Where Is Venezuela Going?

The headline of this IHT article is misleading: Letter from Venezuela: Beyond fiery rhetoric, Chávismo is pragmatic. I expected a more nuanced discussion of Chávez than we're accustomed to seeing in the US. But, alas, it's mostly the usual simplistic story of the anti-American caudillo.

...Some here say Chávez's ideological shift is largely cosmetic, a continuation of the socialist rhetoric that intensified after his brief ouster in a 2002 coup carried out with the support of the Bush administration. They point to the pragmatism of compensating owners of nationalized companies and covering the foreign debt of oil-exploration ventures coming under state control.

But there are those who see Chávez's socialist ramblings more darkly. After hearing him resuscitate Che Guevara's idea of forging socialism through the creation of a "new man," the historian Manuel Caballero caused a stir recently by saying that a large part of the electorate voted for Chávez "because it wanted a dictatorship."

The recent congressional granting of rule-by-decree to Chávez for the next 18 months bodes ill for those worried about Chávez gaining dictatorial powers. Why, for instance, is rule by decree necessary when - since the opposition boycott of elections in late 2005 - the congress is now entirely comprised of chavistas?

There are a few things worth recommending the article, however, but it requires reading between the lines.

See, on a Fulbright and chaired lectureship in Venezuela in 2005, I noticed that the chavistas - as well as the more reasonable people in the opposition - are genuinely searching for good ideas about where to take the country. The way chavistas talked about "socialismo," it seemed to me, was as a marker used to indicate a set of problems rather than as a fully articulated political-ideological solution. I gave a series of lectures on democracy, globalization, civic society institutions, philosophical pragmatism, and ecology and environmental policy. I found everywhere, among chavistas and opposition thinkers alike, academics and policymakers and ordinary folk, a serious and critical attentiveness to what I had to say (in fact, the only outright rejection - and it was fiery rejection - I encountered was from opposition members at one of my talks. I'll tell you this story one day; it's rather funny). Even talking to taxi drivers, asking them about Chávez's Venezuela, would bring an intelligent and learned response - and when it came time for me to say how I saw things from my limited outsider's perspective and what I thought might be interesting solutions, they would grow quiet and absorb every word. This is not about me and what I have to say, which is simply a drop in the bucket; it's about Venezuelans and how they're thinking about their future.

In other words, despite the wild rhetoric wielded like sabers, which serves as a red herring for most outsiders and how they paint Venezuelan politics, the country is seeking effective solutions to serious problems that have long been neglected. The problems are multiple, but the central issue is the massive poverty rate (about 50% prior to Chávez's first election), what that means in terms of everyday life, and the gaping schism between the rich and the poor in Venezuela. It also includes a rejection of foreign meddling in domestic affairs, the anti-imperialism of chavista rhetoric. These key issues are central to understanding Latin American politics in general. Chávez, to his great credit, has given these problems center stage, has constantly told the poor that they are part of the solution, providing them with the resources and programs to gain their own autonomy (community-run schools, clinics, food programs, gardens, skills programs, small businesses, etc.), and has drawn the immense national wealth back into the hands of the nation to be used for the public good rather than to enrich an elite, many of whom didn't reside in Venezuela anyway. Clearly, this process might raise other issues, such as the much publicized problems of dwindling foreign investment and economic diversification, but the chavistas think that you have to raise a country out of poverty and previous efforts at attracting greater foreign investment and economic diversification only exacerbated the poverty.

The rubric for these programs is "socialismo" (the chavista slogan is, "socialism, Catholicism, and participatory democracy"). This is because capitalism or economic liberalization as generally practiced in a globalizing world is perceived as a patent failure in providing a good model for the development of healthy societies. This is not only a Venezuelan perception; it is global among the citizens of poor countries and some wealthy countries alike. Given inherited dualisms of politics and economics, Venezuela thus turns back to "socialismo." But what is crucial in understanding Venezuela is that, as I mentioned above, "socialismo" is a marker. It is a marker for a set of problems rather than a solution, in the first instance, but it is also a marker for what I think is a moribund distinction between political-economic programs. So, on one hand, "socialismo" is a rejection of economics and politics as usual, although it is curious that government people I spoke with said that they are not anti-capitalism. On the other hand, it inarticulately entails a search for a better, more inclusive society. As I've mentioned before, I often asked chavistas whether they thought a Latin American version of Norway might be a good model. They always said yes, precisely. If this could be called something other than "socialismo," so be it. In fact, I think Chávez would be better off calling the chavista program something else. It doesn't reflect that actual search for solutions to intransigent problems.

This must all be understood to have any intelligent and non-reactionary grasp on what's occurring in Venezuela and Latin America more generally. This is also why I'm hopeful for level-headed problem-solving dialogue on just what evolving ideals Venezuela and other developing nations seek to articulate so that they might make a difference in practice. These are countries reflecting on the future and, rather than reject this due to our own biases against certain rhetorical forms, we ought to engage in the quest with them. After all, we folks in developed nations aren't sure where we're going either.