|
Tuesday, 12 December 2006 18:48 |
O n Dec. 3, the voters of Venezuela overwhelmingly kept Hugo Chavez, the populist who has made many enemies in the American government, in office for a third term.
Chavez is an extremely controversial figure. The Bush administration, and his own opponents within the country, accuse him of ruling like an autocrat.
His supporters, both in Venezuela and abroad, see a charismatic leftist who has used his countryës wealth to raise the standard of living for its poor majority, cleaned up corruption and stood up to U.S. bullying.
Both
have their points ÇƒÓ and their delusions. Chavez is a democratically
elected leader who has done many good things, but also shown disturbing
tendencies towards autocracy.
With a newer,
even stronger mandate, he has a choice: will he go down in history as a
populist leader who had to play hardball to break the stranglehold of
the countryës wealthy elite or as just another tyrant in a region that
has already had far too many?
On the one hand,
Chavez does not deserve much of the criticism placed on him by
conservatives and the Bush administration, who have accused him of
being the next Fidel Castro.
For one thing ǃÓ
and it bears repeating ÇƒÓ Chavez is, unlike Castro, an elected leader.
Even his opposition admits this. He maintains power by appealing to a
constituency, in this case Venezuelaës massive underclass, and by
addressing their needs.
Thatës not
criminal, thatës politics, as is Chavezës use of Venezuelaës oil wealth
and political clout to push his designs over those of the U.S.
government. Certainly, the U.S. does the same thing abroad often
enough.
In fact,
heavyhanded attempts to manipulate the politics and economies of Latin
America have led to much of the anger which Chavez and other leftist
allies throughout the region have harnessed.
If America
dislikes seeing such movements sweeping the region, it would do well to
consider where such feeling comes from and change its policies
accordingly.
Chavez has not
invaded any of his neighbors, declared martial law or hung his enemies
in the streets. Despite his bellicose rhetoric, plenty of opposition
press and political parties still operate.
It is important
to note that Venezuelaës elite has a huge amount of power and wealth
and also has shown little compunction about overthrowing democratic
governments that threaten its hold in the past. Chavezës strident tone
and tactics are, to some degree, understandable.
At the same
time, Chavez has taken some worrying steps. Comments by his oil
minister that workers who did not support the government had no place
in the national oil company were actually encouraged.
He has also
pointedly visited or sent aid to Castroës Cuba, Syria and other
tyrannical states. When confronted by journalists about this, his
replies have been slippery and evasive, not acknowledging that the
democracy he claims to support is crushed in such states.
Even though they
have largely not been enforced, his government has passed laws that
could be used to crack down on dissidents and now he talks of altering
the constitution to stay in power past 2020.
Chavez needs to
learn that a free society requires not just democracy, but protection
for dissidents. He needs to learn, as Americaës founders did, that it
is not enough for rebels to throw off oppression ÇƒÓ they must also know
when to cede power themselves.
|
