Last night chants of “¡Chávez vive, la lucha sigue!” (Chávez lives, the battle continues!) erupted in La Plaza Bolivar, Caracas- a fitting tribute to a Latin American leader who represented not himself, but an idea, and a struggle. The next few months will determine whether ‘the battle’ will indeed continue, and whether ‘Chavismo without Chavez’ can survive.
Born in rural Venezuela, Chavez forewent university to become a history teacher at the Caracas Military Academy. In 1982, frustrated with the neoliberalism that condemned the lives of millions of poor Venezuelans, he formed a Bolivarian revolutionary movement that went on to lead a coup d’état at the end of the decade. His movement followed the path laid out by Simon Bolivar, the South American independence leader, but initially failed to seize power. Nonetheless, Chavez’s apology for failure ended with the assertion that the struggle was over “por ahora” (for now).
These two words gave hope to a nation that, on his return, would adopt an alternative to the dominant ‘Washington Consensus’ economic model of privatisation, deregulation and austerity. Consequentially, this alternative became known as ‘21st Century Socialism’. Upon his dramatic return to politics in 1998, his presidency showed that socialism could offer a ‘Third Way’ between discredited free-market capitalism and the flawed Soviet model.
It is not often that the facts speak for themselves, but in the case of Hugo Chavez, they do. According to the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America, Venezuela now has the lowest level of inequality in the region. Poverty has fallen from 70% in 1996, to 23% in 2009, and over 90% of Venezuelans now eat three meals a day for the first time in the country’s history.
Chavez was vilified in Western media, invariably described as ‘controversial’, a ‘firebrand’, ‘egotistical’. But Chavez’s passion and anti-US rhetoric were reasonably motivated– the USA supported a coup attempt against him in 2002, a coup only stopped when millions of Venezuelans took to the streets to demand their elected President back. It worked, and the revolutionary leaders humiliatingly backed down. Had the coup succeeded, the ‘Pink Tide’ of Latin America would have crumbled and the region returned to the disastrous policies of the neoliberal era.
His death, of course, was not unexpected. A rally last week of more than 100,000 supporters, many carrying banners declaring “We are Chávez”, accepted his fate. But ‘we are Chavez’ represents a popular feeling among the majority of the country’s 19 million voters (81% of whom voted last Autumn) – that Chavismo is more than one individual.
Venezuela’s ‘threat of a good example’ will survive. His last tweet, ‘¡Hasta la victoria siempre! ¡Viviremos y venceremos!’ (Ever onward to victory! We will live and overcome!) has become one of the most popular in history, and his memory will live on beyond the grave-dancing across the obituary pages of our newspapers. Chavez will be remembered as an inspirational leader around the world for those who continue to look for an alternative to austerity. Chavismo without Chavez will indeed ‘live and overcome’. It is up to the Venezuelan people to lead the way.
You’re glorifying a murderer and oppressor. A human rights abuser of the lowest order. What’s wrong with you?
@Nev – You fail to mention how he has radically changed the distribution of wealth in Venezuela, prompting greater equality.
You fail to mention how he has turned Venezuela into a dominant South American Country.
The Venezuelan public mourn his passing as his policies have a set a new precedence in ridding corruption and going against the traditional western neo-liberal methods of economic prosperity. This does not make him a murderer and oppressor.
Don’t believe everything the media shoves down your throat.
He’s a member of the Green Party, says it all really.
Thank god he’s dead.
Chavez might have been oppressive but at least he wasn’t a lapdog for the US.
Obama and the so-called “free world” leaders have murdered far more innocent people than Chavez did. But I don’t expect state-worshipping Labour and Conservative diehards to know any better.
By the way Curtis — it’s people like you who give UKIP a bad name. You go round calling yourself libertarian and pro-freedom yet you love the state. What an embarrassment you are.
What says it all, Curtis, is that you are celebrating and glorifying the tragic death of a 4-times elected leader, of what was once one of the most unequal, undemocratic and impoverished countries in Latin America, and is now one of the most equal, least impoverished and most flourishing democracies in the region.
There are over 100 newspapers in Venezeula – nearly all anti-Chavez. There are hundreds of private TV stations, which control over 90% of total viewing figures – nearly all anti-Chavez. The opposition parties frequently hold strong and free public rallies. Elections are vigorously contested, with the Carter Center (headed by ex-US President Jimmy Carter) describing them as some of the ‘best in the world’.
You fear any alternative to the discredited economic policies of the past 30 years which you and your party, UKIP, support. And rightly, because eventually the era of neoliberalism will come to an end, and you’ll be left stranded while a socially just economic model replaces the free-market dogma which has so clearly failed the world.
In honour of the death of my friend Hugo Chavez, I have decided to get his initials engraved on my taps.
Guys you know its possible for him to have done good and bad things. He doesn’t have to be a Saint or the Devil. He did do a lot of good things for the poor such as spreading healthcare, education and decreasing inequality. On the other hand he allowed corruption and crime to flourish, repressed the media and political opposition and overrode a referendum when he didn’t like the result.
Regardless he had a family and people who loved him. No-one should be celebrating his death
This article needs greater attention to details 1) The neoliberal agenda started with the “Plan de ajustes macroeconomicos”, known as “el paquetazo” of 1989 so he could not start his bolivarian movement to fight neoliberalism. 2) The same applies for the so called Washington consensus. Sorry if the narrative supporting Chavez does not fit with the dates.
Regarding poverty, where does that figure come from? People living under 1 dollar? people living below the poverty line? People living below the socially accepted standards (multidimensional poverty)? The first measure does not make sense in Venezuela. The second goes up and down according the price of oil (which increased more than 10 times in the period, and oil represent 95% of the exports of the country). The third is the one that makes sense in Vzla. (For example, overcrowding houses, lack of access to running water, access to basic education to the adults, and so for….measured with that indicator, poverty has not diminished in Venezuela. And using poverty line, go an d read the Economist, they give you the proper official figures and compare them with other South American countries, which achieved the same, talking less gibberish, respecting the constitution, and with no hate speech.
Why don’t you (or someone from the university) get in touch with the student unions of the academic universities in Venezuela (in Caracas USB, Universidad Simon Bolivar, the UCV Universidad Central de Venezuela, and UCAB Universidad Catolica Andres Bello) they are the ones getting killed, gassed and burned…Please stop receiving people sent by the Venezuelan government or tourist revolutionaries on their way back.
Remember that the political judgement in this matter is very serious: more than 155,000 people have been killed in Venezuela in this 14 years, while the war in Iraq 166,000.
I’m not going to pretend to know a huge deal about Chavez and Venezuala, but I do find it odd how the York Greens appear to be advocating an ‘alternative’ to neoliberalism that is based almost entirely on oil production.
Of course, one could argue that the way Chavez has used such wealth is preferable to the way a freer-market would have, but when you see that other countries in the region without such oil wealth have made similar advances in terms of reducing poverty (e.g http://www.indexmundi.com/facts/indicators/SI.POV.GAP2/compare#country=ar:cl:co:mx:pe:ve), you have to wonder whether Venezuala should have made even more progress.
Oh, I should’ve just directed you to this article, which makes the same point:
http://www.yorkvision.co.uk/comment/chavezs-double-legacy-for-a-divided-country-and-the-western-left-wing-observer/