Figure 1.--.

Hugo Chavez came from the vast Llanos south of Venezuela's coastal mountain range, an eastern stub of the Andes. His parents were school teachers. He was born in Sabaneta, Barinas state (1954). His dream in life was to become a professional baseball player. He enrolled in Venezuela's military academy principally because he heard they had a good baseball team. He graduated (1975). He took to military life. And as a young officer he was involved as an army paratrooper in the last phase of defeating left-wing guerillas. He knew nothing about economics and vert little about history, in many ways similar to Fidel Castro. The ideas of the left-wing guerills that he came in contact with appealed to him. He was soon plotting against the Government. Col. Hugo Chavez first came into prominence as a leader of a failed coup (1992). His long-winded defense in his subsequent trial impressed some Venezuelans, particularly attacks on the country's politicall class and rich. He then ran a populist campaign and won the presidency at the ballot box (1998). A fall in international oil prices weakened the economy and as a result the standing of the traditional political parties. After winning election, President Chavez began to turn Venezuela in a Socialist 'paradice' by dismantaling the private economy. He called his program the Bolivarian Revolution, capitalizing on the prestige of Simon Bolívar, He described his policies as 21st Century Socialism, but never explained how his policies were different than the traditional socialist policies that failed whereever tried. He wanted to make himself Venezuela's permanent president, but this was the one election he failed to win. President Chavez dismissed his critics and argueds that he needs more time for Venezuela's Socialist revolution to show results. Venezuelans continued, however, to elect him to 6-year terms as president, most recently (October 2012). He proved to be an affable and politically savy leader and became one of the most colorful and vocal leaders in Latin America. He learned he had cancer which he kept secret (2011). He announced he had cancer, but had recovered after trearment (2012). One serious mistake may have been his decesion to rely on the Cuban health care system where treatment could be done in secret rather than a probably more competent team in Brazil. Chavez and his Bolivarian Revolution is very controversial both within and outside of the country. A great deal has been written about him, but usually the assessment is contingent on the authors ideolgical point of view rather than a careful factual assessment. His supporters say he is concerned about the poor and disadvantaged and has heloped many rise from poverty. His critics say he has become increasingly autocratic and has wrecked the country's economy. Chavez was surely one of the most fortunate Latin American leaders. The country's vast oil wealth provided the needed capital to build a modern infrastructure and provide Venezuelans a first class education that would serve as the basis for a vibrant economy. Here we want to objectively assess the claimed achievements of the Bolivarian Revolution as well as the claims of Chavez's critics.

Dictatorship

One sympathetic journalist writes, "Over the coming days, you will be repeatedly told that Hugo Chavez was a dictator. A funny sort of dictator: there have been 17 elections and referenda since 1998. Perhaps you think they were rigged. When he won by a huge margin in 2006, former US President Jimmy Carter was among those declaring he had won 'fairly and squarely'. At the last election in October 2012, Carter declared that, 'of the 92 elections that we've monitored, I would say the election process in Venezuela is the best in the world.' I was there: perhaps you think I was like those hopelessly naïve Western leftists who visited Potemkin villages in Stalinist Russia. I was with a genuinely independent election commission, staffed with both pro-Chavez and anti-Chavez sympathisers, who had previously been invited by the opposition to run their own internal elections. We met with senior opposition figures who railed against Chavez, but acknowledged that they lived in a democracy. When they lost the election, they accepted it." [Jones] From available ecidence and given the large margin of his victories, it seem likely that the votes were counted fairly and Chavez did win those elections. But as the journalist quoted here surely know, there is more to democracy than having elections. Both Hitler and Stalin and a host of lesser dictaors have won elections. There are issues suggest as access to the media and the givernment's control of the media. It is sifficult to lose an election if you control the media, especially if you begin with a string base of fevent supporters.

Social Justice

One popular left-wing refrain is 'social justice'. A sympathetic journalist writes, " The truth is that Chavez won democratic election after democratic election, despite the often vicious hostility of the media, because his policies transformed the lives of millions of previously ignored Venezuelans. Poverty has fallen from nearly half to 27.8 per cent, while absolute poverty has been more than halved. Six million children receive free meals a day; near-universal free health care has been established; and education spending has doubled as a proportion of GDP. A housing programme launched in 2011 built over 350,000 homes, bringing hundreds of thousands of families out of sub-standard housing in the barrios. Some of his smug foreign critics suggest Chavez effectively bought the votes of the poor – as though winning elections by delivering social justice is somehow bribery." [Jones] This of couese sounds impressive. Let's look at item by item.

Poverty

We note press report fter press report describing Chavez as lifting Venezuelans from poverty. The journlist here tells us, " Poverty has fallen from nearly half to 27.8 per cent, while absolute poverty has been more than halved." [Jones] What Mr Jones does not tell us is that other well-run Latin American countries, as well as China and India have achieved similar results and have done so with out having access to oil money. Ghese countries have creayed real jobs for their people. We have to ask ourselves, is a family provided Government benefits really lifted from poverty. Not only has Chavez's Bolivarian Revolution not removed the acuses of the poverty, but if the Government payments are uddenly added, these people fall right back into poverty. Of course Venezuela has vast petroleum reserves and will be able to fund povery programs for years. It is not, hoever, an effort transferable to other countries without vast oil reserves.

Health care

Education

Housing

Agrarian reform

Jobs

It is interesting that in the article cited by Jones that he does not mention employment and jobs. That is because Socialists like Jones see society through a governmental prism. And Jone does not want to address the massive damage done to the Venezuelan economy by Chavez's Bolivarian Revolution. It is a simple fact that the best povery fighting program is good jobs. And Mr. Chavez while he doles out oil money has destoyed hundreds of thousands of goof jobs. Enterprises taken over by the government or rarely as productive as the privately operated ebterprise. Quite a number of these enterprises continue to opetate by shipping the output to Cuba whre consumers have few options. And the coyntry's oil money is squandred by keeping inefficent opetations finctionong, a major cause of the failure of the Soviet and pre-reform China.

Crime

Our sympathetic joirnalist writes, "That does not mean Chavez is beyond criticism. Venezuela was already a country with rampant crime when he came to power, but the situation has deteriorated since. Around 20,000 Venezuelans died at the hands of violent crime in 2011: an unacceptable death toll. As well as drugs, near-universal gun ownership and the destabilising impact of neighbouring Colombia, a weak (and often corrupt) police force is to blame. Although the government is beginning to roll out a national police force, endemic crime is a genuine crisis. When I spoke to Venezuelans in Caracas, the sometimes frightening lack of law-and-order was brought up by pro-Chavistas and opponents alike." [Jones] It is not at all clear to us as to why crime hs increased under Chavez. To be gair, crime wa a problem before Chavez. While it has increased in intensity we are not sure.

Foreign Policy

The journalist writes, "And then there is the matter of some of Chavez's unpleasant foreign associations. Although his closest allies were his fellow democratically elected left-of-centre governments in Latin America – nearly all of whom passionately defended Chavez from foreign criticism – he also supported brutal dictators in Iran, Libya, and Syria. It has certainly sullied his reputation. Of course, we in the West can hardly single out Chavez for unsavoury alliances. We support and arm dictatorships such as Saudi Arabia; Britain's former Prime Minister Tony Blair is paid $13 million a year to work for Kazakhstan's dictatorship. But our own hypocrisy does not absolve Chavez of criticism." [Jones] Of course Jones does mention the West's 'hypocracy' to mitigate critism of Chavez. The difference is of course that our primary associations are with fellow democratic countries while Chavez's close associations are all with vivious dictarorships. Democracies function in the real world. During World War II we supported Stalin, can that be called hypocracy. Mr. Jones is right about the Saudis, but control of the oil in the hands of Saddam or the Iramian Mullas would be a disaster. And it is not hypocracy to asociate with otherwise distasteful states. The cornerstone of Chavez's foreign policy was the 18-nation Petro Caribe Oil Alliance. The idea was to leverage the country's oil wealth to spread revolution throughout the Caribean and Central and South America. This first camme to public attentiin in America when a suit case full of $1 million in bills was fojnd by Nuenos Airs customs agents. It was money sebt by Chavez to help Mrs. Cristina Fernández de Kirchner win election in Argentina (2007). There were various ways the Venezelan aid was dispended. Venezuela bought large amounts of Veezuekan bonds that the country was having trouble selling and then sold them at high prices to Venezuelan banks. Low cost loans were offered, The Venezuelan financed monthly 'Socialist cas transfrs to the poor in Nicaragua. There is no definitive accounting, but under Chavez it is believed that some $100 billion were dispursed through the program, a sizeable amount even for an oil-rich country.

Sources

Jones, Owen. "Hugo Chavez was a democrat, not a dictator, and showed a progressive alternative to neo-liberalism is both possible and popular," The Independent (March 6, 2013).

Created: 11:29 AM 3/7/2013
Last updated: 11:35 PM 12/3/2013