a biased account. Is this The Australian I am reading?
Just one aspect.The greatest threats to freedom are poverty and ill health. Cuba and Venezuela reeally do rather well on these indicators of freedom.
ha ha, you wrote a whole story without mentioned socio economic statistics before and after Chavez.
Chile is apposite. Who knew Allende effectively won two elections as president 1970 and 1972 twice before being assasinated?
Seems democracy is fine for El Norte but not the little America down south. Tsk tsk.
Here is an extract from Joan Jara’s biography: Victor Jara an unfinished song:
“The results of the election were awaited with the same suspense as if they had been for a new President. We knew for certain that Eliana would be successful, but when it became clear that Popular Unity had won a larger percentage of votes than when Allende was elected [1970]- an improved vote in mid-term elections [1972] was almost unprecedented in Chile – and that the women’s vote had held up in spite of the propaganda directed at them, the opposition recognised that they couldn’t hope to defeat Allende by democratic means. With Popular Unity taking more than 40 per cent of the vote, they had failed to reach the two-thirds majority they needed. At that rate, another three years of Allende’s government would probably mean an overwhelming victory for the Popular Unity candidate in 1976. At that precise moment, the decision was taken to overthrow Allende by a military coup.”
Well, here I was wondering if I’d been too nice to Chavez. Evidently not. Look, I’m not denying that Chavez was democratically elected. Nor do I dispute that he’s done some good things for the poor, as have the Castros in Cuba – I’ve said as much in the past. But Cuba is still a dictatorship, and Chavez in the past has shown pretty clear signs of wanting to take Venezuela in the same direction – the contrast with democratic leftist governments elsewhere on the continent is evident. If Lula can help the poor in Brazil without lining up with Gaddafi & Ahmadinejad, I don’t see why Chavez couldn’t.
@Michael: you’re right, I haven’t been there, which is one reason I didn’t presume to say anything about whether Chavez has strong popular support or whether his social & economic policies have benefited the country. But even if you’re right about the answers to those questions (which you may well be, although other observers have reported differently), that doesn’t justify trying to silence critics the way he has. Social progress without democracy is self-defeating.
@Tom: for the record, Allende won just one election, in 1970, with 36.6% of the vote. His “victory” in the 1973 [not 1972] congressional election consisted in the fact that his opponents failed to win the two-thirds majority they would have needed to impeach him; they still won a clear majority. No, that doesn’t justify the coup, but it’s hard to make the case that Allende enjoyed overwhelming support.