Hugo Chavez - Tyrant or Socialist saviour?

[Gloria The Camel]

Being in Venezuela, I want to make a decision about Chavez, all my research prior to coming indicated that he was a good guy, a good man looking out for the poor in hsi country, and other countries (i.e. the cheap oil scheme for the USA), but so much says to the contrary. But because I will be staying the rich families here, the opinion of locals is fairly one sided.

Opinions? Comments? Articles?

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

As a Colombian my opinion is definitively biased but I can tell you some stuff on the subject from family, friends and news (both Colombian and international).

Before telling what I think (I made my decision on the subject a good while ago) I can tell you what I know:

To begin you must understand that Venezuela -as most Latin American countries- has a huge percentage of poverty among its population which hovers around 50%, and its ruling class has been completely oblivious to the plights of the population until now. This is no different from practically all countries in the region, and the result is a strong distaste for the democratic system and a huge apathy towards any candidate ("regardless who I vote for it will make no [positive] difference in my life, therefore why bother"). The levels of corruption from the traditional parties in Venezuela were proverbial and despite the enormous amount of money coming in from sales of oil, only the top 2-5% benefited from it.

And then Chávez showed up. His first attempt was -tellingly enough- a coup d'état which failed in 92, and following his pardon 2 years later he tried to capitalize his notoriety using a very populist theme that resonated with the poor in Venezuela who helped him to reach the presidency in 98. So far everything was relatively 'normal' but then Chávez started his reform and for the first time in decades money started to trickle down to the poor of Caracas and then other populous regions; he started by giving 'mercados' (bags of groceries) in popular neighborhoods, but more structurally he started to replicate the Cuban health system effectively providing health services to the poor who before had none.

Up to that point everything would be wonderful if not for other structural changes he started to make, including the systematic purge of Pdvesa (the Venezuelan oil company) removing almost all career employees and execs for friends with no clue, nationalizing many companies (with same results) and starting to use oil money to pay friends in a way that real state prices in Caracas triple and quadruple overnight. Those changes brought protests (women clanging pots) from the middle and high classes in Caracas some of which were violently repressed with supporters killing protesters with firearms of which -to my knowledge- none has been prosecuted.

Again the discomfort of the wealthy brought a new coup (now against him) which also failed because one of the main instigators (a guy called Carmona) wanted to keep all power for himself which the rebel generals rejected.

From then on the story is more or less consistent with some investment in the poorest sectors (although most without any methodology), very heavy rhetorical and ideological speeches, corruption on the level of previous administrations, and in the late years the ambition of a continental 'socialist' movement which he has been able to fund with oil money.

That last part is what bothers me to no end as a Colombian, among his 'investments' he has been supporting the leftist guerrillas in Colombia, particularly the FARC allowing camps in Venezuelan territory and with serious allegations of him becoming the main weapon supplier of the FARC. More so, his support for other governments in the region became a ticking bomb during the incident in Ecuador where the #2 of the FARC was killed by the Colombian army. Beyond the prudence of such operation, it became apparent that Ecuador was following Venezuela's lead supporting the FARC, and right after the incident a war between Colombia and Venezuela (that isn't a typo) became an ominous option. Information seized at the FARC camp then linked Chávez with the FARC since the coup of 92 and detailed the transfer of weapons from Venezuela to the FARC.

At this point you can tell I'm no fan of the guy. You must understand that despite my obvious left leanings I cannot in good conscience support the FARC nor anyone who gives weapons to them (I'll leave that tale for later). Besides my understanding is that Chávez is just a pseudo-dictator with Napoleonic aspirations who learned to capitalize support among the poor giving them something when no one else did so before. His flamboyant speeches and international appearances are not directed to the international public but to his base who values his supposed 'no BS approach'. To me the guy is a master in the demagogic arts and you can't imagine how uncomfortable I feel knowing as a Colombian the kind of neighbor we have.

[Gloria The Camel]

Wow, very very nice post. A lot of useful information.

Interesting, my question for you is this;
As a leader for his people, all other things aside (i.e. supporting the FARC), do you think he has brought positive change to Venezuela? Do you think he is just trying to make himself rich like so many SA dictators in the past? So in otherwords, do you believe he is working for himself, or for his country and 'socialist revolution'?

I am also of the left, and I have, previously been a supporter of chavez (going off only what I have read or watched, so it is hard to get a clear stance without living here, time will tell if I remain the same). The lady I'm staying with at the moment hates him, but she also shows complete disregard and disrespect for the poor and needy. Plus, she is rich.

[Swatopluk]

Some compare him to Huey Long. The same dilemma there: doing some good by less than honest means, vilified by the one side, glorified by the other, long term intentions unclear (and therefore the motives for the positive actions also).
Essentially the question: good guy turning bad or bad guy that has done good as mere means to achieve personal goals.
A degree of partailly justified paranoia may also play a role. The US has clearly signalled that a removal of Chavez by whatever means would be to Washington's liking. Whether the US actively supported/instigated the coup against Chavez is not fully clear but the putschists got instant recognition.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

As a leader for his people, all other things aside (i.e. supporting the FARC), do you think he has brought positive change to Venezuela? Do you think he is just trying to make himself rich like so many SA dictators in the past? So in otherwords, do you believe he is working for himself, or for his country and 'socialist revolution'?

IMO the change he brought is short term and can dissapear any moment if the price of oil continues on the low end of the scale. My perception is that he has done things that way because it is the best return on investment, ie: the quickest way to gather support from the poor, but even if he's doing it with the best of intentions the money is being used in the wrong way (or at least that is my perception from Miami, you'll be able to tell us better how much has been invested in infrastructure, education, etc).One comment I heard from a venezuelan I met was that giving mercados doesn't solve anything, that now a lot of people didn't want to work because they could get by without effort, and I'm inclined to agree, you are supposed to teach people how to fish not give the fish everyday. There is one thing I didn't tell you in my last post and that is that a relatively similar situation happened in the 70s when oil prices were in a record high, and I'm affraid the results might be the same: billions of money wasted in the good times and not a cent saved for the bad times that followed. Look at what Norway has been doing in these past years with their oil revenue. And to top it, if he has done something well it is quite likely that once he is out all the programs he did will be dismanteled without giving a second thought, due to the hard line he has taken against his political enemies.

[Swatopluk]

Admittedly a lot of those enemies are hostile because the poor got a share.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Probably (that attitude is endemic to the higher classes in the continent), but a softer stance against them would have meant a more reasonable approach towards his legacy. As he stands right now, whomever succeeds him from the opposition will wipe out every single thing he has done.

[Gloria The Camel]

But what reforms has he acutally made? and what's the problem with them?

Just like Swato said, I've only mixed with rich venezuelans who say they hate him, I haven't spoken to any of the poor people...Because when you'er talking to poor people here, it's usually to say "Take my wallet! Just don't shoot!" 

Perhaps when I start mixing with others at school I'll be able to find out more.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

To my knowledge, health services for the poor, I believe I heard something regarding other social services in poor neigborhoods but I'll have to investigate a bit more.

[Gloria The Camel]

The only ing I've seen is he has provided very very cheap housing for the poor.

[Opsa]

relatively similar situation happened in the 70s when oil prices were in a record high, and I'm affraid the results might be the same: billions of money wasted in the good times and not a cent saved for the bad times that followed.

Sounds like what's happened in the U.S. during the past decade. I sure hope Obama doesn't forget who put him in office.

I know, 

Very informative stuff, Zone. It's good to hear it from someone who has been there. We're generally pretty clueless about it in North America.