Introduction
Current research deals with an analysis of ethical issues connected with the presidency of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela and governmental control of Citgo Corporation. We will try to assess whether existent policies in Venezuela both in economy coincides with ethical claims that Venezuelan authorities do about their social and political principles and values.
Main body
There is no denying the importance of the fact that Hugo Chavez came to power as a democratically elected presented who announced a program of building Socialism of the 21st century, a theoretical paradigm which was elaborated by economist Heinz Dietrich.
His basic ethical and moral claims and policies are directed against American imperialism and control of the Venezuelan economy by foreign corporations which seek to exploit Venezuelan labor power and squeeze profits from the Venezuelan economy. In this respect, his national policy is directed against the negative sides of the market and social inequality which it brings. There is no denying the importance of the fact that nationalization of strategic industries and creating investment conditions for the development of indigenous territories, creating equal access to education, and struggling antidemocratic trends within liberal and elite democracy should be regarded as ‘good’ from the moral standpoint of social equality, the equal exercise of the civil and economic right by all the populace (Lamrani, 2007). American and other Western authorities denounce these policies as illiberal and repressive, however, in contrast, they bring better social choices for Venezuelan citizens. The difference between mainstream Western and Chavistas approaches to ethics in respect to social policies lies in the issue of universality. Western political leaders and economic moguls have a standpoint of limited universality when morally ‘good’ is that ‘good’ for big business and corporations. Moral virtues are represented in the virtues of a free market. Unlike them, Chavez’s approach to ethics and morality lies within the broader context of universality, one which pays extensive attention to the problems of citizens. Chavez realizes the policies which are effective for the development of backward communities and indigenous people which account for the majority of the Venezuelan population. This is was not the case during elite democratic regimes which existed before Chavez. These regimes did everything to limit the participation of citizens and their active role in solving the most important issues concerning them. All basic decisions on economic and social life were realized by political professionals who as a rule served the interests of national and international big business. There is no denying the importance of the fact that this kind of democracy can not be labeled protagonist, that is bringing opportunities for every citizen.
One important example of moral controversy between Chavez and American officials as well as corporate mass media is the case of Citgo company which is owned by the Venezuelan government and participates in a joint PDVSA corporation (Washington Times, 2007). There is no denying the importance of the fact that Citgo is located in the United States and provides oil for American national consumption. American business representatives and analysts for a long time claimed that the United States subsidizes Citgo and PDVSA in turn prohibits American corporations from investing in fruitful oil contracts in the Orinoco river. However, these accusations of immorality, miss the fact that the Venezuelan government realized important social-economic initiatives through Citgo which favored ordinary people in the United States and other countries including low-income citizens of New York and Boston and Alaska native Americans lacking sufficient heating due to the lack of resources. In this way, by providing oil products at low prices, the Venezuelan government realized its social programs in other countries have no dividends from it. (Lendman, 2007). It is really morally positive and good when a small and poor country like Venezuela helps the poor of the United States and other Western countries (England) while these superpowers spend money on oil wars in the Middle East.
Ethical issues that arise from this controversy pose a question about the subjective producer of ethical judgments. There is no denying the importance of the fact that though there exist certain objective and universal perceptions of moral and immoral, one should pay to different interpretations of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ which depends on the ideological values and interests of a certain group. In the analyzed case we may specify several basic parties to ethical judgments about the situation in Venezuelan society.
First, is the Venezuelan government and President Hugo Chavez who understand morality in internal politics in terms of the general interests of the populace (Palast, 2006). He is against the limited limitation of morality as ‘good for business. ‘Good’ in politics is what is good for ordinary people of Venezuela and even people in the United States and other countries.
The second party of the ethical dispute in Venezuela is American oil corporations and political establishment as well as the big business of other Western countries. They claim that Chavez realizes authoritative policy which runs contrary to ethical virtues of democracy, liberalism, individual rights. This discourse generally fails to notices that this phrasing about democracy, individual rights (of corporations) hide real successes of the Venezuelan government including the rising social level of people, strengthening protagonist democracy, and securing the development of backward indigenous territories.
The third ethical position is those of particular companies who lose profits because of Chavez’s social policies. It is easy to understand that their interpretation of morals and immoral is premised upon their own interests. This deviates real discussion of the ethical issues in politics from its objects and transforms into the subject of ideological mystifications and prejudices.
Conclusion
To sum it up, we have analyzed basic issues concerning morality and ethics in Venezuelan politics and found basic answers to contradictory debates.
References
Lamrani S. (2007) Chavez and Constitutional Reform. Global Research. 2008. Web.
Lendman S. (2006) Hugo Chavez’s New World Vision. Global Research. 2008. Web.
Palast, G. (2006, July). Hugo Chavez. The Progressive, 70, 35.
U.S. Antitrust, Venezuela and Oil Prices. (2007). The Washington Times, p. A16.
U.S. Charity for Chavez; Venezuela Benefits from Oil-Price Pact. (2006). The Washington Times, p. A01.
The Truth about Empire: How Empire Benefits World Order in the 21st Century. (2007). Harvard International Review, 28(4), 74.