When discussing Hugo Chávez and his influence on Venezuelan politics, it’s often said that the leader he resembled most was the Argentine Juan Domingo Perón. Following the death of this populism champion, Peronism took hold of Argentine political life, overshadowing the immensely popular Evita, who became almost a semi-god in popular culture. Over fifty years later, the country still grapples with the disastrous outcomes of an irresponsible political establishment crafted by Perón. Yet, despite comparisons between Chávez and Perón, on March 5, the Evita of chavismo passed away. So, what’s next?
Chavismo appeared, until recently, as a one-man show, a political movement reliant solely on the whimsical designs of a caudillo, who spent his life scheming against the system and ensured that Evita could never overshadow him once he gained power. Surrounded by incompetent and unhappy yes-men, Chávez’s continuity was ensured through a unique blend of charisma, a deep personal connection with impoverished masses, a laissez-faire attitude towards enormously corrupt collaborators, and above all, an endless stream of money used without restrictions or oversight. Nicolás Maduro, who mainly possesses this last trait, has shown, should he win*, that contrary to conventional wisdom, there is life in chavismo after Chávez. It wasn’t a house of cards.
Henrique Capriles Radonsky, the soon-to-be defeated opposition candidate, had to run his campaign with very little money and couldn’t accept funds from the increasingly diminished private sector, Maduro has the unwavering support of Petróleos de Venezuela (PDVSA), or to put it in numbers, access to a cash cow that brings in – approximately – $250 million daily. With that, charisma and popularity might not be needed.
Capriles opted to launch a confrontational campaign this time. No matter how much his message seems to resonate and energize his supporters, the reality is that no amount of heated rhetoric could undo the vast sums supporting chavismo, whose victory will indicate that a clear majority prefers a government that spends frivolously over one that would put an end to irresponsible populism. This affirms that Hugo Chávez’s way of governing, namely populism, remains the majority’s choice. Between Capriles’ intangible promises and Chávez’s (or his successors’) cash, Venezuelans have little to consider. That reality isn’t going to fade away.
In 1845, an insightful Argentine named Domingo Sarmiento wrote a book describing the struggle between civilization and barbarism (Facundo: Civilization and Barbarism). The history of his country, much like ours, has showcased a conflict between the enlightened yet always flawed notions of nation-building and identity and the caudillo regimes, under which development takes one step forward and ten back. Will Venezuela become the next Argentina? Could a more radical military junta oust the chavismo represented by Maduro? It’s too early to tell. However, it would be safe to predict that as long as chavismo controls the State and its resources, it can present any candidate with the certainty that the continuation of barbarism won’t be impacted. That is a truly discouraging outlook.
*Jesse Chacon runs a polling company called GIS XXI. In last October’s presidential elections, he predicted Chávez would win by 55.1%. The caudillo secured 54.8%. His prediction was closer than any other pollster in Venezuela. Chacón now forecasts Maduro will win with 55.3% and estimates abstention is between 26% and 22%. Chacón has an advantage over all other pollsters in Venezuela: he is a former minister and longtime confidant of Hugo Chávez, and still maintains very close connections with key chavistas.