Posted on 04/12/2002 4:57:22 PM PDT by Pokey78
Chávez was a disaster for Venezuela
Few Venezuelans, even among the poor he claimed to champion but made poorer, mourn the abrupt end of the “Bolivarian revolution” of Hugo Chávez. They do mourn his victims, demonstrators gunned down by his snipers yesterday before the presidential palace. This populist paratrooper turned class warrior was elected President in 1998 on a platform of constitutional reform, social justice and an assault on corruption. That impressed many in the middle classes, as well as the poor, as the necessary prescription for a deeply polarised country where, despite its vast oil wealth, more than 60 per cent of the people lived in bitter poverty. His great initial popularity reflected a collective sense that it was time for radical solutions. But the experiment was disastrous.
Venezuelans disagree as to whether Señor Chávez is bad, or merely mad; but they agree that he took Venezuela back to a discredited Latin American past of strong-arm tactics, cronyism and heavy and incompetent state intervention — not least in the media, which he required by law to air, often for hours on end, his rambling, Castro-like weekly broadcasts, Alo, Presidente. He did indeed rewrite the Constitution — but, although he added populist flourishes of “direct democracy”, the main effect was to tighten his hold and expand his powers.
There followed the politicisation of all aspects of society by his Fifth Republic movement. The military was drafted in to his social experiment, required under his signature “Plan Bolívar” to work on building clinics, schools and roads for the poor. He infuriated parents and teachers with a national education project designed to inculcate the young with what he called “Bolivarian” values, an eclectic blend of Cuban-style socialism, which he greatly admired, updated by a diffuse distrust of “globalisation”. He began to form “Bolivarian Circles” of neighbourhood vigilantes, modelled on Castro’s neighbourhood watch committees.
In theory, he favoured foreign investment; in practice, he frightened it away by his attacks on what he called the “rancid oligarchs” of business and by packing company boards with his cronies. Capital fled the country; corruption grew worse and so did the long lines of the unemployed. He bungled even the land reforms which could, since half Venezuela’s arable acreage is owned by 1 per cent of farmers, have been his masterstroke. And as his support fell away, his taste for dictatorial methods grew.
Last winter he rushed through 49 new laws affecting everything from land tenure to the independence of the labour unions to the all-important oil industry. Venezuelans had had enough; employers and organised workers united in protest to bring the country to a total halt. Fatally misjudging the mood, he then staged a boardroom coup at the state-owned but professionally run Petróleos de Venezuela, which generates 80 per cent of the country’s export revenues.
This was his final mistake. Workers joined managers to protest, oil production dried up and business, labour and church leaders got together to declare that they had given up on dialogue with their maverick President and issue a ten-point plan to turn around, after his departure, a country reduced to “ungovernability” in a “national emergency” that threatened its stability. President Chávez denounced them as “an immoral pack of elites”; the blood he shed at the end tragically justified their every criticism. What matters now is that this unifying programme, combining economic liberalism with a commitment to narrow the vast gap between rich and poor, is followed through. Venezuela, so rich and so poor, must learn from this era. The world which needs its oil must not hesitate to help.
Boy...you know you're in trouble then!
The strategy included a studious faux populism, propaganda through control of the mass media, brutal military oppression, and neighborhood "Committees for the Defense of the Revolution" to dispense ration coupons and population control on a micromanaging level. The only area wher he was successful in was the fawning buttocks love smooches by similarly minded American liberals and the vermin US media on Chavez' side.
Come to think about it, this is all reminiscent of how corrupt liberal scum like Terry McAuliffre and the two Clintons became multi-millionaires over the last 8 years.
Maybe they weren't watching - which is quite possible, since Latin America, no matter the fact that it is essential to US security, is of little interest to the press, except when they turn their attention to things like Lori Berenson.
Or maybe they'd simply rather not admit that Chavez got his butt kicked and the "Bolivarian revolution" was seen by most Venezuelans as what it was, the crazed ravings of a megalomaniac.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.