Features » December 26, 2008

Chávez Wins Again

Venezuelans continue to support socialist leader despite corruption fears

By Steve Ellner

On Nov. 23, Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez (center) waves to supporters in Caracas before entering a polling station to vote in the state and municipal elections.

Many Venezuelans are attracted to Chávez’s lofty ideals, nationalist rhetoric and social concerns, but they are beginning to chafe at some of the concrete results of his rule.

CARACAS, Venezuela — The results of the Nov. 23 state-municipal elections dashed the opposition’s hopes that Venezuela has become fed up with President Hugo Chávez. Chávez’s United Socialist Party (PSUV) took 17 of the nation’s 22 governorships, 80 percent of the mayoral posts and all but three state legislatures. The achievement of an absolute majority of the popular vote by the Chavistas — or Chávez supporters — after 10 years in power is impressive. It shows that the president has found the formula for maintaining high levels of popularity over an extended period of time.

In another plus for the Chavistas, voter turnout surpassed 65 percent — 20 percentage points higher than the last state-municipal election in 2004. Such participation helps debunk the claim that Chávez is installing an authoritarian regime.

However, it wasn’t all good news for the Chavistas. Opposition leaders and some of the media highlighted Chávez defeats in Miranda, Zulia, Carabobo, the nation’s most populated states, as well as in the capital city of Caracas. The losses might force Chávez to slow down the pace of change and force the PSUV to analyze its errors.

Chávez was first elected president in 1998. The Chavistas won all 10 local, state and national elections held between then and December 2007 — when his proposed 69-article constitutional reform was defeated in a national referendum. Chávez’s far-reaching changes during this decade include nationalization of strategic sectors of the economy, increased spending for the poor, closer relations with Russia and China at the expense of U.S. ties, and a hard line within OPEC, the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries.

The broader focus

From the election’s outset, national — and even international — issues overshadowed local ones. In September, Chávez expelled the U.S. ambassador in solidarity with Bolivian President Evo Morales, who had done the same the previous day, as a way to protest intervention in internal affairs. Chávez also announced that security forces had just uncovered an assassination plot against him.

But the opposition showed little sympathy for Chávez. On Nov. 18, the secretary general of Un Nuevo Tiempo party (UNT), Gerardo Blyde, who was elected mayor of Caracas’ municipality of Baruta, chided Chávez for “turning the race into a plebiscite over his rule.” Blyde added that “Chávez’s obsession that someone is trying to kill him diverts attention from the dreadful performance of his local elected officials.”

Intentional or not, Chávez had good reason to focus attention on broader national issues and away from the local arena. His popularity far surpasses that of the leading politicians of his movement.

Chávez’s hyperactive role was also designed to make clear to his followers the party loyalties of individual candidates. In the states of Barinas, Carabobo and Guárico — as well as the cities of Barcelona, Caracas and elsewhere — candidates for mayor and governor who had not been chosen to run on the Chavista ticket defected from Chávez’s movement. Chávez called the pro-Chavista Communist Party and the Homeland for All Party (PPT) “counterrevolutionary” because they divided the vote by running their own candidates in various states.

Chávez warned that the opposition would use any space gained in the elections as a staging ground to mobilize the population against his rule. Indeed, the clashes and shooting of innocent people that led to the short-lived 2002 coup against Chávez was made possible by the opposition’s control of the mayoral government of Caracas.

Chávez’s followers now fear that the surprising triumph of the zealously anti-Chavista Antonio Ledezma in the mayoral elections of metropolitan Caracas, which includes the capital’s six municipalities, may undermine stability. Ledezma, who received 52 percent of the vote, defeated the Chavista politician Aristobulo Istúriz.

The stakes of the electoral contests were high for another reason. Had the opposition made greater inroads, it would have been well positioned to campaign for a recall election against Chávez. At the same time, the Chavista governor of the state of Anzoátegui, Tarek William Saab, declared at a September rally kicking off his re-election campaign: “Our victories throughout the state and the nation will be stepping stones to the passage of a constitutional amendment allowing Chávez to re-run for office.” One week after the election, Chávez announced his intention to modify the constitution to allow him to seek another term in 2012.

Failures at the local level

During the campaign, the opposition seized on the Chávez government’s inefficiency and failure to solve problems at the local level — ranging from deficient garbage collection to the poor quality of public works to crime. Pompeyo Márquez, a former Communist leader who has emerged as an opposition spokesman, attacked Chávez’s “socialist model” as unviable and argued that it employs “obsolete categories, such as improvised state-takeovers, centralism and communal arrangements.” He went on to tell opposition candidates to “prepare to govern with efficacy and orderliness.”

In this sense, Chávez’s rule differs from leftist-run municipal governments and trade unions in many parts of the world. The former Italian Communist Party’s message during the several decades it controlled Rome and other city governments was essentially, “Regardless of what you think of our ideology, we do a better job than our opponents in keeping the streets clean.”

In contrast, many Venezuelans who are attracted to Chávez’s lofty ideals, nationalist rhetoric and social concerns chafe at some of the concrete results of his rule. Between 70 and 80 percent of Venezuelans consider lack of personal security their major concern, a problem that became critical two decades ago and has grown worse. According to criminologist Alexis Romero, the increase in violent crimes over the recent past has far surpassed that of nonviolent felonies.

These downsides may be inevitable given Chávez’s experimental road to change (See “The Trial (And Errors) of Hugo Chávez,” September 2007). One reason for the administrative snags is that the government inherited a state bureaucracy staffed by many people who are adamantly opposed to the radical changes under way. The public administration is now filled with Chavista loyalists, some of whom lack experience.

A number of Chavista leaders attribute electrical power failures, food shortages and poor administrative performance to intentional sluggishness among employees belonging to the opposition and sabotage. Caracas Mayor Freddy Bernal observed, “Each time we are nearing elections, there is an ‘operation slowdown’ of garbage collection.”

The opposition considers such accusations a cover-up for incompetence. But given the shortages and alleged sabotage during the attempt to oust Chávez in 2002 and 2003, and the expressions of contempt and animosity toward the government routinely conveyed by members of the opposition, Bernal’s allegation is not farfetched. Nevertheless, the problem does not speak well for the efficiency and administrative capacity of the Chavistas.

• Help In These Times publish more articles like this. Donate today!
• Subscribe today and save 46% off the newsstand price!

• subscribe to print magazine

• stay in touch with our email newsletter

  Subscribe to our regular weekly e-mail newsletter. It's packed with updates on recent and upcoming stories, events, campaigns and things every progressive should be informed about.

   

• email this article to a friend

  Your Name Your Email Recipient Email

  Personal message Thought you might be interested in this article from In These Times.

   

  Please help us prevent spam by verifying the word you see in the image above

  Send to multiple recipients. Just separate each email address with a comma.

• Reader Comments

  As usual,  Ellner’s analysis of what is going on in Venezuela casually dismisses any and all criticism of Chavez’s painfully obvious authoritarianism as being nothing more than opposition propaganda.

  But the fact is that many on the Venezuelan left have also issued strong criticisms of Chavez’s governing style, constant power plays, and transparently anti-democratic maneuvering.

  For the left to gain greater credibility - and deepen our own understanding of contemporary politics- we need to move beyond the kind of simple -minded apologetics that Ellner offers time and time again.

  It should be possible to support the general thrust of Chavez’s economic policies, acknowledge that he hasn’t totally undermined Venezuela’s fragile democracy, while also being able to see what any casual observer would be hard pressed not to see -  that Chavez is a demagogue who has strong authoritarian tendencies.

  Ken Brociner

  Posted by kenbrociner on Dec 29, 2008 at 6:12 AM

  I took Steve Ellner’s account to be a necessary corrective to the mainstream news accounts that have portrayed the recent elections almost exclusively as a defeat, when in fact the results are mixed.

  Perhaps I’m assuming to much, but I take Brociner’s comments to mean that on whole he thinks Chavez has undermined rather than strengthened Venezuelan democracy. While I think that it’s fair to criticize the personalist and macho character of his leadership, or to debate the wisdom of changing the constitution, I think on balance Venezuela is a more democratic place today because, in part, of Chavez’s leadership. I also think that it would be more democratic if Chavez adhered more to the “participatory” and “protagonistic” spirit of the Bolivarian constitution. I did not think Ellner was dismissing criticism of Chavez as merely an opposition ploy. I do think Venezuelan democracy would be healthier if there were more democratic debate and criticism in chavismo itself, and the lack of it must be attributed in some important measure to Chavez himself.

  Could we avoid comments, such as “simple -minded apologetics that Ellner offers time and time again” (which should apply to replies to Brociner as well), and stick to debating the issues.

  Posted by hellindc on Dec 29, 2008 at 7:07 PM

  Ken Brociner calls Chavez an authoritarian, yet Chavez has both been elected and won constitutional affirmation probably more than any other candidate in Latin America. Indeed, what he seeks with the upcoming referendum is the right to face the voters again. What kind of an authoritarian is that?

  Let’s recall that the Republicans imposed term limits on the United States because they were unable to defeat FDR at the ballot box.

  Having read Ellner’s work for years, he’s hardly an apologist for Chavez, whose actions Ellner has critically assessed more than once. Thanks for providing Ellner with a platform.

  Chavez is trying to bring about substantial radical political change through a parliamentary democratic system. That’s a rather infrequently-chosen route to social change. It should be applauded rather than bad-mouthed, in my opinion.

  Posted by walterlx on Dec 29, 2008 at 10:16 PM

  One would hope that someone who writes opinion articles keeps minimum standards of debate. Unfortunately, Mr. Brociner does not. More to the point, while Mr. Ellner gives us a well balanced view of Venezuela’s current political affairs (there is both praise and criticism in his article regarding Chavez and Chavismo) with clearly stated verifiable facts, Mr. Brociner uses similar generalizing opinion strategies as the Venezuelan oposition does for the most part in the media such as ‘expert political analysts say…, well known economists critizise…, etc..

  For instance, who are the ‘many on the Venezuelan left’ referred to by Mr. Brociner?, perhaps those who abandoned leftist political views held for years in Venezuelan Politics, including armed insurgency but who now hold rightist polititcal views?. On the other hand, is there a political leader or president anywhere in the world who does not receive criticism from people who profess the same ideology?.

  Additionally, when Mr. Brociner writes ’ Chavez’s painfully obvious authoritarianism’, does he refer to the fact that no one is jailed as a result of, for instance,  either calling for his overthow (including the recently elected, yes elected, Mayor of Caracas: Antonio Ledezma)  or worse yet calling for his assasination as it once appeared in a small paid add in El Nacional.

  Finally,  in my view, it is everybody’s responsability to make rigorous a and serious contributions to prevent the degradation of public and political debate.

  Nando Troyani

  Posted by Nando on Dec 30, 2008 at 5:05 PM

  First let me apologize for taking so long to reply to the thoughtful comments above.

  Hellendic: Perhaps my tone was a bit too harsh. But I really believe that accusing Steve Ellner of employing simple minded apologetics is an accurate description of the stance he repeatedly takes towards Hugo Chavez.

  You yourself listed a number of concrete examples of what I would call – even if you would not – Chavez’ authoritarian methods and style. But Ellner – in the articles I have read of his – barely even addresses any of these kinds of critiques of Chavez. Instead he artfully dodges them by criticizing other aspects of Chavez’ government, but never (as far as I have seen) actually criticizing “El Commadante’s” lust for personal power. It may be that Ellner really doesn’t see Chavez as being on a huge power/ego trip. If that is the case, than it seems to me this would be a classic case of willful blindness – a phenomenon that is very closely related (in my opinion) to simple-minded apologetics. The other possibility is that Ellner does see what is almost impossible not to see, but he chooses to fend off any serious criticism of Chavez’ style of governance out a sense of political loyalty to the Venezuelan president.. If that is the case, then my description of Ellner would be even more fitting.

  As for the question of whether Venezuela is more or less democratic than it was before Chavez took power – I would agree with you that it is significantly more democratic especially when you include economic democracy. And Chavez deserves a lot of credit for this. But he has also constantly undermined the both the letter and the law of the institutions that are needed for a healthy political democracy to thrive.- not that these institutions were being fully respected by the governments that preceded Chavez – because they certainly were not.

  Nando:  I would urge you to read this article   http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=220 from Dissent magazine.  Even though it is a few years old, it provides ample evidence that Chavez’ brand of political democracy leaves a hell of a lot to be desired. I am not endorsing every point or accusation that Leo Casey makes here – as I simply do not know enough of the details to be able to do so. But even if some of the charges against Chavez are groundless or unfair, it seems to me that one would be extremely hard pressed to deny that the overall picture that is presented here is quite troubling – to put it mildly.

  Posted by kenbrociner on Jan 7, 2009 at 3:50 AM

• extended discussion >>>Continued...

  Discussions with more than 5 comments are continued on our special discussion page to encourage continuity and ease of use. There are currently 14 posts.

Also featured The Radical Conservative
Obama’s Burden
Mind the Gap

Full contents
Previous issues
Subscribe and save!

Also by Steve Ellner

• Rethinking Venezuelan Politics
  Ten years after Chavez's election, the movement he inspired remains divided over goals and strategies.Posted on August 23, 2009
• The Trial (And Errors) of Hugo Chávez
  Venezuelans are debating whether Chávez is putting the windfall of revenue from oil revenues to good use or squandering it through disorganization, corruption and misplaced prioritiesPosted on August 27, 2007
• Chávez Consolidates Power
  With the opposition routed, Venezuela's "revolutionary process" seems set to accelerate Posted on December 28, 2006
• Chávez’s Opposition Opts Out
  On December 4, Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez called the opposition's eleventh-hour decision to… morePosted on December 21, 2005
• Chávez Hits a Home Run
  Venezuela’s embattled president calls his own shot by winning the recall electionPosted on August 23, 2004