Ellner’s positive Chávez Wins Again and the somewhat negative A New Path for Latin America? by Michael Shifter are two papers that deal with Venezuela’s so called “Twenty-First Century Socialism” and its chief advocate President Hugo Chavez. Ellner speaks mostly about how the Venezuelans still support Chavez while Shifter speaks of how the Venezuelans are slowly become weary of Chavez and his socialist/militarist regime. Both are essentially true and can be reconciled because they speak from two different perspectives.
Ellner believes that Chavez is still supported by his people, at least the majority of them, in support of this claim Steve points to the fact that Chavez’ party won a majority of the gubernatorial seats as well as the mayoral and state legislature posts in the 2008 Venezuelan elections. To stay any allegations that this was a rump election he also points to the fact that there was a 65% voter turn out, very high especially for an allegedly authoritarian regime. A president no longer beloved of his people can not possibly enjoy this much support.
In contrast, Shifter’s article claims that Venezuela is tired of Chavez. To prove this he points to the failure of Chavez’ referendum to put into place his new constitution. A President who remains beloved of his people should have found it easy to convince his people to ratify the constitution. According to Shifter the sheer draconian nature and authoritarian flavor of the constitution were the reasons for the people not supporting it.
Both articles point to the fact that Chavez still has a strangle hold of power in Venezuela, Chavez controls the vast fortunes that the country makes from its oil and suggests that he has virtually unlimited discretion to spend this money. Hence the social programs that he employs to prop up his regime are the direct result of oil largess, oil profits, instead of sound economic planning. The articles capture an interesting perspective. Shifter considers the failure of the Chavez referendum as the beginning of the end for his regime which would make sense if it were not countered by Ellner’s observation that country still voted overwhelmingly for Chavez’ party. Both views are correct, Chavez is popular because of his populist policies backed with oil money. The peace and order achieved under his presidency and the his political grandstanding on the world stage have also increased his popularity with his people and his Latin American neighbors. However his people are not willing to hand him absolute power. His brand of socialism while popular is not the prelude to absolute power he desires. The people still want to have elections and to have certain freedoms, freedoms which the new constitution will effectively deny.
Venezuela is not likely to become a model for development in Latin America. In the first place natural resources are against them. Chavez’ strangle hold on power is made possible by the huge profits the country’s oil industry made when the price of Oil skyrocketed in recent years. No other nearby country has as much oil as Venezuela and hence their leaders do no have the deep hoards of money that Chevez has at his disposal. Furthermore, Chavez is the opposite of the trend. Ordinarily leaders in Latin America come to power after deposing military backed oppressive regimes. Chavez himself is from the military. Ordinarily military coups are hard to sustain. Other than Chavez only Burma’s junta has been successful in clinging to power for very long. Democratic principles are too deep seated even in third world nations to be suppressed for very long before the people yearn for freedom. In any case, Chavez’ development of his country is a direct result of his nation’s natural wealth and not his socio-economic policies. In other words its mostly just luck.
Works Cited
Shifter, Michael. “A New Path for Latin America?” Annual Editions: World Politics 09/10.Helen Purkitt,ed.New York: McGraw-hill,2010:103-104.
Ellner,Stever.”Chavez Wins Again.” In These Times. 2008.