Chávez: From hero to tyrant
The divisive policies of "El Presidente" are turning friends into enemies. Some claim his strident r
By Alice O'Keeffe Published 12 July 2007In the corner of a toyshop in downtown Caracas lay a dusty pile of battery-operated talking Hugo Chávez dolls. El Presidente was dressed in full military regalia and, at the touch of a button, would deliver a speech on the Bolivarian revolution. "Sale: half-price," said a notice propped up on top. The sales assistant gave them a disparaging glance. "I wish I could buy them all," she said conspiratorially, "so I could burn them."
One thing you can say with certainty about Venezuela's president is that he provokes strong emotions. People in Caracas offer their political opinions almost before introducing themselves. On my first foray into the city's streets, I asked a bookseller where I could buy a map, and he gripped my arm fervently before replying: "There is only one thing you need to know about Caracas, and that is that we are revolutionaries." The whole population has been politicised; it has also been polarised into two ferociously hostile camps, Chavistas and the derogatorily named opposition of "esqualidos" ("squalid people"). The tone of debate is so angry that the situation is often described as a "cold civil war".
With a power-crazed Chávez at the helm, the fear is that it may not remain cold.
Like many cities in Latin America, Caracas is characterised by the sharp contrast between its spacious and tranquil affluent areas and the poor, gang-ridden barrios that sprawl up the surrounding hills. Since the attempted right-wing coup that briefly deposed Chávez in 2002, a dangerous face-off between the two has been evolving. Carlos Caridad Montero, a Caracas-based film-maker, took me to see one of the city's front lines: the motorway that runs between Petare, the largest barrio, and the middle-class area of Terrazas del Ávila. On one side of the road, the brick shacks of Petare are stacked on top of each other like brightly coloured Lego. On the other stands a set of grim, if slightly better-heeled, tower blocks.
"Everyone in these blocks is armed in case the gangs from Petare try to invade the area," Carlos told me. "And on the other side, you have the gangs, who are also heavily armed. In Petare, they call the people who live on this side gringos, as if they were American rather than Venezuelan."
William Ury, a conflict resolution expert at Harvard, identifies three typical symptoms of a country on the brink of civil war. The first is that the population begins to arm itself; the second is that each side begins to dehumanise and impute evil intentions to the other; and the third is the politicisation of the media. Contemporary Venezuela has each of these conditions in abundance. Ury suggests that the key to defusing the threat is to strengthen the "third side": those organisations or people who empathise with both sides of the conflict and will encourage others to resolve their differences non-violently.
The Chávez regime is making it increasingly difficult for anyone to remain on the "third side". Carlos has good left-wing credentials (he trained in Cuba). He is broadly sympathetic to Chávez, but is also concerned about the effects of political polarisation. However, working for Villa del Cine, the year-old government-backed cinema organisation, he will be expected to produce what the minister of culture has termed "cinema with an ideological tendency". Films perceived to be critical of the government or to cast Venezuela in a bad light will not be welcomed. "I co-operate because I believe there is important work to be done that does not involve criticising Chávez," he said. "The problem is that as soon as I tell people who I am working for they assume my work is 'propaganda'. You are forced on to one side or the other."
Another prominent film director, Alejandro Bellame, told me that "it is true we still have nominal freedom of speech. But now what you say has consequences. If you dare to criticise, more and more doors will be closed to you. This system rewards loyalty above talent or hard work."
Despite the divisive revolutionary rhetoric, many middle-class professionals support Chávez's determination to integrate poorer communities into Venezuelan politics. Yanay Arrocha, a publicist working for the recently closed anti-Chávez television station Radio Caracas Televisión (RCTV), told me: "The achievement of this government has been that the great majority of people now discuss politics and are interested in the nation. Poor people understand that they have rights, and rich people understand that they have a responsibility, and that there are problems to resolve." But the price has been a painful erosion of common values, she said. "The attitude that is transmitted from the top is that if you think differently from me, you are my enemy."
The social breakdown in Venezuela makes its presence felt in many ways, not least the 80 per cent increase since 2000 in the number of Venezuelans - mainly the educated professionals any developing country desperately needs - living in the United States. Street crime and delinquency have also grown alarmingly: according to the United Nations, Venezuela recently overtook Brazil in having the highest rate of gun- related violence in the world among nations not at war.
In Caracas, homicide has become the most common cause of death for men between 15 and 25. Much of the violence is contained in the poorer barrios, although "express" kidnappings and carjackings are a significant preoccupation across the city. "We have been subjected to a political rhetoric which in some way justifies the use of violence as a response to poverty," said Bellame. "What Chávez has not grasped is that you can't create solidarity by decree."
Chaos and unrest
Until lately, opposition to Chávez was characterised as "right-wing" or, in the terminology used by the president and his supporters, "imperialist". Since May, when the government shut down RCTV, the country's most popular channel, this has been changing fast. The charges against it were of anti-government bias, in particular its refusal to air news of the pro-Chávez protests that brought him back to power after the 2002 coup. However, RCTV was predominantly an entertainment channel, and showed some of the nation's favourite soap operas, or "novelas". In a young country, its 53-year broadcasting history gave it national heritage status; one acquaintance described it as "part of our collective consciousness". Polls showed that 70 per cent of Venezuelans disagreed with the decision to take it off the air.
RCTV has been replaced by TVes (pronounced té vès, or "you see yourself"), a government channel that has the apparently laudable aim of moving away from a western, consumerist agenda and reflecting the "real" Venezuela. But when I tuned in at prime time on a Saturday evening, it was broadcasting an hour-long programme about the armed forces, encouraging conscription to the reserves. An army general was explaining, over footage of Iraqi insurgents waving guns, that ordinary Venezuelans had to be trained in tactics of "asymmetrical resistance".
"What the country needs now is union, complete union between the population and the armed forces," he said. The journalist conducting the interview smiled and nodded.
"Chávez is, above all, a military man," explained Ivo Her nández, a professor of political science, when I went to see him at the Simón Bolívar public university on the outskirts of Caracas. "Politics for him is a battle: there are no greys - just black and white. The idea of doing things consensually doesn't enter his head. In no sense does this situation benefit Venezuelans from any social group. He has caused too much chaos and unrest for the country to develop." The university itself is buzzing with dissent, with "freedom of speech" graffiti daubed on walls and cars throughout the leafy complex. Students in yellow T-shirts run around putting up posters advertising rallies and protest marches.
The RCTV shutdown has been the catalyst for an important new wave of opposition, spearheaded by a national student movement. Almost daily, students have been marching through the streets of the capital, protesting against curbs on freedom of speech and, crucially, on the independence of universities (Chávez has announced plans to replace independent student unions with government-friendly "Popular Student Power" councils). The protesters - who are from public and private universities alike, and therefore from diverse social backgrounds - do not use the emotive anti-Chávez rhetoric employed by the right-wing opposition. Instead, they promote the idea of "national reconciliation", which they symbolise by painting their hands white.
I attended a student rally at a baseball stadium in central Caracas. Thousands of young people from around the country were packed in, waving Venezuelan flags and chanting, "We are students, not coup-plotters." Sindy ópez, a fresh-faced 19-year-old from Simón Bolívar University, was there with her friend Maria González.
"When they closed RCTV, we really got desperate, and furious about the lack of freedom of expression and diversity of thought," she said. "We realised we could not let it carry on. It is not like the president says - I'm not from the elite; my family doesn't even own a house. I just can't see this happen to my country."
Chávez has responded to the protests by claiming that those involved are "representatives of the international bourgeoisie" who are being manipulated by the right. He called on those living in the barrios to "defend our revolution from this fascist aggression" - a comment that was interpreted by many RCTV supporters as an incitement to attack.
"We have been trying to make our voices heard non- violently," said one protester. "The problem is that the president wants violence." So far, the marches have been peaceful.
The students have been dubbed the "2007 generation" by the Venezuelan media, and have become a focus for protest from other pockets of opposition, including journalists. Their agenda centres on inclusive politics; having grown up under Chávez, they are well aware that they will not succeed without the support of poor communities. They are attempting to create a dialogue, with students who live in the barrios being encouraged to set up discussions and consultations that feed back into the movement.
"Every one of us needs to bring the debate to their work, their family, their barrio," said one of the student leaders, Stalin González. "We don't want to impose any idea or ideology on anyone. All we want is for every Venezuelan to have a say in how we construct this country."
Chávez will have to listen to their message - and soon.
Hugo's friends and foes
WARM
Ken Livingstone Chávez's visit to London in 2006 to see the mayor concluded with a deal like no other. In return for $32m worth of diesel oil, to be used to subsidise London bus travel, the Greater London Authority would provide expertise and advice to the Venezuelan government on projects from transport and cleaning up rivers to tourism. Livingstone himself is head of the Venezuela Information Centre.
Alexander Lukashenko When Chávez visited Belarus in June, the Belarusian president (known as Europe's last dictator) praised him as "a man of extensive knowledge". Lukashenko pledged co-operation; Chávez stated his desire to "form a team". There is speculation that his recent visits to both Belarus and Russia have been to arrange major weapons purchases. Vladimir Putin has sold Venezuela $3.5bn of weapons in the past several years.
Fidel Castro Chávez regards Castro as a father figure and Cuba as a model for his Bolivarian dream, and Castro has committed himself to helping him achieve it. Chávez has provided Cuba with oil and poured capital into its economy in return for educators and medical professionals. Castro has complimented him for being "a champion of the cause"; Chávez has stated Venezuela should head "toward the same sea as the Cuban people . . . a sea of happiness, true social justice and peace".
Evo Morales In April 2006, the Bolivian leader signed up to Chávez's "Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas", a managed trade agreement and anti-American alliance that also involves Cuba. Venezuelan aid has poured in. Deals were concluded in May 2006 including partnerships between the state-owned oil companies and joint mining and fertiliser ventures. In March, Venezuela paid the legal bills for Bolivia's controversial gas nationalisation. Morales's opponents fear that he is leading Bolivia down the path to a presidential monopoly of power.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad The Iranian president had good reason to welcome Chávez to Tehran again this month, as his government faces another round of sanctions by the UN Security Council. Chávez is defending Iran's nuclear programme and promising to unite the Persian Gulf and the Caribbean. "I thank God that Iran and Venezuela are standing together for ever," he said.
COOLING
Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva The ethanol deal that Brazil signed with the US in March blunted Chávez's dream of an anti-US alliance in the south. In May, he described Brazil's national congress as a "parrot" of the US. Lula coldly replied: "Chávez has to look after Venezuela, I have to look after Brazil."
ICY
George W Bush In September, Chávez called Bush the "devil" at the UN General Assembly. Last month, a US military psychological profile described Chávez as insecure, malignantly narcissistic and driven by a need for adulation. The Bush administration tacitly backed a coup that briefly ousted Chávez in 2002, and has made no secret of its distaste for a leader who has thrown an economic lifeline to Castro's Cuba.
Research by Marika Mathieu and Zain Sardar
Related article: Chávez: the defence
Latest tweets
More from New Statesman
- Online writers:
- Steven Baxter
- Rowenna Davis
- David Allen Green
- Mehdi Hasan
- Nelson Jones
- Gavin Kelly
- Helen Lewis
- Laurie Penny
- The V Spot
- Alex Hern
- Martha Gill
- Alan White
- Samira Shackle
- Alex Andreou
- Nicky Woolf in America
- Bim Adewunmi
- Glosswitch
- Kate Mossman on pop
- Ryan Gilbey on Film
- Martin Robbins
- Rafael Behr
- Eleanor Margolis
- Tools and services:
- Polls
- Predictions
- Archive
- Magazine
- PDF edition
- RSS feeds
- Advertising
- Subscribe
- Special supplements
- Stockists


187 comments
I can also correct CocoLoco on income growth during the Chavez presidency.
The precise figure for the rise in incomes of the poorest 58% of Venezuelans (social class E) is provided here by that well known commie firm AC Neilsen. ;-)
They show the REAL income of social class E going up 130%.
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums...wars/ income.jpg
Alicia O'Keeffe's article on Hugo Chavez fell lamentably below the standards of reporting that one would hope to expect from the New Statesman. It's analysis of the political situation in Venezuela was, at best, superficial, and it did little more than parrot the standard criticisms of Chavez that emanate from the U.S. right.
NS readers expect much higher standards of political analysis than this. Moreover, we should be able to hope for more than the dull, reactionary politics of this article. I hope that future NS reportage from South America will be of a much higher standard. (For decent NS coverage of South America, I recall a number of excellent pieces by Simon Hooper.)
By refusing to answer my questions you have put in evidence both: your ignorance on the venezuelan situation, and your blind desire to justify it.
I hope European readers are not naive to the degree of accepting your escape, and will always remember the three most important questions that need to be answered by any serious person who wishes to defend the Venezuelan President:
a) What's the benefit of having trippled the violent crimes rate in Venezuela in less than a decade.
b) Why doesn't he build a hospital, or provide the existing ones with medicines. Why replace the existing ones with small clinics with Cuban Doctors? There's a great hospital in 23 de Enero, he should provide it with medicines, not close it to open small Cuban clinics.
c) Why create an entire network of education that provides illusory university degrees in less than a year? Why not create real universities, or improve the existing ones? Why torturing the Universidad Central de Venezuela, which was on the top five in Latin America and is now on the verge of being shut down because Chavez refuses to give it funding (a public school).
I get it bro, you are into the Chavez concept because it makes you feel important in the UK. And that's okay, if I lived in Europe I would also probably defend Chavez because I have to admit, the guy is cool and what his speech stands for could make Europe a better place. But to suggest that what the national assembly decides gives Chavez any more legytimacy is just hilarious. He owns it my friend. 100% of it. And yes, it's because the opposition is made of worst idiots than him. But the fact is that, and proclaiming his legitimacy because of the national assembly is simply too ridiculous, even for you.
The Venezuelan situation will be solved by Venezuelans. And Chavez will become another great T-Shirt to wear in a London rave. We just need more time for the new generation (the reconciliation generation that grew up under the Chavista disparity) to grow and take over the mess left by our parents. And no, there won't be civil war. You need two to fight. And not one person of the new generation believes in violence.
O'Keeffe's claim that the protesting students are representative of Venezuela's student population is factually incorrect.
Last month student representives from both the pro and anti Chavez camps were invited to address the National Assembly. Each student was allowed to speak uninterupted for as long as they wished.
The debate was screened live to the nation on all TV channels.
So much for O'Keefe's fantasies about a lack of freedom of expression!
Has Cindy Sheenan or Brian Haw been invited by the Congress or House of Commons to put their case uncensored to the entire nation?
Now here's the interesting thing. After the first opposition student spoke, all the other opposition students walked out, thereby missing out on their right to free speech... which had been given to them by none other than this "tyranical" Venezuelan Government that O'Keefe tries to terrify us with.
But the drama didn't end there. One of the opposition students had accidentally left behind his speakers notes. A pro-Chavez student read the notes and discovered that they had not been written by the opposition student, but by a professional opposition advertising agency!
So much for O'Keefe's protestations that the opposition students are not part of the right wing opposition and are only about promoting "the idea of "national reconciliation".
O'Keefe parrots the disinformation about the non-renewal of RCTV's public broadcast licence. RCTV directly participated in a coup which kidnapped the elected president, abolished all elected institutions, and installed a tyranical dictatorship which DID close down TV stations and shoot civilians in the street. The morning after the coup, the coup generals thanked RCTV for their support, live on air.
Do British broadcasting laws allow Channel 4 or ITV to conspire with army generals to overthrow the Brown Government?
Perhaps O'Keefe could take some out from writing fiction to answer that question.
If anyone is interested in reading fact-based analysis of Venezuela, I would recommend the excellent www.venezuelanalysis.com
I have also written widely on Venezuela, some of which is published on my Guardian CiF column and on the website I co-edit.
Calvin Tucker
Co-editor: www.21stcenturysocialism.com
Guardian column: http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/calvin_tucker/
Glad that most of the comments here are taking O'Keefe to task. Good post by Calvin Tucker by the way about the students. Very disappointing that The New Statesman has joined in with the Financial Times, Wall Street Journal etc in demonising Chavez who was reelected with 63% of the vote just last December.
I would heartily recommend John Pilger's new film "The War on Democracy" that includes good stuff on Venezuela.
I was so appalled at the standard of this article that I had to go to the great effort of registering in order to post a comment. The talents of Ms O Keefe and her 'researchers' are best focused on what they know best - irrelevant reviews of the London arts scene - a quick google (oh please do!!) reveals that these 3 people were the least best placed to ever write anything about Venezuela, let alone politics. Kampfer should be ashamed, he has done a terrible disservice to the New Statesman, which is already sliding - see coverage by the lamentably poor Nigel Fountain (yet another anti Chavista whose emotional engagement with those of a Venezuelan origin skews their objectivity). Meaningful debate does not come from publishing ill informed rubbish and waiting for the protests to come in. The research and writing on this would not even pass a SAT test for 9 year olds. Utter trype and nonensense, get back to Hoxton and look at art work, the three of you certainly do not have the qualifications for political analysis.
Really, Charly? And what sort of blogs might these be, I wonder?
If you think I am not being objective, then you need to rebutt my points using facts and evidence. Why not give it a go?
Resorting to personal abuse indicates you don't have a credible argument. I'd welcome a debate with an oppositionist who could put a case without inventing the facts. Is there such a person out there?
Have any of you ever lived in Venezuela ? I don't think so, as what is written in the article very nicely describes what is going on there.... just reality of daily live. If you want to know what the poor in the barrios are thinking, have a look at their web site - if you can read spanish .... http://radardelosbarrios.blogspot.com
There is no doubt that there is something happening among the poor of Caracas, and that is a good thing. They are learning to demand what would otherwise never be offered, and are organising themselves independently in the interest of making sure these demands are met. However, as No Volverán correctly observed, Chavez is not actually an integral part of this movement. Rather he is exploiting it for his own personal and political agenda.
Chavez could transform Venezuela without forming alliances with Islamic Fundamentalists and anachronistic post-Soviet despots and without speaking in apocalyptic terms about US influence, (which in the long-term only make US interference more likely.) Of course it's important that American hegemony in the region is challenged. However, the truth is that the US has never had so little interest in Latin America, being bogged down in its Middle Eastern blunders, and the challenge could be made quietly and efficiently.
I draw your attention to Brazil, where poverty was reduced by 20% between 2002 and 2006 (accornding to the Fundacao Getulio Vargas), under the Presidency of Luis Inácio Lula da Silva (A trade-unionist forged in the opposition movement to the military dictatorship, as opposed to a military officer with a failed coup on his CV). Unlike Venezuela, which is totally dependent on its oil revenues and is punching well above its weight geopolitically, Brazil could realistically in the long term become a political and economic power, without resorting to chasing foreign demons, the eternal refuge of the scoundrel.
The truth is that what interests Chavez is power and international influence and he is using the poor of Venezuela as a means of maintaining the former in order to pursue the latter. The sinister opposition and America's pathetic (and hardly unprecedented) support for its coup attempt to an extent justify Chavez's actions and rhetoric, but only in the same way that September 11th helped the Bush administration pursue its opportunistic agenda. If Chavez loved his people as much as he claims to, he would focus on helping them improve their neighbourhoods, schools and hospitals and forget the posturing and empty rhetoric which only serve to indulge his over-inflated ego.
Bayofpigs, popular here means most clicked on not most commented on. The 'rebuttal' spent an entire week on our carousel and has been replaced because there's a new issue of the New Statesman out. Hope that's cleared up the confusion.
Ben Davies, editor newstatesman.com