Last week, millions of Venezuelans cast their ballot in the presidential election. To the disappointment of many, Hugo Chavez managed to win in his closest election yet, with almost 80 per cent of voter turnout. On the flipside, many others were pleased with the result, including those abroad who saw Chavez’ victory as a victory for socialism everywhere. The latter reaction is one I find puzzling, as Chavez’s brand of socialism is not exactly successful, and that is something many people do not know.
As a Venezuelan, I’m often asked what I think of Chavez, and surprisingly, my response — that he is anathema — confounds many inquirers. They ask me why I responded so and tell me that he has done great things, to which I respond: you have not lived in Venezuela from 1999 onwards.
The views of many Canadians I’ve talked to about Chavez suggest that there is a lack of in-depth coverage in the media regarding Chavez and the effect his policies have actually had in Venezuela. Generally, the media’s coverage of Chavez has been misguided in their criticism of him, often labeling him a leftist and socialist and talking about his social programs, but overlooking the deterioration of the country’s social fabric.
Yes, Chavez is more than a nominal leftist — he implements socialist economic policies and has abjured neo-liberalism. At first glance, these are generally good things for a country that is plagued by poverty, but the issue lies in what is actually happening in Venezuela. The domestic situation is not as rosy as the media implies it is when it mentions that Chavez has implemented radical social programs. These programs may have been implemented, but the media doesn’t mention whether they have been effective.
The reality is that since Chavez came to power in 1999, the country’s situation has worsened. Most worrying is the fact that the crime rate has increased to record levels, and the crimes being committed are violent; ranging from express kidnappings and armed robbery, to armed carjacking and murder. It is a sad but true fact that Caracas is the murder capital of South America. In the 14 years that Chavez has been in power, 150,000 people have been murdered.
If Chavez’s policies were reducing poverty and improving people’s livelihoods, then people would not be resorting to crime as a means to survive. Despite Chavez’s social programs, Venezuelans today are 15 per cent poorer than at the beginning of his term. Wages have increased, but this increase has been outpaced by the rising cost of living, diminishing people’s ability to provide for themselves and their families.
According to professor Roberta Rice, who teaches Latin-American politics here at U of T, Chavez enjoys a good reputation abroad because he is a critic of neo-liberalism, and has helped pave the way for other leftist governments in the region. This is often how Chavez is portrayed in the media; his flamboyant personality and outspoken criticisms of the US provide better sound bites than the reality of Venezuela’s current situation. Thus people abroad miss the point — that Chavez’s government has hurt Venezuela rather than helped it.
On top of the increase in poverty and crime, Chavez’s government is obscenely corrupt. According to Transparency International, Venezuela is the most corrupt country in Latin America, and one of the most corrupt in the world. This is not a surprise considering that Venezuela has seen record oil revenues, but an increase in poverty and a shrinking economy. This begs the question, where is that oil money going?
Not only has the economic situation worsened, but Chavez’s government actively suppresses the opposition, preventing people from speaking out against him. In fact, speaking badly about Chavez is a punishable offense. Chavez has also amended the constitution to allow him to run for office indefinitely, and has manipulated elections at the national and sub-national levels, undermining the democratic process.
It is because of all these things that almost 50 per cent of Venezuelans voted to boot Chavez from office. So many were full of hope that the country could recover and right itself, but that hope was almost extinguished after Chavez announced his victory. Never the less, according to Rice, the fact that the opposition is focused on winning elections at all levels of government is a positive sign for the revival of the democratic process, as all parties are trying to find legitimacy through elections.
Another sign of hope is that so many people turned out to vote against Chavez, a marked increase from past elections. One day, Venezuelans will see through Chavez’s façade and realize that he does not govern for them — the ides of March approach.
