Chávez: From hero to tyrant

The divisive policies of "El Presidente" are turning friends into enemies. Some claim his strident r

In 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

187 comments

mat_ador84's picture

Calvin Tucker, I am not judging Chavez on something he hasn't done, I'm judging him on his rhetoric, obvious use of Blair-style spin and opportunistic alliances with people no 'Socialist' should in his right mind be associating himself with. In his professed political aims he is apparently left wing, but in his tactics he is little different than the manipulative and hypocritical Western politicians he attacks.

I have never denied that Chavez was legitimately elected, nor that he is genuinely popular amongst 'the poor of Venezuela' (a term which I'm still waiting for a clear definition of), nor that significant strides have been made under his leadership in terms of poverty reduction. What I have said is that the same achievements could have been made without all the drum banging, which I am suggesting reveals what Chavez's true interests are: satisfying his personal narcissism, protecting his power and further his elitist geopolitical interests, all of which have about as much to do with the welfare of the Venezuelan people as the Nazi-Soviet pact had to do with helping the European proletariat. This is the point I’m making, nothing more, and no number of statistics can change that.

Chavez’s popularity is beyond doubt, but then his Right-wing neighbour Uribe has a 70% approval rating from the Colombian people, despite using skewed and misleading rhetoric which rival that of Chavez. Does being popular make a politician right? I think you’d agree not in the case of Uribe, although you seem to think it does in the case of Chavez. The fact is that politicians know how to manipulate people – it’s what they do. Uribe does it by playing on Colombians’ well-grounded fears of insecurity, Chavez does it by stirring up Venezuelans’ justified resentment at the high (although pretty normal by regional standards) level of national inequality. To suggest that he has the long-term answers to these problems is to give him far more credit than he deserves. A prediction: if Venezuela becomes as insecure as Colombia traditionally has been, and it looks like it could (for the first time Caracas has a higher crime rate than Bogotá), maybe the ‘national security’ paradigm will replace the ‘national equality’ paradigm and Venezuela will swing back to right.

No Volveran's picture

your response and argument 'is there anything about Chavez that you don't (?? Presumably you meant do?) find objectionable completely fails to deal with the main points - the article was totally devoid of facts and argument, and was mostly emotive, and you have just repeated this dire journalism. Secondly, most of us had pointed out that to focus on Chavez is not the point, the there is a mass movement and class war, and therefore one cannot simply view Chavez and his actions in isolation, as if he initiates them abitrarily, for his own desires. Hence when says he will change the constitution through the PSUV or being electable more than twice, this does 'increase his power', in a sense, but also popular power - chavez has massive support and should not leave government, allowing some reformist to take over, and although the PSUV will undoubtedly support him, this is because he is at the head of the democratic class movement which they would be the grassroots power of.

Also, please do not degrade this debate by language such as 'lunatic lefty fringe' - i hardly think supporters of a president with 63% support in his own country and making headline news could be called lunatic nor fringe.

RedDaybreak's picture

Sorry Neil, I misjudged you. You're a different sort of reactionary to the kind I had supposed. BHHRG indeed - bunch of fruitcakes!

http://hrw.org/doc/?t=europe&c=belaru

Picoroco's picture

Ms O'Keefe's blinkered one-sided article is typical of a neo-con view of Venezuela. She states that the charge against the right-wing RCTV channel was that it was guilty of anti-government bias. The charge, no the fact, was that RCTV was guilty of something much more serious. It openly flouted the law by actively promoting a coup against a democratically elected government. Chavez, despite what Ms O'Keefe's mendacious article says, did not 'close' RCTV ( it still operates as a satellite and cable channel within Venezuela), he refused to renew its terrestrial licence in May because of its undemocratic actions.

What is it with European, so-called left-wing publications and their willingness to side with an imperialist US agenda that sees Chavez as the next anti-christ? Read Znet or Americas.org for a considered, balanced view.

Neil Clark1's picture

"Alexsander Lukashenko (known as Europe's last dictator) "
By whom, Ms O'Keefe?
Answer: by Condoleeza Rice and the US State Department who label any leader who doesn't toe the US line a 'dictator' regardless of whether the leader in question holds regular democratic elections. The problem with Lukashenko, from the US viewpoint, is the same problem with Hugo Chavez: they are both extremely popular leaders who govern for the benefit of the majority of their people, and not for the interests of global capital. And in today's world that's enough to get you called a 'dictator'.

rtyphus's picture

I hrdly think that Chavez is the worst thing that could have happened to Venuzuela. However, I'm still waiting for someone to tell me why Human Rights watch criticised the issues surrounding the broadcasting licence of RCTV, if the whole case against Chavez has been formulated by US imperialists. Media Lens never answered either.

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2007/05/22/venezu15986.htm

RedDaybreak's picture

Neil Clark should have little think about the well documented human rights abuses that go on in Lukashenko's Belarus. He's certainly a dictator. I suspect Neil, you'd be quick to defend Stalin if he was still around! As for Chavez, I think he's a rather different kettle of fish from some of those he consorts with...
The despicable Bush administration meanwhile hasn't got a leg to stand on when it comes to criticising other regimes.

No Volveran's picture

I am a regular reader of New Statesman because it offers an alternative news source to that of the mainstream media. However, unfortunately on this occasion the journal has completely succumbed to the agenda of those who control the mainsteam media: capitalists.

First of all, as 'Picoroco' correctly stated above, this article is itself guilty of misinformation. Chavez did not close RCTV, he did not renew its licence, a completely legitimate act of the state against a company that had blatantly violated the terms of its licence. The hue and cry over the death of the 'freedom of expression' does not stand up against the fact that the vitriolically anti-Chavez opposition still has its main media outlets untouched, and is using them to full effect. It is interesting to note that at the same time as this hysteria, the Pakistani government, which is certainly not democratic but is a friend of Bush et al, has viciously clamped down on all dissent and freedom of speech in the press, using violence freely, but not a word has been expressed on this matter in our 'free press'.

The whole of this article misses the fundamental point - there is not a civil war in Venezuela, but an open class war. Until this is understood, we will limit ourselves to pointless complaining about the 'unpleasantness' of public debate, which is in reality an effect of the class war between the poor and disposessed, who now finally have some political power, and the rich, the oligarchy, who fearing the loss of their privilege use every excuse to attack the government - the RCTV case being the latest excuse. In relation to this, the author would do well to refrane from eulogising about the students aiming for 'reconciliation' (something unimaginable in a class war - the viciousness of the 2002 coup is testimony to this), considering the recent evidence showing that their protests were orchestrated by the very same imperialist media that feels threatened (manuscripts of their speeches were found to have been written by certain corporations, who were obviously 'sponsering' the protests). These students may be sincere, but those who play them to their advantage are not, and are very dangerous.

The article is littered with emotive and unreliable anecdotes ('With a power-crazed Chávez at the helm' - it remains to be shown how he is power hungry, it is merely stated emotively), and where it does refer to facts these have been shown to be false or misleading. Furthermore, the quotes featured, which appear to be exclusively anti-Chavez, ironic in a nation that recently gave 63% support to him, show a deep misunderstanding of Chavez's role - he is not manufacturing the situation, but is responding to it, and reflects the mood of the masses. That his support is real, that his position is based on a mass movement, is shown by the fact that Chavez was only saved from a coup by a spontaneous movement of literally millions. Thus such comments 'Chavez has not learned you cannot create solidarity by decree' are ludicrous - Chavez's entire power is based on a very real solidarity that existed prior to his presidency - from 1989 to be precise, a year when the then government not only viciously suppressed dissent, causing the deaths of unknown 1000s, but also liberally employed press cencorship in relation to its actions, something that Chavez has never done, nor is it ever reported in such articles as this.

The reality is that the fact that you are 'forced to be on one side or another' is not some manufactured dictate of Chavez, but a consequence of the class struggle, something Chavez exists in relation to but did not create, and the unpleasant aspects of which should be blamed not on Chavez but on the reactionaries.

This article has shown it is entirely victim to the agenda of said reactionaries, and proves that 'The freedom of the press belongs to those who control the press'.

Daniel Morley, Hands off Venezuela (personal capacity)

Calvin Tucker's picture

mat_ador84

In the real world, states make strategic alliances and trade with with nations that have different social and economic systems. For example, the biggest customer for Venezuelan oil is the USA, a country which has ruthlessly exploited and murdered its way across Latin America for more than 100 years. Venezuela also trades with Colombia, a country whose government is complicit in the death squad murders of hundreds of trade unionists and activists each and every year.

Whilst both Iran and Belarus have different political systems from Venezuela, they certainly haven't done anything like that to the people of Latin America. The Venezuelan system should be judged on its own merits, which include participatory democracy and a social agenda of rights for women, gays, and indigenous people.

Venezuela is facing a very real threat from the US, and they are not going to allow themselves to be militarilly, politically, diplomatically and stategically isolated. That really would be a betrayal of the revolution you don't support.

The reason I bang on about Chavez's election wins and popularity is because there is a co-ordinated disinformation campaign to delegitimise Venezuelan democracy by falsely portraying Chavez as a ballot rigger and a tyrant. If you read the anti-Chavez comments here, you will immediately notice that almost all of them contain bare-faced lies, and almost none of them contain any hard facts or evidence.

It is simply not true that Chavez could have achieved the same results without challenging the wealthy elites who previously weilded huge power and influence. Unlike in Brazil, almost all the proceeds from Venezuela's economic boom have been passed to the poorest 60% of the population. It is that hard fact, together with the all important transfer of power from the elites to the working class and poor, which explains why Chavez faces the wrath of the elites.

For obvious reasons, the elites can't openly admit that truth, so they invent stories about tyrany and electoral fraud to justify their refusal to accept the democratic wishes of the Venezuelan people.

angrywelshman's picture

The divide in Venezuela is between the rich gringos (often) of Spanish descent and the poor - people of a native or mixed-race origin denied for generations proper healthcare and education and little or no economic opportunities. Chavez did not create the schisms in his country - colonialism and capitalism did. Just have a look at the way the vote divided in the elections if you don't believe me!

Latest tweets