to View - Griffith College Dublin

international |
international |
“In comparing George W. Bush to
Hitler and called Tony Blair ‘a pawn of
imperialism’, Chavez garnered some
measure of respect..”
10
The Voice of
South America
By Hugh Hick
Seen by some as the only true voice against
American domination of South America, and by
others as simply one more socialist would-be
dictator whose call for greater cooperation in the region
against “American imperialism” is simply a propaganda
vehicle designed to strengthen his own position, there is
simply no one with an interest in South American affairs
who doesn’t have an opinion of Hugo Chavez.
Since his inauguration as president of Venezuela in 1999,
Chavez has become a constant thorn in the side of the
United States. Unlike many of its neighbouring states
that have tried to adopt a position of passive neutrality
in relation to the US in recent years, Venezuela under
Chavez has used every available media opportunity to
decry the evils of American foreign policy.
It has not helped relations between the two countries
that Chavez has visibly allied himself closely with former
Cuban president Fidel Castro, a man that has outlasted
ten US Presidents’ attempts to overthrow his regime.
Together, the two men represent the great South
American Socialist dream, which after fifty years still has
not truly been achieved. Chavez thinks he can change
that.
Over the last several years, Chavez has focused his
foreign policy on further integration among South
American countries. He has mainly done this through
a strengthening of economic ties in what he calls
“oil diplomacy”. Using Venezuela’s vast oil reserves
as a bargaining tool, Chavez has bartered reciprocal
trade agreements with neighbouring countries on
an unprecedented scale, with the view of creating a
completely autonomous region free of US influence.
Critics of the Chavez regime, including the US, allege
that Chavez is using this integration policy as a means of
shaping South America in his own image, by publically
and privately lobbying for the election of pro-socialist
candidates in countries involved in these trade
agreements. Chavez’s tendency to get involved with the
political affairs of these countries gained considerable
media attention when he acted as mediator in talks
between Columbia and terrorist organisation FARC over
hostages.
Much of Chavez’s appeal stems as much from his
exaggerated rhetoric as it does his charisma. Having
compared George W. Bush to Hitler and called Tony
Blair “a pawn of imperialism”, Chavez garnered some
measure of respect from critics of Western foreign policy,
particularly in the aftermath of the Iraq war. This style
of colourful oratory has backfired on Chavez in the past
however, notably when he called Spanish prime minister
Jose Maria Aznar a “fascist” at the 2007 Ibero-American
conference, leading to a sharp admonishment by King
Juan Carlos and a subsequent apology from Chavez.
But even those in agreement with Chavez’s world view
have some cause for concern when looking at Venezuela
itself. While he has retained a measure of popular
support throughout his presidency, some of his more
radical reforms since his re-election in 2006 have been
met with criticism. Most controversial of these were his
constitutional reforms, which included a provision to
end term-limits on the presidency, theoretically allowing
Chavez to remain in power indefinitely.
While Chavez insisted that the reason for this proposal
was that the successful implementation of his socialist
model would take longer than his term in office, its initial
rejection in December 2007 was seen as the first major
blow to Chavez’s regime. Its success when put forward
again in February 2009 just cemented the view of his
critics that Chavez was trying to build a dictatorship
through democracy.
Perhaps the most worrying sign of a move in this
direction by Chavez is his increasing stranglehold on
the domestic media. As well as hosting his own weekly
television show “Aló Presidente”, which is little more than
a thinly-veiled propaganda vehicle, in 2006 Chavez also
revoked the licence for RCTV, Venezuela’s second largest
television channel, having accused them of supporting
the failed 2002 coup d’etat against him.
Any student of political history will see the warning
signs. Constitutional reform, media interference,
creation of a cult of personality. While Chavez may
give plausible reasons for each of these things, the
fact remains that never before have such measures
strengthened a democracy. Instead, they tend to be the
last gasps of it before it is smothered by a swift change to
authoritarianism.
I don’t doubt Chavez’s motives. No leader would take
the risks he has done if it were only for personal gain.
But the fact of the matter is strong ideologies, no matter
how well meant, never work in democracies. Name me
an extreme left or right leaning functioning democracy in
existence and I’ll eat my hat.
Perhaps Chavez is even under the delusion himself that
he could make it work, that he could implement his
social utopia while under the constant scrutiny of a free
media and the threat of being replaced every few years.
Nonetheless, every step he takes toward social reform
will make it just that bit harder for him to give up power,
and risk losing everything he’s worked for.
Having said that, Chavez remains an important
figure. He stands for a South America that needn’t
be overshadowed by its bigger, uglier brother. The
sheer scale of his ambition and will power make him a
formidable character on the world stage. It may be that
in time we will come to view him in a different light,
but for a world that has seen capitalism crumble before
its very eyes, Chavez has taught us one very important
lesson: there is always an alternative.