open Democracy News Analysis - Hugo Chávez: yo, el supremo, Phil Gunson - Comments

virtok on "Hugo Chávez: yo, el supremo"

virtok — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 22:10:16 +0100

I meant to write "hours" instead of ours.

virtok on "Hugo Chávez: yo, el supremo"

virtok — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 19:10:08 +0100

BigC,

Coercion, intimidation and direct threats are not the exception under the current regime; it is the modus operandi of Chavez's government. I have many friends and family working for state owned companies and I know first hand that these people have to shout "patria socialismo o muerte" (fatherland, socialism or death) against their will when they are also forced to attend political assemblies at working ours. There is no proof that the electoral council is able to know how electors vote, but the government has squandered millions of dollars on intimidation campaigns that make voters believe that they will know how they voted. Chavez has suggested on countless speeches (that I suspect you have not seen) that they could find out how you voted, but then he backs up to say that it would be illegal to do so. This is a very vernacular way to intimidate voters, a very subtle but clear message. The voters, in fear of loosing their jobs or stop receiving their government stipends do not take a chance and vote for the “right” option. I personally know about ten stories like this. I also know people that have lost their jobs because of being considered “traitors” of the revolution because they were seen with the “wrong” people. I do my own extrapolation which can be little or far off from reality, but aside the numbers the fact that this is happening makes me sick anyway. Again, this is not the exception, is the way it is done on a regular basis, openly and shamelessly.

With regards to your suggestions that my statement about the abusiveness and incompetence of the government being exaggerated and that the proof is that Chavez enjoys a support from the majority, I have to say these are not mutually exclusive events. Based on my observations and the comparisons with previous Venezuelan governments, I consider this the most authoritarian, abusive and incompetent, by far, of the last 30 years. Needless to say, before Chavez there were a number of very incompetent and corrupt governments that ran the country. However, back then we had separation of powers (not perfect, but never violated the way Chavez does it now), we had a bi-cameral Congress (before Chavez’s constituent assembly of 1999 that was the denomination) that produced laws which lead to the construction of the Guri dam and the wonderful hydroelectric system that the country enjoys today, to name one of the many large infrastructure projects that were developed then, and they signed the decentralization law which gave powers to the regions which lead to an incredibly fast development of the different regions of my country. Chavez, instead, in the ten years in power does not have a single large infrastructure development to show, and he is furiously acting to eliminate the autonomy of the regions to go back to a centralized state where all the decisions are made by one person: him. Is he giving money to the poor? yes he is, single-handedly as he decides how the money of the taxpayers is spent without consulting anybody. There is no need for consulting, as he enjoys “special powers” granted by… his National Assembly. Is it bad per se that he “gives” money to the poor? No, it isn’t, per se.

I will give you some numbers about gasoline and gas oil in Venezuela. About 75% of the electricity in Venezuela is generated by hydropower. This is thanks to the prevision of the governments that preceded Chavez. That means that the other 25% is thermoelectric as Venezuela does not have nuclear, solar or wind power. All transportation of goods, which is done by truck, depends on either gasoline or gas oil. The whole economy is being subsidized by the stubborn subvention to gasoline (and that’s one of the many subsidies to the economy that I made reference to on one of my previous posts). The internal use of gasoline went from 16% of the total oil production in 2003 to 33% in 2008. Why? Because there are many more cars on the streets (you can call that an achievement) due to a booming economy (the oil prices kept going up throughout those last 5 years) and the fact that many more people can afford to pay for a car and the gasoline to run it (to fill up a tank of a Toyota Corolla costs less that $3). The other reason why the percentage has increased is because the total oil production has decreased under Chavez’s run PDVSA (remember that 18,000 workers were fired by Chavez himself on national TV, but after 5 years the total number of employees, which now are loyal to the regime for obvious reasons has doubled). If things keep going this way, the internal use of gas will keep increasing. As you can tell, this is absolutely unsustainable. But not only that, it is an absurd and unjust subsidy. Why don’t, for instance, sell the gasoline at international market price and use the revenue to build the best public transportation system in the world which would benefit, guess who, the poor that cannot afford a car anyway (even with a tank at $3) , and then you can subsidize the public transportation system if you want.

I will stop here for now.

BigC on "Hugo Chávez: yo, el supremo"

BigC — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 16:24:00 +0100

Virtok

There is so much documentation about [corruption] that if you want to get it you will find it. However, if you refuse to believe that this is the case, then that is a different issue.

It's not a case of refusing to believe it: more one of putting it into perspective. If you look at Transparancy International's 2007 report (http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/gcb/2007) you'll find that Venezula is perceived by it's population as one of the most corrupt countries in the world let alone South America. However this is purely subjective and is not surprising when you look at the fact that the Venezuelan press and media (in this authoritarian state) are almost unanimously anti-Chavez. When you look at most of the objective measures (eg who has actually paid a bribe in the last months) Venezuela seems to be around the regional norm.

Do about 50% of people still vote for Chavez? Yes, for one reason or another, although it is safe to say that about 25% of these people are coerced to vote for Chavez (or else they will pay the consequences, ergo loose their jobs, stop receiving money assitance from government, etc ...)

How exactly did this coercion take place? Midnight visits from shadowy and menacing figures? Quiet warnings that the ballot was not really secret? Or do you mean that they were told that tthe end of Chavez's regime would mean mass unemployment and the end of social security? Warning of the dire consequences of electing someone else is a stock election ploy everywhere.

The strike was succesfull in that it aglomerated hundreds of thousands of people around a common cause in response to an abusive, incompetent and irresponsible government.

But many more turned out in support of this "abusive, incompetent and irresponsible government". No? Otherwise how do you account for Chavez's survival of it?

Chavez uses money from oil revenues and subsidizes gasoline, to give an example, which costs about $0.25 to produce and sells it to everyone (rich and poor) at $0.06. This is completely unsustainable and makes the whole economy to be dependent on oil prices.

It's not unsustainable in itself. If enough oil is sold abroad then there could well be enough revenue to sustain it. I'm afraid I don't know the relevant figures. If the people of Venezuela decide that they would like their oil revenues spent differently (for example to pay for luxury goods for the rich or on expensive armaments for the US) then they need to elect someone else.

virtok on "Hugo Chávez: yo, el supremo"

virtok — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 22:20:17 +0100

BigC: Thanks for not attacking me but my arguments. That is the base for a healthy and constructive debate. See my answers below.

Kleptocratic - Who exactly is doing the stealing and from whom is it being stolen?

There are tens of verifiable testimonies of high level corruption and blatant stealing of public funds from government oficials, let alone the massive corruption at the medium and low levels, starting from the most shameless and completelly open squandering of public resources being done by the president himself. There is so much documentation about this that if you want to get it you will find it. However, if you refuse to believe that this is the case, then that is a different issue.

Authoritarian militarism - Chavez must be one of the most democratically validated politicians in the history of the world!

Yes, he completely controls the electoral council as much as he now rules over the supreme court, the attorney general's office and the national assembly where 95% of the members belong to Chavez's party. Do about 50% of people still vote for Chavez? Yes, for one reason or another, although it is safe to say that about 25% of these people are coerced to vote for Chavez (or else they will pay the consequences, ergo loose their jobs, stop receiving money assitance from government, etc ...)

He has survived a business strike, a recall vote, a coup (which would have been authoritarian and militarist if it had succeeded) and several elections.

The strike was succesfull in that it aglomerated hundreds of thousands of people around a common cause in response to an abusive, incompetent and irresponsible government.

The coup was carried out by people that were as abusive and irresponsible as Chavez, and that in my opinion used the public discontentment as a way to take power by force. I do not know if they would have been authoritarian and militaristic, but I am certainly glad that they did not succed in taking power.

Widespread subsidies to the economy - eh? What is a subsidy to the economy? A contradiction in terms surely?
Chavez uses money from oil revenues and subsidizes gasoline, to give an example, which costs about $0.25 to produce and sells it to everyone (rich and poor) at $0.06. This is completely unsustainable and makes the whole economy to be dependent on oil prices. Chavez does this because he is affraid of the consequences of stopping his insane and utterly unsustainable policies. The collapse that will come in the Venezuelan economy will be the sole responsibility of Chavez.

By the way, I am not from the "right". Just for the record.

BigC on "Hugo Chávez: yo, el supremo"

BigC — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 19:23:00 +0100

May be a kleptocratic, authoritarian militarism based on widespread subsidies to the economy...?

Kleptocratic - Who exactly is doing the stealing and from whom is it being stolen?

Authoritarian militarism - Chavez must be one of the most democratically validated politicians in the history of the world! He has survived a business strike, a recall vote, a coup (which would have been authoritarian and militarist if it had succeeded) and several elections.

Widespread subsidies to the economy - eh? What is a subsidy to the economy? A contradiction in terms surely?

virtok on "Hugo Chávez: yo, el supremo"

virtok — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 18:50:10 +0100

I find that every comment in favor of chavismo, whether it comes for honest believers, from fanatics or from people that are paid to defend Chavez and his cronies, is often if not always oriented toward a disqualification of the other, rather than a discussion about the facts. If I say that Chavez has distroyed the principle of separation of power, the pro-Chavez person will usually come back with something like "you guys from the right cannot accept that Chavez is giving money to the poor". What the heck has that to do with the principle of separation of power? I see that again and again on every blog about the topic.
The true political left in Venezuela does not support Chavez. Besides, even when it evades any classic definition, the government of Chavez is anything but from the left. May be a kleptocratic, authoritarian militarism based on widespread subsidies to the economy...?

Not logged in on "Hugo Chávez: yo, el supremo"

Not logged in — Tue, 17 Apr 2007 03:42:34 +0100

What's amazing to me, austinlthompson, is that certain people's definition of democracy is broad enough to encompass systematic discrimination by a government against its political opponents. It's amazing to me that the term democratic socialist can be applied to a government that, for example, sacks judges wose rulings it dislikes. I've spent a good part of the last 30 years writing articles on the decades when kleptomaniacs and oligarchs ran Latin America with the support of the US. Check it out: you can read many of them on the internet. Chile, Guatemala, El Salvador, the Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, Paraguay ? the list goes on. I see no particular reason to excuse discrimination, censorship, constitutional violations, rigged trials, official corruption or any of the other blemishes on the Venezuelan revolution simply because those responsible claim to be on the side of the poor. My definition of democracy, I'm afraid, is not that broad. If you can't express dissent without losing your job, your pension, your freedom, your business, your future, your dreams then you're not living in a democracy. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that these problems only affect the minority that opposes the Chavez government (a minority that, by the official count, comprises about 40% of the electorate). One of the tests of a true democracy is how it treats its minorities. Or does that rule, too, only apply to autocrats of the political right?

austinlthompson on "Hugo Chávez: yo, el supremo"

austinlthompson — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 15:27:50 +0100

It's amazing to me how certain people misunderstand how broad the term democracy is. You can't determine it's parameters for other people. The Bolivarian model or the newly voted upon Ecuadorian model may not macth the liberal democratic models some prefer in the Global North.

In Venezuela, and Ecuador the vast majority of the people there support the reforms that put more power in their hands. They also prefer socialism to privatization.

You failed to mention in your article the backdrop from which this democratic revolution takes place. I am looking forward to reading some of your articles on the decades when kleptomaniacs and oligarchs ran Latin America with the support of the U.S.

Get over it. The Bolivarian Revolution is Democracy. As long as the masses of people support it, the United States despises it, democratic socialism will continue to flourish and spread.

farotxa on "Hugo Chávez: yo, el supremo"

farotxa — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 01:32:16 +0100

"Where are statistical comparisons with Chavista venezuela and the pre-1999 country by the oligarchic kleptocrats (who revile El Supremo mainly cuz he has opened up their personal petrol slush fund to the masses.)? "

Some of the statistics are available on the Internet for anyone who cares to look. And Chavez does not fare well on most of them. As far kleptocracy goes, Chavez's government is the most corrupt in Venezuela's history (by the way, do you know where the $2,400 million FIEM went? Please, let me know if you do).

Certainly Chavez has opened the oil to fund the masses, including those of Cuba, Nicaragua, Bolivia, and the "poor" on Boston and London. Meanwhile Venezuelan infrastructure (roads as well as schools and hospitals) crumble.

"Not much dissent was tolerated under them, either."

Do you know that for a fact? I lived in Venezuela for over 20 years, and never saw so much persecution of dissidents as now. Dissidents were then that, dissidents. Now they are "traitors" and "enemies of the people". Just check the Maisanta List (you know what that is, don't you?) or the numerous reports from various the human rights organizations.

"I understand some of this contempt is down to the mixed blood of the leader and his followers as opposed to erstwhile Spanish aristocracy."

Sorry, this comment shows how little you know about Venezuela. No one in Venezuela belongs to any "Spanish aristocracy." If this were so, then why no one showed any contempt for C. Castro or Raul Leoni when they were presidents (you know who Castro or Leoni was, don't you?).

"Building a middle class in Venezuela, however slowly, will lead to democracy."

Venezuela was a democracy for over 40 years when there was a large middle class, at least by Latin American standards. That middle class are now the "traitors" and the "enemies of the people" (as if they were not people too) that Chavez likes to threaten so much.

It is a sad day when the political left has nothing to cling on but to a militaristic and fascist dictator. Have your standards gone so low?

Democracy_now on "Hugo Chávez: yo, el supremo"

Democracy_now — Sun, 15 Apr 2007 10:54:58 +0100

Very hostile and anti-Chavez biased text. As usual the far right are trying to define democracy as something that should be organized by the elite. Venezuela is creating a REAL democracy built by the people.

alfredo.bremont on "Hugo Chávez: yo, el supremo"

alfredo.bremont — Sun, 15 Apr 2007 00:03:06 +0100

we must Analise the context, and the point in time to understand what Chavez does, why he does it and how he came about to behave and impose the laws and resolutions that he has done so far. democracy is not a believe on a principal of a determined knowledge, it is more a natural behaviour of the human kind. what we perceive is more a lack of faith on the human kind than a struggle between a dictatorships and a Democracy. in the long run, there does not exist any democratic nations on this planet what we got is illusion of democracy, ideas that we are free, but most of our actions and thoughts are practically determined by propaganda, political ideas and concepts. men now-days are no longer free, they have become servants of their own machines. the capitalistic realm has not giving his promises, it has created inequality grief and is now on the process of destroying the planet. science talks about what it knows about nature, which is quite different than what actualy nature is all about. men is part of nature, therefore the descriptions and concepts made about men are founded on the same principles, on what science knows about men, not on men himself. we know what science says not what in reality men is. therefore at the present time we are learning. judgements indicates that a judgement is correct or false but how can we ascertain something we don't really happen to know. the result is believe and irrational believe as the 9/11 event shows and the war in Iraq has giving the example of what irrational believe can lead to. rational believe can bend the mistakes that occur by the lack of knowledge and turn this mishaps into a beneficial realm. however this actions are impossible to be achieve under the current capitalist system, therefore as long as the present system operates on the same bases as it does now, only error will come out of it.

gringagalmx on "Hugo Chávez: yo, el supremo"

gringagalmx — Sat, 14 Apr 2007 11:55:44 +0100

Where are statistical comparisons with Chavista venezuela and the pre-1999 country by the oligarchic kleptocrats (who revile El Supremo mainly cuz he has opened up their personal petrol slush fund to the masses.)? Not much dissent was tolerated under them, either. I understand some of this contempt is down to the mixed blood of the leader and his followers as opposed to erstwhile Spanish aristocracy. Building a middle class in Venezuela, however slowly, will lead to democracy. Ojala.

Hugo Chávez: yo, el supremo, Phil Gunson

Fri, 13 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0100

If the frequency of elections in Venezuela were the sole criterion of judgment, the country might be said to be suffering from an "overdose of democracy" - as Paraguay's president, Nicanor Duarte, put it in mid-March 2007 (in what was intended as a compliment). But if the definition of democratic rule includes the checks and balances provided by the separation of powers, Hugo Chávez's government fails to qualify.

First elected in 1998, and re-elected for a second time in December 2006 for a fresh, six-year term, the former army officer used to boast that his 1999 constitution increased from three to five the independent branches of government.

But since coming out of the closet as a "21st-century socialist" inspired by Marx and Lenin, he has accumulated powers more usually associated with a dictatorship. The five branches of government are now effectively extensions of the executive, required to display total loyalty.

Also on Hugo Chávez, Venezuela, and the "Bolivarian revolution" in openDemocracy:

Ivan Briscoe, "The invisible majority: Venezuela after the revolution"
(25 August 2004)

Ivan Briscoe, "All change in Venezuela's revolution? "
(25 January 2005)

Jonah Gindin & William I Robinson, "The United States, Venezuela, and "democracy promotion"
(4 August 2005)

Ivan Briscoe, "Venezuela: a revolution in contraflow"
(10 February 2006)

Ben Schiller, "The axis of oil: China and Venezuela"
(2 March 2006)

George Philip, "The politics of oil in Venezuela"
(24 May 2006)

Juan Gabriel Tokatlian, "After Bush: dealing with Hugo Chávez"
(13 March 2007)

George Philip, "Hugo Chávez at his peak"
(28 March 2007 )

Chávez, already head both of state and of government, will shortly become the leader of a single ruling party, created - like Mexico's Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) in the 1920s - not by politicians seeking to form a government but by a government seeking to hold on to power.

He has unchallenged personal authority over the armed forces, which now bear the name of his own movement ("Bolivarian", after independence hero Simón Bolívar) and whose generals now routinely proclaim "motherland, socialism or death!" (in violation of a constitutional ban on their involvement in politics).

Under a new armed-forces law, his role as commander-in-chief now gives him direct operational control not only over regular troops but also of a political militia (‘reserves' and ‘territorial guard'), intended eventually to number some 2 million.

The law specifically assigns the military a role not only in the external defence of the nation but in the maintenance of internal order, which in practice means defending the "revolution".

Every member of the 167-seat, single-chamber parliament professes allegiance to Chávez, following an opposition electoral boycott in 2005. Not content with that, he sought (and obtained) powers to rule by decree in eleven key social, political and economic areas for eighteen months.

A committee of loyalists, answerable only to him and meeting behind closed doors, is currently working on a reform of the 1999 constitution (itself framed under his supervision) to bring it into line with his new, "socialist" vision for the country.

Almost half of the 350 articles in the current constitution are likely to be amended, and although the changes must be put to a referendum, the likelihood is that voters will be asked for a "yes" or "no" to the whole package. ("More democratic? Impossible!" proclaimed Chávez, a supposed champion of "participatory democracy".) Moreover, the political loyalty of Venezuela's electoral authority, the Consejo Nacional Electoral / CNE, substantially reduces the possibility of defeat.

Among the proposed changes: indefinite re-election for the president and an end to the autonomy of the central bank. This last is, in any case, largely fictitious: a large chunk of the country's foreign reserves has already been converted into funds directly controlled by Chávez that are effectively beyond parliamentary control.

The state oil corporation, Petróleos de Venezuela (PdVSA), which is the major source of government revenue, also hands over cash for clientilistic social programmes and foreign aid under Chávez's supervision. In practice, the president thus controls a slush fund amounting to tens of billions of dollars.

Phil Gunson is a journalist based in Caracas, Venezuela

Also by Phil Gunson on openDemocracy:

"Hugo Chávez's provocative solidarity"
(14 June 2006)

"Venezuela's media in a Bolivarian storm"
(7 August 2006)

"Venezuela: a seat at the top table"
(16 October 2006)

"Bolivarian myths and legends"
(1 December 2006)

Is he one of us?

In addition to parliament, the other three supposedly independent branches of government - the supreme court, the CNE and the "moral republican council" (state prosecutor, comptroller-general and ombudsman) - are all staffed by chavista militants.

The state prosecutor Isaías Rodríguez was formerly Chávez's vice-president. The current vice-president, Jorge Rodríguez, used to chair the CNE. He oversaw the president's successful defeat of a mid-term recall referendum in 2004, and is now reaping the benefits.

The president of the supreme court (TSJ) since February 2007, Luisa Estela Morales, is a prominent member of the constitutional-reform committee, despite the fact that the court is the ultimate arbiter of the reform's legality. A parliamentary investigation of seven supreme-court justices with a view to their possible dismissal, announced on 22 March 2007, may also help dissuade any backsliders from trying to water down the reform. Any use of the courts "behind the back of the leader" to frustrate the will of the government is (said Chávez recently) "a betrayal of the people".

To minimise the possibility that dissidents might infiltrate government institutions, the state sector applies a policy of denying jobs to those identified with the opposition. A computer programme known as the Maisanta List classifies over 12 million Venezuelans by their political preferences, and even private-sector firms with government contracts are often banned from employing those with the wrong political credentials.

Dissent is also anathema within the chavista movement itself. The plan to form a new Unified Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) that incorporates parties loyal to the Bolivarian revolution has provoked anguish and division, especially among Chávez's three largest coalition partners: the social-democratic Podemos, Patria Para Todos (Motherland for All / PPT) and the Partido Comunista de Venezuela (PCV).

"Communal councils", reminiscent of Muammar Gaddafi's "popular conferences" in Libya, are to take over many of the functions of local government. The diversion of resources away from town councils and state governors will make it much harder to form an independent political power base. The councils are registered with the presidency, which is their sole source of funding.

Hugo Chávez retains considerable support, even though he is reviled by many Venezuelans. Behind the cacophony of argument, both groups might care to recall what Simón Bolívar once wrote: "Flee from the country where one man exercises all powers - it is a country of slaves."

Average rating

(7 votes)