The wrecking of Venezuela

[The_Dude 1,142]

Hugo Chávez's government

The wrecking of Venezuela

Hugo Chávez's government

The wrecking of Venezuela

Venezuelans are starting to fall out of love with their president. Will they be allowed to vote him out of power?

May 13th 2010 | From The Economist print edition

WITH his bellicose bombast, theatrical gestures and dodgy jokes, Hugo Chávez, Venezuela’s president for the past 11 years, has turned himself into one of the world’s most recognisable and controversial rulers. His fans salute him as a saviour for the downtrodden of the planet, a man who is leading a grass roots revolution against American imperialism and its local sepoys. But to many others, including this newspaper, he has come to embody a new, post-cold-war model of authoritarian rule which combines a democratic mandate, populist socialism and anti-Americanism, as well as resource nationalism and carefully calibrated repression.

This model has proved surprisingly successful across the world. Versions are to be found in countries as disparate and distinct as Iran, Russia, Zimbabwe and Sudan. In one way or another, these regimes claim to have created a viable alternative to liberal democracy.

In Mr Chávez’s case, that claim has been backed up above all by oil. On the one hand, he has deployed oil revenues abroad to gain allies, and to sustain the Castro brothers in power in Cuba. On the other, having kicked out Western multinationals, he has signed investment deals with state-owned oil companies. Last month China agreed to lend Venezuela $20 billion, mainly for oil development. Mr Chávez has armed his revolution with Russian jets, tanks and rifles (albeit bought on tick). Meanwhile, a Spanish judge accuses his government of sheltering members of ETA, the Basque terrorist group. Intercepted e-mails from leaders of Colombia’s FARC guerrillas suggest that they have received help, and possibly arms, through Venezuela. Of course Venezuela’s government denies such claims. So just how much of a menace is Mr Chávez, and what, if anything, can be done about him?

Venezuela’s dark age

Certainly his threats against Colombia—which include a total trade embargo if Juan Manuel Santos, a former defence minister, wins this month’s presidential election—and the evidence of his veiled support for the FARC are troubling. They are a constant, if so far manageable, source of regional tension. And his efforts to build a block based on self-proclaimed “revolutions”, anti-Americanism and managed trade in the heart of democratic Latin America have served to undermine the very cause of regional integration that he claims to champion. But rhetoric aside, his influence in the region peaked a couple of years ago. He lost one ally, albeit in regrettable circumstances, when Honduras’s president, Manuel Zelaya, was overthrown last year. Several others are on the defensive.

Much more important is the damage Mr Chávez is doing to his own country. His “21st-century socialism” is a precarious construction. The brief fall in the oil price of 2008-09 was enough to sink Venezuela’s economy into stagflation—even as the rest of Latin America is enjoying vigorous economic recovery. Venezuelans are suffering declining real wages, persistent shortages of staple goods (meat is the latest to become scarce) and daily power cuts.

The blackouts are in part the result of drought. But they are also the most dramatic sign that the bill for a decade of mismanagement of the economy and of public services is now falling due (see article). There are plenty of other ugly portents. In one of the world’s biggest oil exporters hard currency is running short: to buy a dollar in the tolerated parallel market now requires almost twice as much local currency as the official exchange rate (and three times more than the privileged rate for “essential imports”). Investors rate the country’s debt as the riskiest of anywhere. Crime and corruption are flourishing.

The coming choice between Chávez and democracy

Awkwardly for Mr Chávez, all this is happening when he faces a legislative election in September, the prelude to a vital presidential ballot in December 2012. That points to the contradiction at the heart of his project. He sees his revolution as permanent and irreversible. But he derives his legitimacy from the ballot box. He has been elected three times, and won four referendums. He has hollowed out Venezuela’s democracy, subjugating the courts, bullying the media and intimidating opponents. But he has been unable, or unwilling, to disregard or repress opposition to the same degree as Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or even Russia’s Vladimir Putin, let alone the Castro brothers in Cuba.

Public opinion still matters in Venezuela. Remarkably, opinion polls show that two Venezuelans out of five still support Mr Chávez (higher than the proportion of the British electors who voted for the Conservative Party, the senior partner in the country’s new coalition government). That is tribute to his skill in convincing the poor that he is their champion, to the opposition’s mistakes, to years of record oil prices and to the ruthlessness with which he ransacks the economy for the short-term benefit of his supporters. It means he is unlikely to fade away. But provided that the opposition comes up with a plausible alternative, it is not fanciful to imagine that in 2012 Venezuela will face a stark choice: Mr Chávez or democracy.

All the evidence is that Venezuelans, including many chavistas, are democrats and want to remain so. But Mr Chávez is pushing on regardless with his revolution, nationalising ever more businesses, expropriating private properties and selectively locking up or harassing his opponents. So the question increasingly being asked in Caracas is whether Mr Chávez’s rule will end peacefully or not.

The answer will lie largely with Venezuelans themselves. But outsiders, especially in Latin America, can play their part, by urging that the opposition receive guarantees that it can take part both this year and in 2012 on equal terms. That goes particularly for democratic Brazil, whose president, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, has embraced Mr Chávez far more than is desirable for his own country’s long-term interest. Mr da Silva has helped entrench prosperity, freedom and democracy in Brazil. He should hope the same happens for Venezuela. Mr Chávez, unfortunately, is not the man to bring that about

Source

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Take not conservative sycophants, this is what real socialist takeover is, not the delusional scenario you seem to fantasize about.

[alienlovechild 75]

He sees his revolution as permanent and irreversible. But he derives his legitimacy from the ballot box. He has been elected three times, and won four referendums.

Public opinion still matters in Venezuela. Remarkably, opinion polls show that two Venezuelans out of five still support Mr Chávez (higher than the proportion of the British electors who voted for the Conservative Party, the senior partner in the country’s new coalition government). That is tribute to his skill in convincing the poor that he is their champion, to the opposition’s mistakes, to years of record oil prices and to the ruthlessness with which he ransacks the economy for the short-term benefit of his supporters.

All the evidence is that Venezuelans, including many chavistas, are democrats and want to remain so. But Mr Chávez is pushing on regardless with his revolution, nationalising ever more businesses, expropriating private properties and selectively locking up or harassing his opponents.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Take not conservative sycophants, this is what real socialist takeover is, not the delusional scenario you seem to fantasize about.

Must be your own delusion as no one else has offered an opinion.

One comparison is that Obama won a single election and saw it as mandate for his agenda. More government spending, more debt and more governmental intervention in the economy. Despite achieving little, Obama, like Chavev, has hard core followers in a cult of personality that aren't deterred by unfavorable economic conditions.

[john & jean 37]

the Obama defenders will be along momentarily

[alienlovechild 75]

the Obama defenders will be along momentarily

Their ranks have thinned since the election but I think they'll return during the midterm elections. My guess is they'll claim an adverse outcome isn't a true reflection of what voters think of Obama and the Democrats.

[SuperDuper! 230]

This guy is a mad man. We will only know how much he has ruined and plundered his country after he is out of office.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Chavez is an idiot.

[dakay ♥ 10]

So the question increasingly being asked in Caracas is whether Mr Chávez’s rule will end peacefully or not.

definitely will not be peaceful if they want to restore democracy, blood will run, there is an important sector of the population that supports him and is mobilizing for him, is necessary to create the political conditions for his downfall, Chavez is a cancer that must be removed

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Send him to Australia.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

One comparison is that Obama won a single election and saw it as mandate for his agenda. More government spending, more debt and more governmental intervention in the economy. Despite achieving little, Obama, like Chavev, has hard core followers in a cult of personality that aren't deterred by unfavorable economic conditions.

Ah the classic illogical stretch!

[luckytxn 2,265]

Only Obama the Socialists sheep can rival Chavez's sheep for delusions.

[The_Dude 1,142]

Must be your own delusion as no one else has offered an opinion.

One comparison is that Obama won a single election and saw it as mandate for his agenda. More government spending, more debt and more governmental intervention in the economy. Despite achieving little, Obama, like Chavev, has hard core followers in a cult of personality that aren't deterred by unfavorable economic conditions.

Maybe you don't quite understand how american politics and government work, but then again, your political acumen appears to be lacking. So, i'll outline it for you, in case you missed PoliSci 101 your freshman year. A candidate runs for president on a platform of ideas and plans. If he wins, he tries to implement those ideas based on the popular support of more people than the other candidate.

Only Obama the Socialists sheep can rival Chavez's sheep for delusions.

Seriously, you are too dumb for these forums, GTFO and go to 4chan or something.

[alienlovechild 75]

Maybe you don't quite understand how american politics and government work, but then again, your political acumen appears to be lacking. So, i'll outline it for you, in case you missed PoliSci 101 your freshman year. A candidate runs for president on a platform of ideas and plans. If he wins, he tries to implement those ideas based on the popular support of more people than the other candidate.

Is that all you learned? Your knowledge of a government class from high school is less than impressive and it shows.

Obama ran on a platfrom that few voters actually read. That's the case most of the time with any political party but Obama's was viewed as based on "hope" and "change" which aren't policy positions except to you maybe. I'd go into how democracies historically were viewed with suspicion as they can degenerate under a demagogue but I know I know I've already lost you. The point is elections give a mandate up to a point. Mere elections don't guarantee against a tranny of the majority. In Chavez's case, there seems to be few safeguards against him doing as he pleases. Obama has to contend with an independent court system, a strong middle class invested in property rights and general respect for the rule of law and the Constitution among the major political parties despite some differences on the issues.

Edited May 19, 2010 by alienlovechild

[The_Dude 1,142]

Is that all you learned? Your knowledge of a government class from high school is less than impressive and it shows.

Obama ran on a platfrom that few voters actually read. That's the case most of the time with any political party but Obama's was viewed as based on "hope" and "change" which aren't policy positions except to you maybe. I'd go into how democracies historically were viewed with suspicion as they can degenerate under a demagogue but I know I know I've already lost you. The point is elections give a mandate up to a point. Mere elections don't guarantee against a tranny of the majority. In Chavez's case, there seems to be few safeguards against him doing as he pleases. Obama has to contend with an independent court system, a strong middle class invested in property rights and general respect for the rule of law and the Constitution among the major political parties despite some differences on the issues.

Such top notch analysis. You clearly need to go back to school and finish up that associates degree because your grasp of politics is rudimentary at best. You like to parrot talking points and cut and paste from wikipedia a lot, and state the blatatly obvious. You are a true neophyte who has missed the entire point of the article and in a broader context, the point of my posting it. Better luck next time.

[alienlovechild 75]

Such top notch analysis. You clearly need to go back to school and finish up that associates degree because your grasp of politics is rudimentary at best. You like to parrot talking points and cut and paste from wikipedia a lot, and state the blatatly obvious. You are a true neophyte who has missed the entire point of the article and in a broader context, the point of my posting it. Better luck next time.

What talking points? Can you say anything that isn't a cliche or least pretend you're addressing the article or at least comprehending what I told you? No clash.

You mean telling me obvious things like political parties have platforms? You write like a kid out just of out college who can't apply anything he's learned into a conversation. You wrote nothing about a broader context but I'll give a chance to strut your stuff.

Explain the point of the article and how it relates to your first post on this thread.

[The_Dude 1,142]

What talking points? Can you say anything that isn't a cliche or least pretend you're addressing the article or at least comprehending what I told you? No clash.

You mean telling me obvious things like political parties have platforms? You write like a kid out just of out college who can't apply anything he's learned into a conversation. You wrote nothing about a broader context but I'll give a chance to strut your stuff.

Explain the point of the article and how it relates to your first post on this thread.

I was going for subtlety, but apparently, that is a concept beyond your grasp. So I suppose I will need to be blatantly obvious for someone as numb as you. All the tired cliches that you and conservatives of your ilk like to use, calling the Obama administration socialists and communists are simply laughable. The article displays what a real socialist takeover is, that is for those of you (read YOU ALC) who are clearly not intelligent enough to comprehend what socialism really is. But you keep up your level of absurdity, it really is amusing, kind of like watching the special olympics.