Redstate

recognizing the real devil that is Hugo Chavez

By AcademicElephant Posted in Contra Tyrannum — Comments (4) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Over the past year or so, some have ridiculed efforts to expose Hugo Chavez as a dictator-in-training. Commenters in various posts have preached that he is "duly elected"--even sanctified by the Carter Center--and so is different from a card-carrying dictator like his claimed ideological father, Fidel Castro. Chavez has figured as an authentic socialist icon for American liberals because of a carefully-fostered veneer of democracy, which lulled many into thinking the election this past December in Venezuela was no big deal. Sure, Chavez might be doing some small things that were troubling, like restricting internet access and jailing opposition leaders, but it wasn't like Castro in the 70s and 80s. Things wouldn't really change. After all, Venezuela is a democracy with a functioning legislative branch and a respected constitution--and it has been since Chavez came to power in 1998, thank you very much. The enemies of democracy are the perpetrators of the 2002 coup (aided and abetted by the United States), who tried to hijack the Venezuelan system by force. And for goodness' sakes, this is 2007. What elected leader in his right mind, a member of the international community and a participant in the United Nations, would blatantly destroy such a democracy? The theory seemed to be that while Chavez would certainly govern from the left, he would maintain the political status quo in Venezuela. Those who criticized him were just afraid of his progressive politics, which Chavez demonstrated could be reconciled with democracy. All this talk of a dictatorship was fear mongering at its worst--an attempt to create a bogeyman where none existed. Even today, in the International Herald Tribune, Simon Romero bends over backwards to tease "pragmatism" out of Chavez' actions--sure, he may use some "fiery rhetoric" that alarms the weak of heart, but when push comes to shove he'll act rationally.

This sense of false security certainly contributed to Chavez' victory over Manuel Rosales in December as Venezuelan voters chose the devil that they knew rather than risk the unknown.

But the question now emerging is, "Did they really know this devil?"

Read on...

Developments over the past weeks indicate that Venezuelans got a lot more than they bargained for in the re-elected Chavez. Pace to Mr. Romero and the Herald Trib, but there is nothing "pragmatic" about what is going on here unless a totalitarian power grab by an elected leader can be called pragmatism. Emboldened by his win, Chavez has begun to cast aside the flimsy trappings of democracy that he used to disguise his dictatorial ambitions during his previous term. Such things are now but an inconvenience to which he no longer needs to pay lip service. As far as he's concerned, the Venezuelan people used their ballots in December not to exercise their right to self-governance, but to surrender that right to him.

In an appalling evisceration of the Venezuelan constitution, Chavez has asked for, and received, the power to "govern by decree" for (at least) the next year and a half because, as one of his own supporters admits, he was "tired" of waiting out the normal process of legislation--indeed, one of the added benefits of his new governing law will be his ability to keep the national assembly firmly under his thumb should the opposition attempt to raise its head again. Moderates have been purged from his cabinet in favor of radicals who fanatically support him. He now holds broad and undefined power to issue proclamations reordering Venezuela according to his whim. Not because his country is under direct foreign threat or enduring a grave domestic crisis. Just because he wants it that way. Chavez knows what's best for Venezuela, and it's not democracy.

And now Venezuela will change to suit Chavez, and these changes will be big and small. Do you like to listen to contemporary Latin American and American pop music on your car radio? You'll still be able to--half the time. The other half of the time you'll listen to Venezuela folk tunes, which will make you a better Bolivarian. Think of it like taking your cod-liver oil. And of course you can always change the station--oh, sorry, you can't, because independent media outlets are being shut down or forcibly nationalized. But why would you want to? You should listen to indigenous music, you know. And you'll look at the art Chavez deems appropriate, and the television he approves. The movies he thinks are patriotic. Don't like it? Too bad. A decree has been issued.

Things are even more dire economically, and promise to worsen as the price of oil drops (this article is a must-read). Much of Chavez' popularity rests on the shaky foundation of the oil bubble, which has created the illusion of a thriving economy. But in his new Venezuela, your participation in that prosperity will be tightly controlled. You cannot legally trade your bolivars for foreign currency. If you own a business, it might be nationalized. If you own a property, it might be confiscated. And you will have no recourse, because Chavez has decreed that it be so.

Chavez' actions have proven an eye-opener for even some of his staunch supporters. A small group took its collective life into its hands to protest against him in Caracas yesterday. "Faced with authoritarianism, more democracy!", they shouted. And at least one powerful and unlikely voice has been raised against Chavez. Luis Miquilena, an influential socialist politician who was a mentor of Chavez', instrumental in his 1998 victory and served as his Justice and Interior minister, has come out against his "reforms." Mr. Miquilena is a militant socialist--I can't imagine I would agree with him on any other issue--but unlike Chavez he has always prioritized democracy; indeed, his proposals after 1998 focused on making the Venezuelan assembly more representational, and in encouraging Venezuelans to participate in their government. Now, Mr. Miquilena sees Chavez abandoning these principals, which legitimized his government after the 2002 attempted coup:

This is a government with a hypocritical authoritarianism that tries to sell the world certain democratic appearances...The government is not abiding by any rule. It has all the characteristics of a dictatorial government.

Mr. Miquilena's words are brave, and the protesters in Caracas are brave. And they're both right. Chavez is forming an authoritarian government in Venezuela. Sadly, their courage will not stop him now. The frightening reality demonstrated in Venezuela this month is that democracy is fragile and fleeting when it is taken for granted. If not rigorously defended, liberty is quickly victimized by tyranny because it cannot defend itself alone. By making the safe choice for the familiar, seemingly known quantity of Chavez in December, the majority of Venezuelans chose not to defend their freedom against the threat of authoritarianism. The signs were there, but they wouldn't see them. And just like that, in a matter of weeks, they have a dictator. On December 1st, 2006, Venezuela was a democracy engaged in a hotly-contested election. On February 1st, 2007 it will be a de facto totalitarian state. Chavez is young, strong and ambitious, and could certainly give Castro's longevity a run for its money. This is a tragedy for Venezuela, which, given its education levels and resources, should not be condemned to the economic stagnation and civil rights abuses that are the twin handmaidens of socialist dictatorships. His assumption of totalitarian power also has some alarming international ramifications should he try to expand his ideal state by force, and there is certainly nothing in his recent history that suggests a pacifist tendency.

So these developments are deeply unfortunate, but we can learn from this cautionary tale, particularly in terms of our efforts to spread democracy to other regions. Democracy can be a mess, and as Venezuela demonstrates, there are no guarantees. But the thing is that no matter how appealing a "strong man" dictatorship might look, there are no guarantees here either. And once you've put the strong man in power, he's as difficult to dislodge as a limpet from a rock. There's no election cycle to allow you to change course. The transition from freedom to tyranny has been frighteningly swift in Venezuela, but it will not be so easy to reverse. Just look at Iraq. That country is in a desperate struggle towards democracy--so desperate that many question the viability of the project. But consider the alternative in Venezuela. Chavez has become a dictator without firing a shot (as long as you don't count the rampant violent crime and/or the rampages of the corrupt police force under his orders) while many, too many, Iraqis are dying as their country transitions from a repressive dictatorship to a democracy. But how many Venezuelans might die as Chavez consolidates and maintains his authoritarian power? Can someone point me to an authoritarian regime that hasn't resorted to violent force to maintain its power? And what will it take to bring Venezuela back from tyranny when he's done, as he will be one day? Maybe enduring the transition in Iraq, with the ultimate promise of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness isn't as worthless a pursuit as it may be fashionable to opine these days. The pity is that we will have to watch the grim example of Venezuela going in the other direction, as we have watched so many in the past. But as we watch, we might reconsider our wavering support for the fragile democracies emerging elsewhere.

To wit: Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) opined this week that she would be willing to cut off funding to the new government of Iraq in pretty short order, if it does not perform to her liking. I have to wonder if, with the perspective of a few years, she might give a great deal for the opportunity to go back in time and invest those dollars not only in Iraq's democracy, but in Venezuela's. The money we might have to spend to respond to the tyranny present in Venezuela that is the alternative in Iraq might dwarf the cuts she is so eager to make now. Mrs. Clinton, like some Venezuelans who have just recoginized what they have bought, might be showing a little remorse at that point--and it will be too late to return the goods to the store.