In leadership, the general citizens might be fooled by the overtly charitable behavior that leaders exhibit toward them. Therefore, the developmental objectives that elected leaders should do for their nation are eventually forgotten due to this practice. When leaders become tyrants, loyal individuals who stand out for democracy and openness are ostracized. Chavismo is a political philosophy that includes socialist patriotism, democratic socialism, and Bolivarianism. It is based on the principles, policies, and methods of governance espoused by the former President of Venezuela, Hugo Chávez. The President practiced socialism but at the same time incorporated dictatorship in his ruling. He recognized himself as a leader of the Bolivarian Revolution for the Venezuelans. The President often sought to enhance or broaden his power via a referendum. Chavismo should not be supported since President Hugo Chávez turned into a poor president because it deluded the population with socialism, repressed the opposition, and restricted media freedom.
President Hugo Chávez’s early quest for power was a sign of a leader who strived to save the people from poor leadership. He plotted a coup in 1992 after becoming dissatisfied with President Carlos AndrĂ©s PĂ©rez (GarcĂa-Holgado & PĂ©rez-Liñán, 2021). It was unsuccessful as the President flew to Caracas to organize his troops to resist Chávez’s attempt. The President disrupted the communication of President Hugo Chávez’s allies, so they lost contact with him. Eventually, President Hugo Chávez’s men surrendered themselves at the Historical Military Museum, finishing the coup. He was forced to make a television broadcast to instruct those loyal to him to submit so that the population could avoid further killings.
President Hugo Chávez’s early reign in power was characterized by a pretentious sign of hope for the nation. When Hugo Chávez was determined to become President, he suffered and had to rethink his approaches. Because of the attempted coup, he was detained after a televised broadcast to convince his followers to cease it. President Rafael Caldera pardoned him, and was freed after serving two years in jail (GarcĂa-Holgado & PĂ©rez-Liñán, 2021). Upon his release, he re-engineered his strategy for acquiring power by concentrating on the 1998 presidential race (Buxton, 2020). President Hugo Chávez showed the Venezuelans not losing his determination to become the President. He created the Fifth Republic Movement Party as his democratic ascension to power. He opted for a peaceful campaign rather than a violent one to win the election.
He had a determined and diplomatic approach to his campaign by approaching specific groups of people to have their votes. President Hugo Chávez targeted the poor and the working class and promised to terminate the existing flawed leadership system (Bonifácio & Botelho, (2021). He informed them that he was determined to end corruption and eradicate poverty. President Hugo Chávez has the charisma, passion, and good speaking skills to convince his people to vote for him. He promised a social system change and could sway many people to his side. Ultimately, in 1998, he won the election taking approximately 56% of the votes and was sworn in as the President (Buxton, 2020). He proclaimed in 1998 to the people that the nation’s resurrection was underway and nobody could prevent it (Phillips, 2018). It marked a new form of leadership in Venezuela, and people believed transformation was coming.
President Hugo Chávez started demonstrating his dictatorship immediately after he rose to power. He quickly held a referendum to bring a new constitution rooted in Bolivarian principles (Vazquez, 2019). The new rules altered the Venezuelan government and increased the Presidency’s powers. Therefore, these changes made it easier for Chávez to exercise authority in his favor. In 2007, he had another attempt to hold a referendum so that the constitution could favor his control more, but he was unsuccessful (Hetland, 2021). He frequently considered altering the laws to favor his Bolivarian principles. Chávez’s primary strategy was often to appear as a man of the people to the public. Integrating with Venezuela’s poor population facilitated President’s agenda. He often broke into songs to praise his supporters and criticize his enemies. He encouraged the poor to turn their passions against people of other classes. His manipulative practices toward the poor shielded the criticism he faced in his government. He muted critical public issues such as building schools and creating more employment for his people.
Despite being a hero to the poor, Hugo Chávez had no patience for anyone who questioned his socialist revolution or opposed it. He used the powers he had gained to pass controversial laws (MacLeod, 2019). Many in Venezuela’s intellectual community, middle-class, media, and other professionals sympathetic to economic privatization were among the resistors. Restrictive socialist policies imposed by Chávez hurt these people, and as a result, many fled the country in search of a more libertarian environment. Foreign nationals who were found to be critical of Chávez’s regime were expelled from the nation and never allowed back. The poor were blackmailed by informing them that he cared for them through his socialist rule. He wanted total dominance over the poor and no interruption from the people opposing his government.
Hugo Chávez often blamed Venezuela’s problems on other nations and did not want to take the blame. Chávez accounted for Venezuela’s weaknesses, such as poverty, high crime, high inflation, and restricted freedoms and rights, by shifting the blame to other countries (Gill, 2019). Most of the time, the President blamed the United States and Colombia for the crisis. He depicted the USA as a capitalist, wicked, manipulative country intent on undermining his revolutionary regime in Venezuela. He called President George Bush a devil in the United Nations General Assembly proceeding. Colombia’s President lvaro Uribe was accused by President Hugo Chávez of working with the United States to aid in the invasion of Venezuela. The blame for the realities in Venezuela on other nations harmed the nation’s economic prosperity.
Despite the nation’s challenges, the President insisted the Bolivarian Revolution was perfect for the country. Oil prices rose, declining agricultural and manufacturing sectors, a lack of foreign investment, food and water shortages, soaring inflation, and the population entirely depended on government financial support (Phillips, 2018). Insisting that he was the Venezuelans’ revolutionary leader, he assured them he was helping them turn their nation into a socialist one founded on equality and solidarity. He kept most Venezuelans under his rule through propaganda, oratory prowess, and social reform initiatives. Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez was a genius at self-promotion, demonizing his critics, and shifting the responsibility for his failures to others.
Hugo Chávez demonstrated his dictatorship toward the media so that he could hide vital information from his people. The independence and neutrality of media outlets greatly suffered under the leadership of the President (MacLeod, 2019). He sought to stifle free speech in Venezuela to have more control over what was said about him and his government. In doing so, he effectively kept the poor in the dark to win their support. Chávez regularly attacked media organizations and revoked their broadcast licenses. He organized invasions into the media houses’ offices to hunt for suspicious items and denigrated anyone who opposed his rule. He pushed public television to broadcast only official broadcasts to the people of Venezuela. In addition, Chávez has maintained tight control over Venezuelan radio stations, investigating them for anti-Bolivarian ideology and corruption, and frequently revoking their broadcast licenses. Chávez signed a bill allowing the prosecution of media outlets it feels are promoting information contrary to the Bolivarian ideology.
Many people were disappointed with his form of leadership and thus protested against it. On April 11, 2002, approximately one million people marched to President Hugo Chávez’s palace to demand his resignation (Ellner, 2022). The protestors were treated brutally by the National and Chávez’s guard troops. They were severely injured, and some were killed in the demonstrations. Because of the bloodshed, the military revolted and detained Chávez in what was primarily viewed as an illegitimate coup. Although Diosdado Cabello was chosen as the leader, he decided to put President back in charge. The failed coup was the first of numerous clashes between the Hugo Chávez administration and the opposition. Conflicts kept Venezuelan society divided into two vehemently opposed groups: the opposition members and the Chávez supporters.
The opposition was disappointed with authority and thus demonstrated against the dictatorship. They launched a nationwide strike in December 2002 to force Chávez to resign from power. The government-run oil company PetrĂłleos de Venezuela (PDVSA), which generated a large portion of Venezuela’s export revenue, was at the epicenter of the strike (Gamboa, 2017). President Hugo Chávez used force to end the strike and made irrational decisions. The President responded by firing the company’s employees and bringing in foreign oil crews and nonunion workers to sustain the oil production. Eventually, the strike ended, and Chávez had complete control of PDVSA. The President would have used negation to solve the strike rather than his forceful approach.
Through a referendum, the opposition tried to oust Chávez from office. In 2003 and 2004, the opposition concentrated on a recall referendum to remove the President (Hetland, 2021). President’s extravagant expenditure on social projects, including literacy and health care efforts, sparked criticism from certain quarters. In August 2004, amid suspicions of fraud, Chávez won a recall vote and regained public support (Hetland, 2021). The opposition continued protesting against what they regarded as corruption within the administration of President Chávez. The President was re-elected into office in 2006, his third presidential term (Hetland, 2021). He pushed through proposals to nationalize critical businesses such as the oil industry and energy and telecommunications. Some political observers perceived that the more opposition attacked Chávez, the more powerful and resilient he became.
President Hugo used his powers to change the constitution through referendum polls. The people passed a more moderate constitutional reform plan in February 2009, paving the door for Chávez’s indefinite reelection (Gamboa, 2017). Those who opposed him thought President intended to reign for the rest of his life. Because of the triumph, the government began an aggressive campaign to silence dissent and detained prominent political opponents in the nation. The President wanted to have a good time executing his leadership on the citizen without interference. He shut down hundreds of opposition radio stations and Globovision Television, which broadcast critical content. People in the poorest parts of the country believed they had a moral obligation to continue supporting the President due to his social initiatives, even if they disagreed with the repeal of term limits.
Chávez supported education reforms in the nation to revolve around socialist principles. In the National Assembly on August 6, 2009, he enacted the Organic Law of Education (Corrales & Hidalgo, 2017). To guarantee that the government was to provide education to all citizens. However, the Organic Law of Education gave the President another avenue to exercise his dictatorial leadership. Because of this, Venezuelan media were barred by law from publishing any information seen as undisciplined, demeaning in language, violent, hostile, or frightening to children under Venezuela’s Bolivarian ideals. All forms of political party promotion were banned from elementary school educational centers and institutions. With this law, the Venezuelan government hoped to enhance its influence over access to information by introducing its Bolivarian beliefs to children at a young age, educating them about socialist ideology.
In conclusion, President Hugo Chávez was a dictatorial leader who pretended he had the citizens’ best interests. He hid in the socialist ideology to oppress people and deny them the freedom they deserved (Phillips, 2018). President Hugo Chávez took advantage of his newfound authority to enact contentious legislation. He avoided taking responsibility for Venezuela’s issues by blaming them on other countries. With the help of the media, Hugo Chavez could keep crucial information from his people. As a tactic to prevent his people from learning important information, he displayed authoritarianism against the press. He was a frequent critic of the media and often canceled broadcast licenses. Several individuals died and were injured due to protests against his leadership style. As a result of their displeasure with the President’s leadership, the opposition staged a protest. Protests over alleged corruption in the government’s top ranks continued unabated. Anti-government protesters resumed their demonstrations against what they saw to be the administration’s corruption.
References
Buxton, J. (2020). Continuity and change in Venezuela’s Bolivarian Revolution.Third World Quarterly, 41(8), 1371-1387.
Class voting or economic voting? Electoral support for chavismo (1998–2015).International Political Science Review, 0192512121992671.
Corrales, J., & Hidalgo, M. (2017). The quality of the Venezuelan demoracy under Hugo Chavez (1999-2013).Partecipazione e conflitto, 10(1), 89-118.
Ellner, S. (2022). The April 2002 Coup Through Time: The landmark event locked Venezuelan politics into a polarized face-off that leaves little room for constructive criticism.NACLA Report on the Americas, 54(1), 16-19.
Gamboa, L. (2017). Opposition at the margins: Strategies against the erosion of democracy in Colombia and Venezuela.Comparative Politics, 49(4), 457-477.
GarcĂa-Holgado, B., & PĂ©rez-Liñán, A. (2021). The Weaknesses of Illiberal Regimes. In Routledge Handbook of Illiberalism (pp. 925-938). Routledge.
Gill, T. M. (2019). Shifting imperial strategies in contemporary Latin America: The U.S. Empire and Venezuela under Hugo Chávez. Journal of Historical Sociology.
Hetland, G. (2021). Hugo Chavez: Was he an autocrat? (1954–2013). Dictators and Autocrats, 120-140.
MacLeod, A. (2019). Chavista ‘thugs’ vs. opposition’ civil society’: Western media on Venezuela.Race & Class, 60(4), 46-64.
Phillips, T. (2018). “A slow-motion catastrophe”: On the road in Venezuela, 20 years after Chávez’s rise. The Guardian.
Vazquez, G. E. (2019).“Bolivarian Authoritarianism”: Regime Change in Venezuela Under Hugo Chávez(Doctoral dissertation, University of Miami).