Registered user login:

Spinning Chávez

Hugh O'Shaughnessy

Published 26 November 2007

Hugh O'Shaughnessy argues the West's media and politicians will continue to try to undermine Hugo Chávez - despite the successes of his Bolivarian revolution

On Sunday 2 December 16 million Venezuelans vote in a referendum: all the signs are that they will approve constitutional reforms proposed by President Hugo Chávez.

Popular as ever for having put a big dent in the shocking gap between rich and poor in an oil-rich country, he wants a chance to bury 19th century Leninist shibboleths, strengthen already rumbustious local democracy and stand for election again.

It is very likely that the electors will give Chávez what he wants: it is certain that spinners in Washington, London and elsewhere will do their best to pull the process to pieces.

The spinners blench at the idea that US nationalism could be challenged by nationalism of some South American. Nor can they abide the feeling that Chávez’s star is waxing, despite his injudicious outbursts.

At the same time the feeling that the US star is waning - consequent on a floundering Wall Street and a foundering dollar, George Bush’s military defeats in the Third World, Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo Bay and a global kidnapping scheme – cannot be contemplated.

Now those who have fawned on Saudi Arabian kings, indulged the Israelis’ atom bomb and their criminal mistreatment of Palestinians, and quietly backed every Latin American dictator from Somoza and Pinochet to the Argentine and Brazilian generals will attempt to portray the Venezuelan leader as anti-democratic.

They will also try to bury the European Commission’s high praise for last year’s presidential elections in Venezuela - "the high turnout, and peaceful atmosphere in which they were held, together with the acceptance of results by all those involved".

Chávez won that poll having in 2002 had to fight his way out of a brief coup by a dim but authoritarian businessman.

The stage is set for the undermining of Chávez. On 19 November BBC2’s This World screened 'The Trillion Dollar Revolutionary', programme which would never have been permitted about, say, Begin or Olmert.

Its combination of culpable ignorance and sneering superciliousness produced what must be the worst “documentary” of the decade.

With slightly more sophistication, Chatham House four days earlier had staged a conference on fighting social inequality in Latin America aided by the Foreign Office and DIFID and funded by the Washington-based Inter-American Development Bank.

Toe-curlingly, it was inaugurated by Shaheed Malik, a junior minister at DIFID, who contented himself with sad little jokes about Lancashire and Yorkshire but, to the relief of all, soon rushed off.

Despite the fact that Chávez has distinguished himself in the fight for a fairer society the day included no speakers from Venezuela and attempted to avoid any reference to that country. It refused to accept the words last month of the UN Economic Commission for Latin America which commented: "Thanks to rapid GDP growth and the ongoing implementation of broad social programmes, in 2006 alone the poverty rate was lowered from 37.1% to 30.2% and the indigence [extreme poverty] rate from 15.9% to 9.9%." Venezuela was, the UN said, well on the way to reaching its first Millennium Development Goal.

Meanwhile at the top end The Economist, which has for long made money out of laughing at poor people, forms a plangent Greek chorus who forlornly hope that wicked Venezuela’s oil, the country’s prop, will run out or the price collapse. But with Venezuela’s growing reserves the magazine’s writers might as well dream Osama bin Laden will become the next editor of Vogue.

With Chávez gaining strength, a spinner’s life in Britain is not a happy one.

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • NowPublic
  • Reddit

13 comments from readers

gbbryant
26 November 2007 at 15:20

Pathetic.

One would hope that political writing could progress beyond the tripe of the sports pages but this example clearly proves that "rooting" on either side of the political spectrum supplants any reasoned examination of the use and abuse of power.

Just because Mr. Chavez wears the colors of the "socialist" team makes everything he does acceptable and prudent....please pardon me while I wretch.

While it is fun to sneer at the ineptitude of the capitalist imperialists and their Greek chorus rooters, this article leaps into the realm of delusion. This power hungry megalomaniac’s adoption of championing the poor as mantel of righteousness should not mean the subversion of democracy. It is democracy and term limits, hard fought for foundations of peaceful social change, which brought Mr. Chavez in to power. And, it is these un-diluted institutions (sheltered from the corruption of imperialism), which provide the greatest hope for people anywhere.

To support the compromise these truths for the sake of tweaking the nose of the editorial staff of the Economist is reprehensible. Oh...but I forgot.... it was "our" midfielder who made that obvious fowl. How can he get red carded for that?!

Richard Irons
26 November 2007 at 16:58

An excellent piece from ever from Hugh. Chavez and his coalition of supporters have won 11 national elections and referenda in 9 years; certified as free and fair by international observers. It is truly amazing that supporters of George W.Bush would critcise Venezuela's democratic credentials!

gillybilly
26 November 2007 at 18:20

I am still awaiting the day we in the UK may be blessed with a referendum; but apparently we're not intelligent enough for one; no, we'd best leave all decisions to formal politicians who know best. Thank goodness. Aren't we lucky. I love democracy, so its lucky I live in the UK.

jlaboy
26 November 2007 at 21:10

I'm not too sure what part of Caracas is has the peaceful atmosphere, but I'm sure it's not where I live. As far as the poverty rate going down, great! too bad inflation is at a record high. The dollar is now a whopping 6050 bs, I don't even want to think about the euro or pound. Note to european tourist, people are laughing at you when we see you in lines for the official exchange rate. Ask yourself why the lines are sooooo short.

j2004monsoon
27 November 2007 at 10:31

US opposition to President Chavez has resulted in a massive campaign of misinformation and distortion.

Chavez's coalition has won 11 elections and referenda since 1998. These elections have been intensely monitored by international institutions (EU, Carter Institute) and declared fair and irreproachable. Therefore any accusations of dictatorship or lack of democracy are pure fantasy.

Extreme poverty has been halved, illiteracy has been eliminated, thousands of people now have access to free healthcare. Forthcoming constitutional changes will enshrine the rights of minorities, establish a 36-hour week.

The joint Venezuelan-Cuban initiative, Operation Miracle, has restored the eyesight of over 750,000 people throughout Latin America and the Caribbean - FOR FREE!

It is extremely difficult to criticise the Bolivarian Revolution when one sticks to the facts. Capitalists may hate what's happening, but 90 per cent of the world may look to Venezuela and take heart from its example.

P.Black
27 November 2007 at 16:35

At least the New Statesman is now at last trying to "balance" it's usually ill informed and bias Venezuelan coverage which makes a welcome change.

Still, far more in depth and regular coverage of what exactly is going on in Venezuela, in terms of the progress of the Bolivarian Revolution process would be greatly appreciated .

Properly informing your readership as against misinforming them about the progressive thrust of Constitutional reforms wouldn't be a bad start, which sadly this most recent article does not really address.

Go to venezuelanalysis.com for an update

JVRosenhead
27 November 2007 at 20:07

I just got back yesterday from a week in Caracas, and have only just read Hugh O’S’s article. And what a relief to find something in the UK press that enthuses about the achievements of the Chavez government, rather than employing innuendo and disinformation.

I am not especially convinced myself about all the proposed constitutional changes. But none of them take the country towards a dictatorship. This must be the most elected and referenda-ed governments ever. The achievements across the board (well, excepting housing) are remarkable, and the ambitions still more so. For more in depth on this see Greg Wilpert’s ‘Changing Venezuela by Taking Power’, from Verso

sharedplanet
28 November 2007 at 16:38

Perhaps gbbryant could stop jumping up and down and spouting sporting similes long enough to consider what is actually proposed in terms of constitutional reforms?

Seems a bit odd for a 'power hungry meglomaniac' to be promoting reforms such as a constitutional requirement for political parities to have gender parity in their executive committees and lists of electoral candidates. Don't you think that would cramp his style a bit if it were Chavez' aim to 'subvert democracy'. Wish we could have some of that here in Britain.

luiscast7
28 November 2007 at 20:46

After reading a couple of your articles about Venezuela, and reviewing some of the comments your readers leave, I can help but to feel helpless about the future of social justice in the world. It saddens me to see how easy some justify actions that are clearly antidemocratic just because they want to believe that social justice is happening somewhere. It is ironic to hear people, who are for the most part living comfortably in the UK or somewhere else in the west, talk about the virtues of Chavez and his government. I think those people should live among Venezuelans for a couple of years under Chavez rule, and then tell us what you think. Corruptions is rampant, violence worse than ever, democracy is almost gone. The left has to face those like Chavez who try to steal the notions of social justice as a way to take hold on power.

We need to look beyond black and white analysis when dealing with complex issues. The fact that Chavez rhetoric might attack international figures that we dislike, does not make him a good leader (my enemy’s enemy is not necessarily my friend). There are too many issues with Venezuelan politics today (and for the last 8 years) that need to be looked at closely. I was in Venezuela when he was elected President. I voted for him looking for a change. I also voted for individual member of Congress back then. However, as soon as he took power and installed the Constituent Assembly, he shut Congress down. Those people were elected by popular vote just as he was; however, they did not have the charisma to survive Chavez objectives. The same thing happened shortly after to the Supreme Court. Thus, the new parliament and Supreme Court members are all elected by Chavez (not a single Justice in the Supreme Tribunal precedes Chavez. The country’s resources have been distributed internally and internationally according to his wishes without any checks and balances. Venezuelan economy grows fast thanks to a ever higher oil prices; unfortunately, for those who has been there before, and are able to roam through the country freely (without tour guides and the like) can attest to a marked decline in infrastructure, safety, and general well being of people (there is always a shortage of some basic food item in the markets, corruption is rampant). Also, the always “joyful” Venezuelans are more divided than ever, and there is a sense of despair in the air. I am afraid of what the elections will bring to the regular people.

Venezuelan are due to vote on major changes in their Constitution (66 articles), but so far (few days before elections) most people has no access to the full detail of the propose changes. Thus, people will be expected to read all 66 changes and make intelligent decision while voting. To make matters worse, the articles are divided in blocks (three blocks), voters can approve or reject a block, not single articles. Thus controversial changes are paired with very popular ones (shortening of the work day), so there is a lesson of democracy.

With regards to Chavez being elected 11 times, I just have a note about the last election: The President of the Elections Committee is now the Vice President of the country. Chavez appointed him Vice President as soon as he was ratified a president. Even if it is not a final proof of illegality, there is an appearance of impropriety in his actions that should be questioned.

I have seen leaders in Eastern Europe using and abusing social slogans to further their own interests, and unfortunately, I see that the same formula has been applied successfully in Venezuela.

JMarin
28 November 2007 at 22:10

The opposition in Venezuela just can't get over the fact that their living standards have risen, not only for the poor, but also for every Venezuelan. Lets not forget that inflation was running at 36% in the late 90's and that the minimum wage was somewhere around $30 per month, now inflation is 17% and the minimum wage is the highest in Latin America, at $238/mo, not including the meal bonuses.

With the new reforms to the Constitution self-employed people, and "informal sector" of the economy will be able to get a pension, and vacations.

During holidays, it seems that every Venezuela can now afford to travel. My family now comes to visit me here in the US. In the streets of Caracas, you see new cars everywhere. Still, the opposition believes what they hear on Globovision, that the country is in ruins, etc. Open your eyes, for God's sake.

subprimate
29 November 2007 at 10:46

Apparently corruption is rampant. As much as before Chavez, more, less? Where are the facts? Of course, as all good propagandists know, if you repeat something enough it becomes a 'fact'. Corruption has been a problem in Venezuela for a long time, as it is in most oil producing states. Perhaps someone can provide some good concrete examples, to illustrate the point.

luiscast7
29 November 2007 at 22:31

concrete examples of inefficiencies of the last few years: A bridge collapses in Caracas (the one connecting Caracas to its airport), it was not an structural failure, but it was lack of maintenance.

Chavez televised response (I was there to watch it): ask people why was he responsible for a bridge that has been deteriorating for the last 25 years (it was built in the early 60's) when he has only being president for the last 8 years. If that's the efficient future of the revolutions, then I rather stay in the past.

For those who blindly believe what you have been fed by a government that counts Zimbabwe, Iran, Myarmar, and the like as close allies, then you are just hopeless.

JMarin, I dont know how is your family able to afford the tickets to go to US every year because I wanted to go back there for the Christmas time, and tickets are ridiculously expensive (over $900 in December from US).

Now, the people who are protesting are those middle class ones that have nothing to loose. There is a new rich class in Venezuela that is enjoying expensive trips, cars, houses,etc. Believe me they dont want Chavez out either.

If you want to see the truth, go on your own with an open mind and eyes, and check what is happening down the street. Try to go out at night to any popular location and see. Go to the emergency room of any public hospital in Caracas, Valencia, Maracay and see whether crime has decreased in the last 8 years.

Jmarin, if you think life in Venezuela has improved so much, why are u living in the Empire? is Chavez keeping you there?

Harry
13 January 2008 at 02:25

Hohoho this article is funny!

"On Sunday 2 December 16 million Venezuelans vote in a referendum: all the signs are that they will approve constitutional reforms proposed by President Hugo Chávez."

Whoops! All signs eh? I guess that's what you get for only reading information from sources so far to the left that they can only be classed as propaganda!

"Meanwhile at the top end The Economist, which has for long made money out of laughing at poor people, forms a plangent Greek chorus who forlornly hope that wicked Venezuela’s oil, the country’s prop, will run out or the price collapse. But with Venezuela’s growing reserves the magazine’s writers might as well dream Osama bin Laden will become the next editor of Vogue."

Again- growing researves?! Thats government propaganda!!! Even Opec says Venezuela is producing less oil than it claims!!! And no- it isnt about the oil running out or the price collapsing- it's about the oil causing inflation which wrecks the economy! And that's happening!!! Honestly- time to learn about how the economy works!

O'Shaughnessy, something you should think about- communism doesnt work!!! Get over it!

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before your comment is displayed on the website

We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.

Read More

Vote!

Will power sharing work in Zimbabwe?