A discussion of Chavez and Venezuela

Posted by Joshua Holland at 8:02 AM on January 11, 2006.

I'm picking up on a previous discussion about Hugo Chavez with readers Brunowe and Drone. It started on this post and continued here.

Brunowe raised important concerns: human rights issues, the independence of the Venezuelan judiciary, freedom of expression and, most important of all, the Chavez' government's commitment to democracy more broadly.

He sourced those charges to Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch for the HR issues, and FreedomHouse for the rest.

I'll to respond to the specifics in a sec, but first I want to talk about the broader context in which all of these issues are playing out.

Four points, all of which aren't terribly controversial. First, Venezuela is a country that has long been ruled by a very small, light-skinned elite that controls a lion's share of the nation's wealth and land. Two, Chavez is challenging not only their power and control over the nation's wealth, but also Washington's and that of the international investment community. His policies fly in the face of neoliberal orthodoxy. Third, few would deny with a straight face that there isn't a concerted campaign to discredit him by a well-funded and media-savvy opposition. And, finally, that opposition has shown unambiguously that it is happy to use undemocratic means to achieve its goals, including violent means.

I would argue that we wouldn't be discussing Chavez' bona fides as a small 'd' democrat if not for the fact that the business community both here and to our South are trying to discredit him. Chavez may be many things, but he's proven that he respects the democratic process time and again. When the left wins in fair elections in Latin America, it is standard operating procedure to accuse them of being undemocratic. When Evo Morales came in third in the 2000 elections in Bolivia, Otto Reich, a neo-fascist Cold Warrior from the Reagan "dirty wars" era, accused him of representing democratically-elected "anti-democratic" forces. Same with the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. The charge is standard issue.

I submit that if Chavez were a leader with mainstream economic policies who enjoyed the electoral victories that he's had, and treated the opposition as he has, nobody would ever dream of accusing him of being anything less than a democrat. After all, the opposition in Venezuela aren't in hiding or working underground, the court found against the government several times on matters during the 2004 recall referendum and the commercial media are virulently anti-Chavez. If Chavez is intimidating the media and oppressing the opposition, he's downright incompetent about it.

Which brings me to Brunowe's main source. Freedom House, put simply, is a voice of the Venezuelan opposition. While it's bipartisan, it represents the views of the U.S. "strategic class" and its board includes former CIA director James Woolsey, considered an intellectual leader of the neoconservative movement, Reagan Paleocons like Jeanne Kirkpatrick and Democratic hawks like Zbigniew Brzezinski. It receives about half of its funding from the National Endowment for Democracy, which also funds the Venezuelan opposition - a direct conflict of interest. The rest of its revenues come from foundations, including Soros, but also Scaife and Bradley, funders of much of the right's infrastructure. It is, clearly, not ideologically neutral. Holly Sklar described it as a "conservative research, publishing, networking, and selective human rights organization."

Which is not to say that information found there is false, but that it needs to be examined critically and in context.

So let's talk about court-packing in context. That's a topic of hot debate among Chavez supporters as well as critics, and I'll say right from the start that I'm on the fence. Some argue, correctly, that the court was packed with justices who would support the government specifically because of the actions of the opposition. They say that while the government will have support on Chavez' reforms, it's still an independent judiciary.

Again, I'm divided on this one, but to answer Brunowe's argument that there aren't "truly democratic leaders who do" these things, I'd just point out that when FDR was fighting to pass social security and other reforms against a hostile and entrenched opposition with all the resources in the world at its disposal, he did the exact same thing: tried to pack the court. They accused him of being undemocratic too.

Let's talk about human rights in context. It's a real concern. According to Amnesty International's report, "Venezuela: Human rights Under Threat," there are credible reports of police killings, detentions and the use of excessive force to put down protests against Chavez (the report's focus is the often violent run-up to the recall election in 2004).

What's more, "several of those detained were not only not involved in criminal acts prior to detention, but then faced ill-treatment and torture while in the custody of the security forces. Reports received also indicate that subsequent investigations … to establish the facts around these alleged abuses and prosecute those responsible have been slow and inadequate."

If my goal were to discredit Chavez' government, I would stop right there. It's a damning charge.

But if you want to know what's going on, you have to take the AI report in full, with its entire context. The report also says, "the Venezuela government had a clear duty to guarantee public order in the face of frequently violent protests - which included the use of firearms by some protestors." In addition, "opposition supporters [used] barricades, stones, Molotov cocktails and firework rockets" against police.

What's more, the report makes it painfully clear that the human rights situation in Venezuela, as troubling as it is, is not something brought about by the Chavez' government. They cite "long standing structural weaknesses" within Venezuela's security forces and a "culture of impunity":

These types of human rights violations committed by police and security forces have occurred in Venezuela over many years, particularly in situations of mass public demonstrations or civil disturbances…. Abuses of this nature have taken place due to poor training of officials, inadequate command and control structures and the absence of effective measures to ensure accountability. Most of all, the impunity that accompanies these abuses sends a clear message to the police and security officials that such conduct will remain unpunished and can continue to be a feature of policing and security operations.

What's not charged in the report is a pattern of opposition leaders being hunted down and arrested (or worse). Venezuela's political tension is playing out on a very tough playground, and it's been tough for many years. On the streets, there have been killings on both sides. It's accurate to say that Chavez hasn't done enough to improve the HR situation, it's wrong to suggest he created it. That's a big difference.

Put the Law of Social Responsibility in Radio and Television into context. While Brunowe points out that the corporate media are "unabashedly anti-Chavez," that's not enough. Among the most powerful figures in the Venezuelan media are people who were directly implicated in the abortive coup against Chavez in 2001. The media have accused him of "homosexual perversions," polygamy, satanic worship and clinical insanity (no joke). If, by self-censoring, they now stick to calling him a communist, a traitor and a proxy for Castro, I'm not sure that's so troubling.


Let me wrap it up like this. I agree that people shouldn't idealize Hugo Chavez as some perfect superhero. The human rights situation in Venezuela continues to be troubling, as it has long been. Questions about the sustainability of his programs are valid.

But let's talk about democracy. Its two equally important tenets are the rule of the majority and protection for minority rights.

Venezuela's got both. Chavez has won three internationally monitored elections by wide margins in the past eight years. His MVR party won a large majority in the legislature. He has a clear mandate for his reforms. And while working on both sides can be dangerous, there's no widespread or institutionalized effort to crush the opposition. They're not fleeing the country into exile, they aren't in hiding. They continue to work in the open, with financial support from the U.S. government. Again, the proof is in the pudding. Brunowe says Chavez is undermining checks and balances, but a year ago the opposition organized to collect millions of signatures and forced the recall referendum. Chavez challenged the validity of the signatures, but the opposition prevailed and got the referendum.

It's neoliberalism, not democracy, that's under siege in Venezuela. I say that's all for the better but, ultimately, only time will tell.

Joshua Holland is a staff writer at Alternet and a regular contributor to The Gadflyer.