Venezuela's elected president wears a red paratrooper's beret
by George Gedda
As political odysseys go, it's hard to match the record of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez: he has been on a year-long roll. Astutely playing on popular discontent with the two parties that had dominated Venezuelan political parties for 40 years, Chavez won a landslide victory in the December 1998 presidential elections.
And just as was he inaugurated in February, oil prices ended a long slump and rebounded sharply, adding substantially to government revenues needed to support Chavez's ambitious social programs. Last July, his supporters won 121 of 128 seats in an election for a constitution-writing Constituent Assembly. No seats went to representatives of either of Venezuela's once-powerful Accion Democratica and COPEI parties; Chavez's political supremacy seemed unchallenged.
Chavez has turned Venezuela's political system upside down by promising to end rampant corruption and to ease the poverty that afflicts the majority population. He has pledged to establish "true democracy" in Venezuela. "We don't want tyranny of any kind," he says. But some believe the former army officer and paratrooper may be intent on establishing a radical military dictatorship.
For decades, few countries were more predictable than Venezuela. It had a seemingly unshakable democratic system. During the 1970s, when 90 percent of Latin America's citizens were living under military rule, Venezuela's military left politics to civilians. It was a country so predictable that the outside world paid scant attention.
That all changed in 1989, when President Carlos Andres Perez introduced economic "shock therapy" as a means of creating the basis for economic growth. It is a process that can cause pain for the less well off. Indeed, price increases decreed for public transportation led to the worst street protests in years. The reforms failed to produce the desired result because of haphazard implementation, and the economic decline continued.
In early February 1992, Chavez and other mid-level army officers led a coup attempt against the Perez government. It was put down by loyalist troops; Chavez was imprisoned. But he emerged with a broad popular following, reinforcing the notion that something was deeply amiss in Venezuela's democracy. Despairing Venezuelans turned out in droves to back him in the 1998 election.
They clearly were eager for change. Their government had lost the capacity to perform even core functions like ensuring public order or providing a minimal social safety net.
Javier Corrales, of Amherst College, says in a newsletter published by Harvard's David Rockefeller Center for Latin American Studies that during the 1990's, "inflation remained indomitable and among the highest in the region, economic growth continued to be volatile and oil-dependent, growth per capita stagnated, unemployment rates surged, and public sector deficits endured despite continuous spending cutbacks."
Corrales says that between 1988 and 1998 real wages dropped by almost two thirds and the number of people living below the poverty line increased from 46 percent to 68 percent of the population.
Moises Naim, a former Venezuelan cabinet minister and now editor of Foreign Policy magazine, says the voter revolt also was a product of government incompetence, including the inability to deal with the destabilizing impact of fluctuating oil prices.
Oil itself has been a detriment to Venezuela, Naim says. "Oil stifles creativity," he says. "It is now well established that countries that are resource-scarce tend to do better."
But questions abound concerning Chavez's commitment to democracy. For a time last summer, the overwhelmingly pro-Chavez Constituent Assembly seemed on the verge of putting the Venezuelan Congress out of business-a move that would have exceeded the Assembly's mandate. A compromise headed off that possibility, but the legislature's days are numbered in any case because the new constitution will be replaced.
Constantine Menges, a National Security Council member under President Reagan, says Chavez has appointed fellow coup plotters to positions of control in the armed forces. He also says Chavez has created "an atmosphere of political intimidation."
John J. Tierney of the Institute of World Politics says in a paper written for the Heritage Foundation, that Venezuela may be heading "toward the kind of strong-man rule that dominated the region in the 1940s and 1950s." Uncertainty about where Chavez plans to take the country has led to a drying up of investment, both foreign and local.
Among the biggest gripes of Venezuelans is the justice system. Three-fourths of Venezuela's inmates have never had their day in court even as high-powered law firms write verdicts themselves and bribe judges to sign them. Most crimes go unpunished. Last year, 573 inmates were killed in prison violence nationwide. Constituent Assembly members said they had unearthed 4,000 formal complaints of wrongdoing against many of the nation's 1,200 judges. In October, an Assembly-appointed commission suspended 122 judges on corruption charges. U.S. officials speak approvingly of Assembly efforts to replace the current, heavily politicized judiciary with one that is genuinely independent.
Chavez has introduced some innovations since taking office; he is using the military to rebuild schools and hospitals. To ease a chronic unempoyment problem, he has launched a $900 million public works program.
As for economic policy, he says he will unveil his proposals in the year 2000-a year in which Chavez and his Polo Patriotico will face electoral tests. After the expected voter approval of a new constitution in December, elections for president, Congress, and local offices will be held, based on new timetables.
Another innovation is that a president can serve two consecutive six-year terms instead of one five-year term.
With his popularity still running high, Chavez seems poised to win big in the early 2000 elections, which also are expected to deliver a large congressional majority for him as well.
In relations with the United States, Chavez had a cordial September meeting with President Clinton in which he promised to adhere to democratic practices. But there have been hints over the years of an anti-American tilt. After the 1992 coup attempt, the United States revoked his visa. Far from seeing it as a heavy price to pay, Chavez said he looked on it as a badge of honor. After his election in 1998, the Clinton administration reinstated his visa. One big disappointment for the administration is Chavez's refusal to allow AWACS flights that track U.S.-bound narcotics to fly over Venezuelan territory.
He obviously has a different view of Cuban President Fidel Castro than does Washington. He boasts a friendship with Castro and the similarities between the two are somewhat eerie.
Both emerged from obscurity with a high-risk armed assault aimed at triggering a popular rebellion-Castro in 1953 and Chavez in 1992.
Castro was imprisoned for his act for just under two years; Chavez served slightly longer for his. Castro seized power 5 1/2 years after his 1953 debut as an insurgent. It took Chavez just under seven. Both see themselves as the salvation of the majority poor population whose interests, they believe, have been overlooked for decades.
Both attach high importance to the delivery of social services to remote areas. Both have a disdain for IMF-driven economic policies. Castro says the Cuban revolution is a result "not of men but of historical forces." Chavez speaks in similar terms. Both are skilled orators. Castro's military uniform has been a staple for 40 years. Chavez is usually seen wearing his red parachutist's beret. Both are coy about the number of children they have. Castro acknowledges the one child he had when he was married in the late 1940's and early 1950's; he has a number of others. Chavez, who is married, admits to having five children but adds: " Who knows how many more I have."
Castro and Chavez have expressed great admiration for one another. When Chavez visited Cuba after his release from prison in 1994, Castro greeted him at the airport. Chavez said it was an honor that he did not deserve but that he hoped to deserve some day. He called Cuba a "bastion of Latin American dignity."
On other issues, Castro has gone much further than Chavez but, at least on some, Chavez appears to be heading in the Cuban leader's direction. In Cuba, all remnants of an independent press were dissolved within two years after the revolution. In Venezuela, the Constituent Assembly wants to require news organizations to publish " truthful and impartial information." If the measure stands, it would inevitably reporting critical of the government.
There are obvious differences between Castro and Chavez. Most importantly, Chavez decided to work within the system after his abortive coup attempt and he achieved power through constitutional means. And, whereas Castro sees capitalism as a "brutal inhumane system," Chavez apparently accepts the need for a strong private sector. He also has promised to continue repayments on Venezuela's $21.1 billion foreign debt. Castro's policy on Cuba's foreign debt, mostly to the former Soviet Union, generally has been to ignore it. Thus far, there is no sign that Chavez shares Castro's visceral anti-Americanism.
Corrales and Naim agree that the jury is still out on where Chavez will lead Venezuela politically. Corrales believes that the Constituent Assembly may endow the presidency with unfettered power but that Chavez, lacking a strong opposition, may see no need to exercise authoritarian control.
Naim believes Chavez has more legitimacy than any of the eight elected presidents who have served since 1959. He adds, "So long as his popularity and oil prices are up, totalitarian propensities are going to be down."
George Gedda is a regular contributor and the Associated Press correspondent at the State Department. He was a Peace Corps volunteer in Venezuela from 1962 to 1964.
