Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

It's Always Hugo, Hugo, Hugo

By Joshua Holland, AlterNet. Posted August 10, 2006.


Believe it or not, Hugo Chávez isn't the only politician in Venezuela, just the most popular. And as he runs for reelection this year, it's time to take a look at what's he done, not just what he's said.
Advertisement

Venezuela's hyperpolarized politics have bled into our own ugly discourse and, as usual, progressives are reacting to the messaging on the right; they say Chávez is a tyrant, he hates democracy, he killed Santa -- and we dutifully debunk the charges.

But when it's all about Hugo Chávez, it puts the burden on his supporters; they have to explain every hyperbolic phrase that passes his lips and every move he makes to advance what is in fact a dramatic -- and predictably painful for some -- social and economic restructuring of Venezuelan society.

It's tiresome and it puts those who don't automatically hate him on the defensive. That's why, as we edge closer to December's Venezuelan elections, it's time to start talking about Venezuelan politics in the same way we talk about politics in Canada or Europe or anywhere else. There are always at least two sides in democratic contests, and there are policy differences that get voters' attention. But we never hear about those things in relation to Venezuela -- it's like Chávez is governing in a vacuum.

The most obvious thing missing from the mainstream discourse is the Venezuelan opposition. But its members deserve some attention because while they're portrayed generically as members of "civil society" -- and often as champions of democracy -- in fact they're a deeply unpopular group of plutocrats with very little support among the majority of the Venezuelan population.

A recent poll -- an opposition poll conducted by Hinterlaces (translation courtesy of Oilwars) -- showed that 55 percent of the population plans to vote for Chávez in the upcoming elections, a number consistent with the 55-60 percent of the vote he's gotten in his previous three contests.

It's tempting to focus on that number, but look at some other numbers in the poll -- the numbers on Chávez's top challengers among Venezuela's opposition.

The candidate that came in second in the poll was Zulia state Gov. Manuel Rosales, with 7 percent -- an eighth of Chávez's support. Broadcaster Julio Borges came in third with 5 percent, and businessman Roberto Smith with 2 percent. Every one of the opposition candidates was beaten by "someone new" (17 percent) and "none of the above" (10 percent).

So the top three candidates after Chávez, combined, have the support of 14 percent of the electorate -- about a quarter of Hugo Chávez's popular support. (Another recent poll, by Datanalisis, had Chávez at 59 percent, Rosales at 9 percent and Borges at 8 percent.)

Let's look at negatives. Twenty-six percent of Venezuelans disapprove of Hugo Chávez -- he's a polarizing figure. But just under 40 percent dislike Rosales, almost 50 percent disapprove of Borges, and Roberto Smith, with one-thirtieth of Chávez's support, has the same negatives as the president.

So who are these guys? Who are the great democratic freedom fighters in Venezuela?

Manuel Rosales is the governor of the northwestern state of Zulia, where he's quite popular. Part of that popularity, ironically, comes from his having enacted some social programs similar to Chávez's own.

Rosales has been accused of being a separatist -- Zulia has a rich history of separatism going back to the early 19th century. About 40 percent of the country's oil lies beneath Zulia. When William Brownfield, the U.S. ambassador to Venezuela, referred to Rosales' state as the "Republic of Zulia" and said the United States would be willing to cut a trade deal with Rosales, it caused a stir. Brownfield later insisted that the comments had been made in jest.

But while he's popular in his home state, he'll never be able to live down the fact that he was a crucial supporter of the 2002 coup. Rosales -- whom the editors of the Wall Street Journal call a Jeffersonian democrat -- signed the infamous Carmona Decree, which dissolved the National Assembly and suspended the attorney general, the general comptroller, and the governors and mayors elected during Chávez's presidency. Rosales signed as a "representative of the state governors." He's the only vocal opposition governor in the country.


Digg!

Joshua Holland is an AlterNet staff writer.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Stating the obvious ...
Posted by: Joshua Holland on Aug 10, 2006 12:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
These are always polarized threads, so let me point out -- for anyone who missed it -- that all of the hard info in this article comes from the opposition, not Chavez's supporters.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Stating the obvious ... Posted by: FauxPorteno
» RE: Stating the obvious ... Posted by: chaoslegs
» RE: Stating the obvious ... Posted by: mythbuster
I don't care what anyone says..... I like Chavez cause he.......
Posted by: Prophit on Aug 10, 2006 4:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
he has more guts than our own opposition party in Congress. He is saying what the dems should have been saying about Bush all along.

Funny how that is, huh! I don't live there so the issues for me are his acting like "David, agains the US's Goliath" and that makes for great rallying and cheering for the underdog. Chavez plays that well and Bush plays the oppressor nazi very well too. Its a great combination. Bush the crook and Chavez the courageous. I love it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

no saint
Posted by: rsaxto on Aug 10, 2006 4:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Chavez is no saint but compared to Bush he is a genius. The bottom line is that Chavez is moving his country upward away from poverty whereas Bush is moving us toward increasing poverty and increasing war and its associated deaths/injuries. What we really need in the USA is a rabble-rousing populist who will reverse all of Bush's disasterous policies.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: no saint Posted by: coldeye
» RE: no saint Posted by: viking
Venezuela is a democracy beeter than our won
Posted by: marklar on Aug 10, 2006 5:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The important thing to remember about Venezuela is that there is an opposition party that can openly and freely debate Chavez. In America there is no opposition party. In Venezuala their is criticism of Hugo in the media and in fact most of the media outlets remains under the ownership of Hugo's oppostion. I America th--'- -o- -r--. We ha-- -- -a- of o---ly- d----i-- or v------ the -i--- -f --ss-----g o------s. Almost every news program trots out the right-wing opinion and the far-right wing opinion. America is in the middle of a truth blackout thanks to corporate ownership of mass media. For example, Moveon.org can't air its adds, or certain songs don't get air time, or oppostion candidates don't get equal time to express their views, newspapers refuse to print the news if it's unflattering to the status quo or the Pentagon, and Arab opinion and viewpoints are all but duct taped over even though the U.S./Israeli wars against Arabs are escalating and all we hear in the media are the drum majorettes for Israel and the Neocon madness. Oh, and of course the "retired" Ex-Generals and Colones spewing their Pentagon Propaganda. You gotta love the news from a sofa in America if you like being lied to.
Yeah, Chavez is looking like George Washington reincarnated more and more.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» slap that bad boy's face Posted by: coldeye
Chavez may be a 'tyrant'
Posted by: Lizmv on Aug 10, 2006 5:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But he IS doing the job he was elected to do. I suspect it may take a tyrant do it. How else can a single man go against the capitalist empire and manage to actually make real change that benefits the majority of his nations population?

# Education: 69.4 percent approved

# Housing: 65.3 percent approved

# Health care: 65.2 percent approved

# Purchasing power: 54 percent approved

# Employment: 53.6 percent approved

So where do we find such a tyrant here in the US, who can do all of that for us? I'll vote for him/her!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Can you imagine...
Posted by: LynnZTV on Aug 10, 2006 8:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...if we were asked to justify every hyperbolic phrase that
escaped from the Presidential mind and a nearby orifice?
Oh, wait...we're already doing that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Black Gold
Posted by: Iconoclast421 on Aug 10, 2006 8:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Venezuela is an exporter of black gold, so it is no surprise that the people there--all people there-- are getting wealthier. The same was true for the US. Throughout US history you will find that the ONLY time the poorest 50% of the population made serious gains was during the period of time the US was a major oil exporter. Once we peaked the bottom 50% started falling out first, and will probably continue to do so.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Actually ... Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Black Gold Posted by: rhinojos
A cure for the Hugo, Hugo, Hugo!
Posted by: Iconoclast421 on Aug 10, 2006 8:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Imagine if George Galloway became Tony Blair's replacement. The media would forget all about Hugo! My GOD do they hate George Galloway.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: A cure for the Hugo, Hugo, Hugo! Posted by: Joshua Holland
Sumery
Posted by: rwa on Aug 10, 2006 12:13 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Two Quotes sum up the situation.

"About 40 percent of the country's oil lies beneath Zulia. When William Brownfield, the U.S. ambassador to Venezuela, referred to Rosales' state as the "Republic of Zulia" and said the United States would be willing to cut a trade deal with Rosales, it caused a stir. Brownfield later insisted that the comments had been made in jest."

" A majority of Venezuelans -- the bottom 60 percent (58 percent to be exact) of the income distribution -- saw stunning gains. In 2004, their real income grew by 30 percent, and last year by another 16 percent. "

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

at the beach
Posted by: daviddorin on Aug 10, 2006 12:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Lets make Hugo an American citizen And elect him President of the U.S..WE need someone who recognizes that this country is owned by the people not powerful corporations.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Not Arnold? Posted by: coldeye
» RE: Not Arnold? Posted by: richviss
bye bye josh
Posted by: D78 on Aug 10, 2006 12:25 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm begining to think Josh is a mole. I wish he would start writing on the neocon blogs. He has been on Chavez's case for a long time and he lambasted Palast for daring to say that Mexico's election was rigged against Obrador. Palast warned him that he might have to apologize, but he never did. I guess Josh still thinks it was a clean election even though he did write an article casting suspicion. I wish Josh would clarify for all of us, his stance on South American, left-wing politics. To me, it is the only breath of fresh air in an otherwise foul-smelling, right polluted atmosphere. Don

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: bye bye josh Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: bye bye josh Posted by: D78
» RE: bye bye josh Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: bye bye josh Posted by: D78
» RE: bye bye josh Posted by: bugs
» RE: bye bye josh Posted by: gathaiga
Chavez Alternative Model
Posted by: sofla100 on Aug 10, 2006 2:33 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Chavez eloquently presents an alternative model to the one the USA promotes in Latin and South America. His model is one that cuts the worst out of unbridled capitalism and injects a social agenda aimed at caring for everyone in society with adequate social and related services. His biggest threat to the Bushes and the US elite is the success of this model, which he has also called the "Bolivarian Revolution." To GW, Chavez is a very dangerous man, and I hope he is very careful. South Americans, after years of IMF plundering - loans to benefit the rich while austerity programs for the general population rob them blind, have only now started to realize where the truth lies. Chavez is a light in the darkness.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Don't Overlook Inter-American Independence from Wash/NY
Posted by: pelle_in_goal on Aug 11, 2006 8:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Chavez has said many times he wants to be the "Economic Simon Bolivar" of del Sur. There is no greater figure neeeded south of our borders.

Chavez -- despite all the neo-con propaganda in the world -- has actually made OPEC member quotas even more disciplined. Ergo, his "New Deal" for the poorest of Venezuela is not the philosophy of some communist or socialist. Chavez is a centrist playing hard ball with the US -- and he's winning -- as long as he condemns America in merely muted tones.

Meanwhile, I have no doubt this will continue to piss us off at the gas pumps. But the oil companies are making their huge windfalls off the inflated value of their own domestic reserves, their venture capital in futures markets, while taking advantage of increasing revenues from percentage "drilling and removal" deals from state oil monopolies. Compared to ExxonMobil, Venezuela's Citgo looks like Mother Teresa. In fact, they were Mother Teresa in places like New England and urban ghettos in Detroit and Newark last winter.

Chavez has some made some very concrete contributions to his Latin neighbors -- by helping to end the viscious cycle of America's Latin American investment hegemony. I know that sounds a bit wordy but the process has been going on for years. The loan terms the IMF, World and Inter-American Banks have long imposed serve mainly to make money flow northward to the US at low interest rates. Soon a country has to go back to these same institutions and borrow investment money only to have to pay the money back at usury rates. The only other choice is to be frozen out of international money markets. America eventually forces a country to "overvalue" its currency so as to give this kind of loansharking a fig leaf. That way, a few Latino interlocutors and dirty pols make mucho dineros; the rest of the country is left to rot.

Normally, you'd think Latin America would have broken out of this cycle long ago. But America's freewheeling banks have been able to entice -- then stanglehold or just plain starve out -- Banana economies the way Lucy always pulls the futbol out from Charlie Brown at the last second.

These policies have been much of the reason we maintain such a high Latin profile within the CIA, The National Endowment for Democracy, The OAS, and even by putting anti-Chavez Venezuelan economists in place to run the Harvard JFK School of Government. There's still a 45 year embargo old on Cuban goods. All this so as to continue to make sure the money flows downhill all the way here. And drop off a little irrigation money at the big plantations on the way.

When Ecuador need help to get rid of Occidental Petroleum and their stanglehold on drilling and pumping fees -- Chavez bailed his neighbor out. When Argentina went belly up, "Simon" Chavez rode his palomino into Buenos Aires.

Maybe all this seems a bit egocentric and US escapades make Chavez seem paranoid. But he is the first breath of fresh air to hit the area in over a century and a half. Venezuela didn't get into problems overnight, and Chavez's reforms may take a while to hit the lower middle classes of Venezuela. But think about this: it's already easier to get your children universal health care and a college education in Venezuela. All the while providing the same benefits to poor Americans is becoming a nightmare.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What we we can not control we destroy.
Posted by: manny on Aug 11, 2006 2:26 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I can only hope that Venezuela has the strenght and wisdom not to fall into the American game that will be waiting for them. Make no mistake if Americans were not busy with the Middle East, American troops would be on Venezalan
soil. What we can control we destroy. I have no doubt that plans are being drawn up to to deal with Venezuela.
America's bloody history in Latin America is all the proof that my readers may need.
need.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

IMF
Posted by: sofla100 on Aug 11, 2006 9:17 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The IMF and the Banks are without a doubt some of the worst exploiters of Latin and South American countries. The fact that Venezuela escaped these swindlers with Chavez is a big reason for USA hate. Chavez actually believes Venezuela oil profits should stay in Venezuela, and hence no need for the IMF. He has also assumed debt of other South American countries like Bolivia. But, you never hear good things about him, just bad from the American Press. Ironically, even when you hear bad about him in the USA press, it is incredibly things like "he seems autocratic," or "he has a big ego," etc., almost always ad hominen personal attacks. Never a critical analysis of what is going on in Venezuela and what he has done.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Chavez is a Monkey, you just don't realize and refuse to see it
Posted by: chavezisamonkey on Aug 12, 2006 5:27 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am afraid you are like the rest of the crew: you see what you want to see, and if I am not qualified to post any comment on GW, I can tell MANY about the Monkey, and while you really wish all you are reading about him is true and our country ( my country of origin) is getting better and better, just wait until truth reveals itself, as it is just a matter of time.

Meantime, those of you who want to speak wonders about the monkey fail to realize what is his fan club members and what is he doing to have them around him, just make a short list: He has massively exposed relationships with the colombian guerrila called FARC, a group that is not ony considered a terrorist group under each and every definition you may look for, the band which protects Narcs across the Amazon and to do so, kills as many native colombians/brazilians/venezuelans as necessaryto run their business. Ask for the demographics or, properly said, the death toll, FARC has made in Colombia for the last 15 years and come back to me with your homework well done before praising the monkey.

Add to this the president of Iran, not without first visiting his friend, the dictator of Belarus, Mr Mobutu in Africa, The president of North Korea, the Lyibian president, the former "president" of Irak, The "cocaleros" and his president in Bolivia, the hezbollah and the radical palestinians, whom he visited not long ago, and if you insist, I can enhance the list as long as you want.

Do you REALLY want THIS as your leader?? Please guys use your heads.

Dear gang, what you are reading as the major achievements of the monkey is just well paid lobyying, multimillionaire accounts are handling the "bright " side of the Revolution, (we call it the Rob-olution, as in systematic robbery ), as the monkey is stealing all of our money and using it to his personal advantage, with his amazing New political system of CORRUPTOCRACY, replacing democracy, socialism or what ever other previous system in place by mainly, filling the pockets of every people around, and very emphatically "providing" every international leftist leader plus all media, paper, magazine and radio transmisssion with some love for the left to publicize how nice are we doing. Obviously his petrodollars and his corruptocracy are making a lot of people happy and the media display is definitely working: You yourselves already bought it!!

It is all plain crap. Poverty has increased, violence kills more people in everyday life in Venezuela than deaths are currently occurring in Irak/Afganistan and Lebanon/Israel combined. We are in a permanent state of war , and delinquency is winning over the population. Education? Public Health?HAHA!! You gotta be kidding me.
We have now over 20 thousand cuban troopers disguised as medics and teachers, we have armed militias and all the terror system Fidel imposed on his island is currently being set up in Venezuela, etc,etc,etc. All of this will be more noticeable for the population (yet invisible to you) after the coming elections, which the monkey will rob , as he just did on the recall referendum a couple of years back, using his fraudulent voting machine technology and a "little help" from your former president Carter.

But you will never read this in any newspaper or radio transmisssion. Laws have been effectively put on to close down any media who dares to "offend " the goverment or any of their members, so everyone complies or dies. Even the church has been driven to silence, with at least 2 well known priests having been killed under "weird" circumstances.

If you really want to enjoy that, I dare you with this, let's swap lives, anyone of us take yours in the US and you take ours in Caracas. A warning: I will have you signing a paper stating this is irreversible.
I promise I will be good samaritan and listen to your screams from the distance and pray for you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It is the oil, stupid.
Posted by: vescalant on Aug 13, 2006 9:45 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The real problem with Venezuela, as with every other 3rd world country, is that it depends on basic exports like oil. Venezuela really has no industrial and technical base. Industry, science and technology continue to be the monopoly of Western countries and to some extent Russian and some Asian countries. Transfer of these skills to the rest of the world, Venezuela included, is forbidden by the global market economy, and Chavez is unlikely to change the rules. With the oil price shooting skyward, there is no question that health, education and public works are in a boom in Venezuela, but gone the oil boom and Chavez would be gone too. Chavez should be given credit for redistributing the oil wealth more evenly among his people, but what he can do to put Venezuela on the right track only the distant future will tell and I doubt Chavez will live to see it. It took 20 years of forced collectivization and hard labor to the Soviet Union to build an industrial base, and another 20 to rebuild it after the Nazi invasion.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A critique of "It's Always Hugo, Hugo, Hugo"
Posted by: Tamakún on Aug 17, 2006 9:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The article “It’s always Hugo, Hugo, Hugo” by Joshua Holland, repeats many of the simplistic arguments that a so-called “left” uses to throw their lot with some of the most unsavory characters in the world. From the beginning, we can see how “The Other” is romanticized. Thus, Alternet could stand more for “alterity” than for “alternative”.

“Believe it or not, Hugo Chávez isn’t the only politician in Venezuela, just the most popular”, that is the first sentence in the article’s headline. Of course, anybody who knew Venezuela existed before 2002 (or perhaps 1998) could have told Mr. Holland that. And yet, he is all too representative of Chávez’s Légion Etrangère, to whom Venezuela was probably “somewhere in South America” before Chávez came to power.

From the first paragraph, Mr. Holland uncritically accepts the notion of “Progressives” for Chávez, “The Right” against Chávez. Two things should be noted here. “Progressives” are clearly individuals, while “The Right” is faceless (not “rightists”, but “The Right”). Also, “The Right” makes ridiculous, laughable allegations (“he killed Santa”), while “progressives” “dutifully debunk”. Rational and, furthermore, busy bees. In this way, “progressives” obscure the debate, ignoring that there are critics of Chávez on the left, both in Venezuela and abroad (the author of these lines is one).

Mr. Holland feels “the burden” of supporting a buffoon who speaks off the cuff on every subject under the sun, who has made his trademark of spewing egregious gaffes, mistakes, malapropisms, and crude and insulting remarks. Yes, it’s hard to make a statesman out of a bumbling fool. That is just a minor sacrifice for a greater cause because, after all, “a dramatic […] social and economic restructuring of Venezuelan society” is under way. We will have the chance to talk about this alleged change. For now, let me state that a “dramatic change” is taking place all right, but unfortunately not of the kind that Mr. Holland would suppose.
Nevertheless, Mr. Holland feels “tired” of having to defend Chávez, a self-appointed task, by the way. Why? Because he doesn’t “automatically hate” the Venezuelan president. So, apparently, it is all a personal, not a political, thing. Some people “automatically” hate Chávez, and presumably some love him. Mr. Holland wants to talk about Venezuelan politics the way he would about Canada or Europe or “anywhere else” (Belarus? Zimbabwe? Syria? Colombia?). He wisely states that there are “at least” two positions in democracies, but “we never hear about those things in relation to Venezuela”. Apparently, Mr. Holland is not an attentive reader of Venezuelan newspapers.
As a result of Mr. Holland’s lack of knowledge about Venezuela, he does not know the first thing about the Venezuelan opposition, who write on a daily basis on any imaginable topic. No wonder he feels to have the authority to bunch them together as a “deeply unpopular group of plutocrats with very little support among the majority of the Venezuelan population”.
Now, let’s stop for a second to examine Mr. Holland’s characterization of the Venezuelan opposition. Is he talking about the leaders, public figures, and political parties? Or about the social classes and layers that represent their base of support? Or perhaps about both? If it is the former, we can safely dismiss his notion as wrong. AD, COPEI, MAS, Unión, ABP, Causa R, Bandera Roja, Convergencia Nacional, Un Solo Pueblo, Solidaridad, PJ, among others, represent a political spectrum that goes from the Maoist left to the conservative Catholic right. True, most of these parties are but shells of their former glory, like AD and COPEI, who used to represent in Venezuela what the Democrats and Republicans represent (...)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Cont.
Posted by: Tamakún on Aug 17, 2006 9:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
in the United States. Some could argue that those parties are shells because they espouse unpopular ideas, but the fact remains that even parties that are in power with Chávez: MVR, PCV, PPT, Podemos, and others, are institutionally very weak and are larger in numbers mainly because they can offer state jobs and other benefits to those who join (in particular PPT, who have turned PDVSA into their private fiefdom). They certainly have no clear ideology or program (except of course, the Stalinist PCV) other than prosper politically (but above all, financially) under the shadow of El Supremo.
If he meant the leaders, intellectuals, and public figures, how can he account for people like Gabriel Puerta, Ernesto Alvarenga, Teodoro Petkoff, Willian Ojeda, Pompeyo Márquez, Manuel Caballero, Domingo Alberto Rangel, Douglas Bravo, Felipe Múgica, Oswaldo Barreto, Antonio Pasquali, to mention a random few? None of them was born rich. Most of them are politically on the left, even the radical left (unless you define “left” as those who support Chávez).
Turning to the social classes that support the opposition we find a different picture, which would, prima facie, vindicate Mr. Holland’s assessment. Unfortunately, reality is usually more complicated than our preconceptions. Chávez’s support (and his mirror image, opposition support) has been a roller-coaster during his presidency. It was high in 1998, when he was elected, and continued to be high in 1999, during the process of electing the ANC, drafting, and approving the new constitution, as well as during the beginning of 2000, when there were all sorts of elections. Throughout 2000 and 2001, popular support for Chávez diminished as the nation was rocked by labor conflicts. The rushed approval of 49 decree-laws contemplated by the second enabling law of his presidency meant war to the conservative elements in Venezuelan society. Many others were drawn into the fray, as Chávez’s behavior appeared more and more arbitrary. After all, the laws were rushed and there was practically no consultation or popular participation in their drafting.
Shortly before the events of April, 2002. Chávez’s popularity had reached rock bottom. Massive popular protests were commonplace. Chávez’s epigones would have you believe that these were “elite protests”, but they were clearly not. Granted, most of the professional middle class (not “plutocrats” or “oligarchs”, who never take the streets) was marching, but there were more and more workers and other popular sectors joining in. But the events of April 11th, the subsequent coup and countercoups (contrary to chavista mythology, Chávez was restored by the loyal military, not by popular protest, at least there was nothing even remotely comparable to what had happened on April 11th) would lead Chávez to some soul-searching. If he was going to stay in power, and stave off any attempts at deposing him, legally (referendum) or illegally (another coup) he had to win and maintain popular support. That’s when the misiones were born, with their double reference to religious and military enterprises. The idea would be to spend a significant portion of oil revenues (in a chaotic and unaccountable manner) in direct assistance to the poorest: handouts, subsidized food at Mercal supermarkets, free healthcare provided by an army of Cuban doctors, etc. They worked. For the first time, Chávez had really delivered to the poor.
However, it should be noted that this assistance to the poor is neither new in Venezuela (something that most foreign supporters of Chávez don’t know) nor sustainable in the long term. It is a great thing to help the poor, and something that should have concerned Chávez from day one (his grandiloquent and absurd promise of eliminating homeless childhood in one year notwithstanding), but employment, health, and education require actual (...)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Cont.
Posted by: Tamakún on Aug 17, 2006 9:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
reform, not just stopgap measures.
Turning to Mr. Holland’s analysis of polls, we have to keep in mind that they are months old and refer to candidates who have since declined (Borges) or just launched their candidacy (Rausseo), so it would be reasonable to wait for more recent polls before dismissing the opposition. However, I will comment on a couple of points he raises.
Mr. Holland belongs to the guilt by association school. When talking about Manuel Rosales, opposition governor of Zulia, Holland suggests that he is a coup monger and a separatist. Unexplainably, he is popular, having in fact been elected twice. That is only because he has “enacted some social programs similar to Chávez's own”. You would think that Chávez invented the whole idea of free health care, subsidized food, and literacy programs.
Rosales, according to Mr. Holland, “has been accused of being a separatist”. The evidence? Zulia has a “rich” history of separatism, and is a very wealthy state. Even more, Mr. Brownfield, the American ambassador, referred to the “Republic of Zulia” (something that Venezuelans say jokingly every day, but becomes ominous when uttered by a gringo). It’s interesting how Zulia’s past and a half-serious comment by a third person makes Rosales suspect.
But the real clincher is that Rosales “signed the infamous Carmona Decree”, which makes him a “crucial supporter of the 2002 coup”. Of course, Mr. Holland concludes that “he'll never be able to live down” that fact. Never mind that Chávez himself led, not supported, a coup and was miraculously able to “live down” that fact.
To Mr. Holland, whose knowledge of Venezuelan history and politics, seems to be less than cursory, “that’s the opposition”.
Turning to the issues, Mr. Holland quotes a poll released in March by Consultadores [sic] 21 (he refers to Consultores 21), asking people for their opinion on different issues. The actual polling was done from January 27th through February 7th, more than six months ago, which in politics can be an eternity, especially on an election year. Keep in mind that as late as June of 1998, Chávez was polling behind Irene Sáez, and yet he won comfortably in December. The former Miss Universe didn’t even get 3% of the vote.
Chávez’s lowest scores were on crime and corruption, which is not surprising as they rank very low among Chávez’s priorities. He never talks about crime as a problem in his endless TV shows (Aló Presidente). As for corruption, every so often he makes some sanctimonious statement, but very pointedly looks the other way while his minions ransack the public treasury.
Incredibly, people answered that they felt that Chávez was doing a good job in housing, which ranks together with crime and corruption as the most glaring black spots of his administration. As a matter of fact, Chávez’s record in housing is dismal; for example, in 2002 only 15,000 homes were built, in a country that has a deficit of over 2 million units. Nowadays, crowds of people camp in front of the Ministerio de la Vivienda, sometimes even rioting, when faced with bureaucratic indifference and incompetence. Ostensibly, many of those poor souls are faithful chavistas, but you have to wonder how many of them are considering voting for an alternative.
As for the data gathered by the polling firm Datos for VenAmCham (not Vencham), it is clear that the bottom 60% of the Venezuelan population has seen tremendous improvement in the last couple of years. However, the other 40% is there, as Mr. Holland concedes, stagnating if not seeing their position deteriorate. Obviously, 40% of the Venezuelan population is certainly not a privileged crust of “plutocrats” or “oligarchs”.
Which brings us to another common misconception. According to most foreign philo-chavistas, you would think that (...)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Cont.
Posted by: Tamakún on Aug 17, 2006 9:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Venezuela before Chávez had a rigid class-system, like Colombia or Perú, with odious racial and ethnic discrimination, like Guatemala or Cuba before the revolution.
Unlike Colombia, where 20 families have traditionally held the political and economic reins of the nation, Venezuela has had much greater social mobility. For example, Gustavo Cisneros, the most powerful capitalist in Venezuela, and one of the wealthiest men in Latin America, is the son of a Cuban immigrant, Diego Cisneros (who came to Venezuela way before Castro, in the 1920s), who made a fortune from humble origins. Likewise, many Portuguese, Spanish, Italian, Lebanese immigrants or sons of immigrants have prospered in Venezuela, from very humble origins as construction workers, fishermen, or storeowners. The once-powerful families in Bolívar’s time are now only famous for their lineage, not for their wealth or power. Even now, we are witnessing the rise of a new privileged class among the lucky followers of Chávez, the newly baptized boliburguesía. The new privileged have access to lucrative contracts when they just don’t loot the government coffers. Some are military officers who made a lot of money thanks to the Planes Bolívar or are getting their cut in Mercal deals. Others are party apparatchiks benefiting from the “new PDVSA” (or PPTSA, due to that party’s lock on top management), whose slogan “Ahora es de todos” is taken literally by many, using it as their own personal property. Yet others are old and new capitalists from the “Fourth Republic”, some of them common criminals, even terrorists, like Ramirito Helmeyer and Alex Del Nogal.
Unfortunately chavismo, in spite of its claim to originality, is all too common in terms of its predatory practices vis-à-vis the Venezuelan state. A similar phenomenon occurred with the main political parties in the past (AD and COPEI), and with the different montoneras who took power in the XIX and early XX centuries, representing the different regional landlords. Perhaps the only new characteristic is its brazenness and a certain preference for cash transactions (to reduce the paper trail and, perhaps, to launder money of dubious origin).
Where Mr. Holland gets it right is when he states that Chávez will probably be reelected. Right now he is expending his considerable political capital in a race against time. His administration is unraveling, riddled with corruption and incompetence. The abundant monetary resources guaranteed by the oil bonanza, although considerable, are not infinite. Already we see signs of impatience among the masses. Chávez promises too much, much more than any government could deliver. The gap between expectations and their fulfillment is growing. Even if Chávez is reelected, he will face a very different political and economic situation in his second (or third, depending on how you count) term.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A critique of "It's allways Hugo, Hugo, Hugo"
Posted by: JDMB on Aug 18, 2006 1:40 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When you refer to "the Republic of Zulia" it reminds me of how Yucatán is referred to in Mexico: "la hermana república de Yucatán". It sounds like the same thing: an affectionate way of referring to a region that is proudly (perhaps stubbornly) clinging to its own personality. Thank you for your detailed analysis. I hope Holland responds to you (he hasn't yet to my similar posting elsewhere on the Mexican election), it would be interesting to see his take... Saludos!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]