Hugo Chavez: A Leader Who Challenged
Neo-Liberalism and Washington
Sumanasiri Liyanage
Although his death did not come as a surprise, it generated
a feeling of innumerable loss, a loss not for only for the poor, marginalized
and progressive people in Venezuela but also for the toiling masses all over
the world. In the heyday of neo-liberalism, he attacked it and went against it.
When people were scared of the US and its aggression against people in Iraq and
Afghanistan, he singlehandedly challenged Washington. He was not afraid of
defeat and when he felt the warning sign, he became offensive and fought back.
He was determined that he would not allow the US imperialists to redo Chile in
Venezuela in the 21st Century. In spite of the allegations made by
organizations like Human Rights Watch financed by corrupt financiers, he
created a new kind of democracy and gave democracy a new meaning. His
Bolivarian experiment has generated a glimmer of hope to the poor people in the
world. As Tariq Ali correctly characterized him, ‘he was one of the political
giants of the post-communist era’.
As soon as the death of the president was known, people began
to gather in the Bolivar squares in the centre of cities and towns across the
country. They marched towards the Miraflores presidential palace, shouting
slogans of defiance, “the people united will never be defeated”, “they shall
not be back” and “the struggle continues”. Bolivarian experiment that Hugo
Chavez began in 1999 has changed significantly the social, economic and
political landscape in Venezuela. The neoliberal policies that Pinochet brutally pioneered in
Chile in the 1970s after killing duly elected President Salvador Allende were
rolled out across the Latin American continent and in many third world
countries from the early 1980s onwards. Venezuelan President Carlos Andrez
Perez introduced the WB-IMF backed ‘Great Turn’ based on Washington Consensus
at the end of the 1980s. Between 1981 and 1997 the richest 10% of Venezuelans
saw their share of national income grow from 22 to 33%. Poverty, inequality and
unemployment had increased. The Venezuelan poor responded to the neo-liberal turn
with occupations, mass protests and riots popularly known as the Caracazo. It
was in this context that Charvez was for the first time democratically elected
in 1998. In 2002 he was thrown out by a coup orchestrated by the generals,
church leaders and big business and backed by the US. However, Venezuelan
people, unlike the Chilean people in 1971, surrounded Miraflores
presidential palace and forced the coup leaders to step down once again paying
the way for Chavez to come to power. Democracy in the street as well in the
polling booth showed that people wanted a change, social transformation, and
power to the people. Chavez thus won all the elections he faced despite the
fact that many opinion polls manipulated by media conglomerates showed that his
opponents had a better chance to defeat him at the elections.
Social Change
After 2002 coup attempt against his regime, Chavez
introduced a radical program of economic change. The rise of oil price
contributed him in implementing this program that delivered big improvements to the
Venezuelan poor. Housing schemes, subsidized food programs, new medical centers
and a literacy program, all organized through popular ‘missions’, made a huge
impact on the life of millions of people. Nearly half of the population has
regularly received cheap food supplies from the state. As a result poverty has
reduced significantly in the last 14 years of Chavez’s rule. Living standard of
poor and marginalized people has increased. Popular control has improved
through setting up of neighborhood committees and popular control. Austerity
and belt-tightening for poor were not in Chavez’s agenda.
All
these gains notwithstanding, Chavez refused to use over-inflated phrases to
depict his social program. His position, viewpoint and perspective are
portrayed best in the following words of Tariq Ali recalling his meeting with
Chavez:
‘The
following year in Caracas I questioned him further on the Bolívarian project.
What could be accomplished? He was very clear; much more so than some of his
over-enthusiastic supporters: ''I don't believe in the dogmatic postulates of
Marxist revolution. I don't accept that we are living in a period of
proletarian revolutions. All that must be revised. Reality is telling us that
every day. Are we aiming in Venezuela today for the abolition of private
property or a classless society? I don't think so. But if I'm told that because
of that reality you can't do anything to help the poor, the people who have
made this country rich through their labor – and never forget that some of it
was slave labor – then I say: 'We part company.' I will never accept that there
can be no redistribution of wealth in society. Our upper classes don't even
like paying taxes. That's one reason they hate me. We said: 'You must pay your
taxes.' I believe it's better to die in battle, rather than hold aloft a very
revolutionary and very pure banner, and do nothing … That position often
strikes me as very convenient, a good excuse … Try and make your revolution, go
into combat, advance a little, even if it's only a millimeter, in the right
direction, instead of dreaming about utopias."
Foreign Policy
It is interesting to note that Chavez’s
foreign policy was consistent with his domestic policies and was based on the
same principles. He knew very well that the local big business, media giants
and his political opponents were not working in isolation. He observed that
they were backed and discreetly supported by the US imperialism. In my view,
there were two principal pillars in his foreign policy, namely (1)
unconditional opposition to US imperialism and aggression; (2) the formation
and strengthening of the united front of Latin American countries. He
characterized the US as No 1 enemy of the poor and marginalized people in the
world. It was not a secret for him that the so-called campaigns for democracy
and human rights had been now reduced into techniques of governmentality
deployed by the US imperialists and their lackeys. This perspective led to
understand the complexity of the new situation in the Arab World. Hence Chavez
opposed the US intervention in toto wherever and whenever it was in action. When
Obama responding to Chavez’s death informed that the US can now have new kind
of engagement with Venezuela, he tried to single out Chavez from the movement
he built since 1994. The US imperialists might have thought that the main
obstacle for their aggressive policy in Lain and Central America was now
removed.
The
great women and men cannot be easily replaced. Hugo Chavez was one of the
greatest leaders of the 21st Century. The process he initiated in
unleashing in Venezuela may not be easy to be turned back. His demise may
create a vacuum and ebb in the process. However, his movement brought people
into continuous and constant action and intervention. So the specter of Chavez
will be alive in future. As Tariq Ali wrote Chavez was an admirable leader. “At a time when the world had fallen silent, when
centre-left and centre-right had to struggle hard to find some differences and
their politicians had become desiccated machine men obsessed with making money,
Chávez lit up the political landscape.”
The writer is a co-coordinator of Marx School, Colombo, Kandy
and Negombo
Comments
Post a Comment