London – With the news of Hugo Chávez’s passing flooding the world’s media, his life and legacy will be the subject of many debates. Having blogged about Venezuela since 2002, I thought I could share my views. Hugo Chávez was not just some benign guy with his heart in the right place; he failed to overcome what I’ll call “Venezuelaness,” which reflects a populace with a rather anarchic view and a general contempt for the rule of law, order, and authority.
To me, after 14 years in power, Chávez has been a resounding and absolute failure. A disaster for a semi-dysfunctional democracy. A Frankenstein of a political duopoly that didn’t know how to develop. I could bore readers with statistics about the economy, crime, prison deaths, human rights violations, etc., but I won’t. The legacy of Chávez, which 29 million of us will have to grapple with for generations to come, is one of hate. Hate that simply wasn’t there before. Hate that was incited, as state policy, from the highest office. Hate among Venezuelans that hadn’t been seen or experienced since the independence war, when Bolívar and Boves fought to the death.
Everything else is irrelevant, mere side shows. It’s inaccurate to say, as many do now, that Chávez brought healthcare to the poor, just as it is to claim that he nationalized oil. It’s unsustainable to argue that Venezuela is a “literacy-free” territory. It’s absurd to praise community groups in neighborhoods as signs of enlightened democratic empowerment of the marginalized when minority rights, in this case the opposition, are systematically trampled as a matter of state policy. Don’t take my word for it; just choose any report from the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Amnesty International, HRW, the EU, or even the ILO. It’s extremely ignorant to claim that just because Chávez won many elections, and because there’s a lack of evidence of electoral fraud, elections in Venezuela are free and fair.
Chávez, as Gabriel García Márquez once wisely said, was a man who had the chance to change our country for the better but chose instead to gallop like the twisted and resentful megalomaniac he was in the completely opposite direction. And after 14 years and the largest revenue our petro state has ever seen, Ronald Reagan’s haunting question becomes very relevant: Are Venezuelans better off today than they were 14 years ago? The answer is absolutely not. There is more crime, more violence, hardly any institution capable of delivering justice, and no places to seek redress. There are fewer businesses, making it much harder to find work. The country’s infrastructure is crumbling, the state is deeply in debt, our currency is worth less, inflation is out of control, and the country dangerously relies on imports as local businesses have been virtually wiped out. There are thousands of Cubans in strategic positions, drug trafficking has infiltrated the upper echelons of military power, and under Chávez, our country has broken relations with all democratic and advanced states while forging ties with pariah states and leaders, costing us billions. In short, for every positive thing Chávez did, there are dozens of negative actions that leave us in the red. If Chávez hadn’t taken over PDVSA, it would be producing over 3.3 million barrels per day with around 40,000 employees. Instead, it is producing less than 2.5 million barrels – even importing gasoline to meet local demand – with its workforce ballooning to over 100,000 employees, leading to less money to get out of the hole.
Hugo Chávez with his friend Bashar al-Assad
Our country was never a model of democracy, but compared to other Latin American nations ravaged by continuous military coups in the second half of the 20th century, it was an example. Our nation, let me remind you, was central to the suspension by the OAS of both the extreme-right dictatorship of Trujillo and the extreme-left one of Fidel Castro. Our diplomats were key in liberating political prisoners from Pinochet’s Chile. Our nation was a net recipient of immigrants, not just those fleeing World War II, but also those escaping the brutal dictatorships in the region. Who is emigrating to Venezuela today? Who is starting businesses and risking it all now? I’ll tell you who: thugs from Iran, Zimbabwe, Libya, Sudan, Bolivia, Colombia, Nicaragua, communist Cuba, Russia, and China, that’s who. For instance, our country welcomed a group of Basque terrorists after an agreement between Carlos Andrés Pérez and Spanish President Felipe González, who were monitored and controlled for years. They now hold top positions, protected by the chavista regime and have even been naturalized. The United States spends billions helping Colombia fight FARC’s narcoterrorism, while Chávez used to give them money, shelter, and support. That’s what our country has become, a paradise for mobsters. In the words of former Venezuelan UN ambassador Diego Arria, Chávez early on placed a large neon sign saying: Venezuela is open for business, all criminals are welcome.
No hyperbole from Barrio Adentro is going to mask the misery caused by chavismo. Likewise, no matter how much the farce of “private rights empowerment” is peddled, it won’t change the fact that within chavismo, democracy is simply nonexistent. It was Chávez who decided all relevant matters. It was Chávez who appointed, recycled, empowered, and demoted. No one else. Not even “the people.” The fact that his movement didn’t produce a single representative capable of taking up his mantle is the greatest testimony of the failure of the cult of personality surrounding chavismo.
So, returning to Chávez’s legacy, I know what it will be. My poor compatriots will likely feel that Chávez spoke for them, felt for them, and tried to improve their fortunes. They will surely say that only Chávez treated them as equals and wanted to give them, rightfully, their place in our society. But that won’t make the legacy any less negative. Delegating dignity to the poor goes against supporting the FARC, the Colombian narcoterrorist organization. Populist poverty relief programs will face the near-collapse of infrastructure, a decline in industrial capacity, and increased indebtedness. Chávez’s characteristic anti-American rhetoric will stand in stark contrast to the fact that he maintained a de facto free trade agreement with the U.S. throughout his government. All the speeches against capitalism as the root of all evil will clash with stories of the boliburguesía, a class of thugs reminiscent of Russia’s oligarchs who became excessively wealthy through the rampant corruption of Hugo Chávez and his regime’s officials. Everything said about socialism will fade against its militarism and arms acquisitions. All the talk of “humanitarian intentions” runs counter to a prison system ruled by prisoners from within and judicial cases like that of María Afiuni. All that talk about sovereignty and independence, after what has transpired in Havana, well, that will be indefensible.
After the news of Chávez’s death passes, and international attention shifts to other matters, we will have to pick up the pieces and try to repair our devastated nation. The chapter on Hugo Chávez in history won’t be written by foreign correspondents and assorted apologists, but by Venezuelans, and after all has been said and done, I predict it will become an example of what not to do, a misstep, a resentful coup plotter who should never have been allowed near power. Losers never write history, and Chávez, without anyone’s help, lost perhaps our country’s greatest opportunity for development.