The emptiness of authoritarian populism

I wrote recently about the experience of Latin America in the past generation. Much of the continent (Chile is an oustanding example, but far from the only one) has gone from brutal military dictatorship to stable, well-governed constitutional democracy. Parties of the Left have played an important role in that transition. That type of Left is sharply to be distinguished, however, from a stubborn and atavistic political force exemplified in the rule of Hugo Chávez in Venezuela. Chávez is an authoritarian populist who is much closer to the traditions of corrupt military rule than left-of-centre reform.

I'd recommend in this context an interesting article in the current issue of Foreign Affairs entitled "An Empty Revolution: The Unfulfilled Promises of Hugo Chávez" by Francisco Rodríguez, formerly chief economist of the Venezuelan National Assembly. Rodríguez maintains that "Chávez's social policies are inadequate and ineffective", and locates this misrule in a historical context: the populist mismanagement through much of the continent in the 1970s and 1980s. His diagnosis is discouraging:

"Simón Bolívar, Venezuela's independence leader and Chávez's hero, once said that in order to evaluate revolutions and revolutionaries, one needs to observe them close up but judge them at a distance. Having had the opportunity to do both with Chávez, I have seen to what extent he has failed to live up to his own promises and Venezuelans' expectations. Now, voters are making the same realization -- a realization that will ultimately lead to Chávez's demise. The problems of ensuring a peaceful political transition will be compounded by the fact that over the past nine years Venezuela has become an increasingly violent society. This violence is not only reflected in skyrocketing crime rates; it also affects the way Venezuelans resolve their political conflicts. Whether Chávez is responsible for this or not is beside the point. What is vital is for Venezuelans to find a way to prevent the coming economic crisis from igniting violent political conflict. As Chávez's popularity begins to wane, the opposition will feel increasingly emboldened to take up initiatives to weaken Chávez's movement. The government may become increasingly authoritarian as it starts to understand the very high costs it will pay if it loses power. Unless a framework is forged through which the government and the opposition can reach a settlement, there is a significant risk that one or both sides will resort to force."

I hope that a moderate, constitutional Left can make its influence felt. One thing the moderate Left might do in Europe is to make it clear that Hugo Chávez is no hero of ours.

Comments

[Matt]

Good post. In the discussion group for one o my international relations classes, I'm constantly making the point that Chavez is nothing Latin America hasn't seen about a thousand times before; and that further, there's no reason to believe the sort of rule he typifies is going to work any better than it has the previous times. Lamentably, there's a certain species of the undergrad left (some of whom in fact are long past undergrad studies but for some reason never moved beyond the mindset) for whom pretending to redistribute wealth and saying nasty things about the United States are enough to win uncritical support.

[Tim Newman]

One thing the moderate Left might do in Europe is to make it clear that Hugo Chávez is no hero of ours.

The Left have had over 40 years to make it clear that Fidel Castro is no hero of theirs. It is highly unlikely they are going to come to their senses about Hugo Chavez within a mere 3 years.

[John Costello]

I have to agree with Tim Newman. The American left -- writers, actors such as Danny Glover et al., and Democratic Party politicians here in Massachusetts are very much in bed with Chavismo. Joe Kennedy runs a fuel oil giveaway for the poor with oil provided by Chavez and 'carries his bag' in TV and radio ads. Chavez being anti-Bush and anti-American is a big plus; his backing of FARC's murderers and kidnappers is justified because Colombia's democratically elected and popular government is pro-American and wants a free trade treaty with the US that the trade unions oppose (despite the fact that it would actually increase their members's incomes -- they still have a beggar-thy-neighbor mentality.) At the moment all I see removing Hugo is a coup by his own military or a cocaine overdose.

[matt]

oliver: 'ours' -- i know you try to keep saying you are left-wing, i don't think anyone believes you. how do you find time in between writing your column for rupert murdoch, running a hedge fund, and supporting any imperial war?

please go away

[matt]

oliver: 'ours' -- i know you try to keep saying you are left-wing, i don't think anyone believes you. how do you find time in between writing your column for rupert murdoch, running a hedge fund, and supporting any imperial war?

please go away