Latin America has a tendency of looking back in history for political inspiration. Perhaps the most obvious current manifestation of this is Venezuela’s Bolivarian Revolution, devised and led by the late Hugo Chavez and continued by the political establishment that he created. Simón Bolivar, whose namesake Chavez celebrated, was Latin America’s own George Washington. He led battles for independence across the continent’s northern half, and attempted to create a federated union of Hispanic-American states that would enshrine the rights of the individual above all. However, the difficulty of reconciling all of the competing interests within Latin America proved too challenging for his liberal leanings, and so the man discarded his original ideals in favor of authoritarian rule over the newly-freed territories. Bolivar would go on to commit many of the abuses he had criticized the Spanish of committing.
Lately, the government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela seems to be struggling with a similar dilemma. Several months into the presidency of Nicolas Maduro, Hugo Chavez’s chosen heir, the prospects of the Revolution are looking grim.
Despite Venezuela’s large oil reserves, its economy is among the worst-performing in the South American continent. Inflation hovers around 45% a year and many staple goods have become perilously scarce – a shortage that most deeply affects poor communities that constitute the Socialists’ main demographic. The fate of country is uncertain, and the chavistas do not seem to have any concrete proposals. Finance Minister Nelson Merentes recently conceded that while Chavez’s social-oriented policies may have improved the living standards of many Venezuelans, they did not solve the structural problems of the economy.
Because many of these issues are entrenched structural problems, Maduro could have found diplomatic ways to respond to them while avoiding an inordinate share of the blame for their effects. However, instead of seeking a pragmatic course, the government has responded to the country’s woes by aggressively blaming everything but itself. According to Maduro, the “fascist” Venezuelan opposition and the U.S. are waging an economic war against his country, with the intention of destabilizing his regime and possibly organizing a coup.
It’s not surprising that the Socialists would blame America for their country’s disastrous economy. American politicians have a history of disrespecting and plotting against chavismo. President Bush tacitly supported the 2003 unsuccessful coup against Chavez, and the Obama administration did not formally acknowledge Maduro’s presidential victory against opposition leader Henrique Capriles.
The problem is that no one believes them anymore. Two-thirds of those surveyed in a recent IVAD poll think the economy is in bad shape, but only 4% believe it is being sabotaged by foreigners.
In order to stem damaging criticism, Maduro has resorted to several dangerously autocratic strategies. The president recently demanded that the judiciary and fiscal branches of government evaluate “special measures” that would grant him extended presidential powers. He would use this extra authority to “punish the written press, television and radio for waging psychological warfare” through their reporting on the country’s lack of food and other basic goods.
Coincidentally, or perhaps not so, this petition for power coincided with Venezuela’s withdrawal from the American Convention on Human Rights.
Leaning towards autocracy even further, the Maduro administration inaugurated a new Strategic Center of Homeland Security and Protection (CESPPA, in its Spanish initials). The new organization will have legal authority to demand information from any state or private entity, which will be forced to oblige. The Center will also have a say in which public information will be restricted and which will remain accessible.
Ironically, President Maduro’s last name is Spanish for ‘mature.” The man lacks the confidence and charisma that made Chavez so popular. He only narrowly won the presidency – mainly due to the weight of his predecessor’s blessing. When faced with difficulty, he resorts to conspiracy theories and name-calling. A recent spat with the U.S. resulted in both countries deporting each other’s diplomats, with Maduro ratcheting up his anti-imperialist rhetoric throughout.
The problem with all this is that Venezuela under Chavez became a guiding light for much of the continent’s leftist movements. The late leader’s focus on pan-Latin solidarity and socially conscious policies provided a light that many thought would lead to a new era of Latin American politics. Now, Maduro’s actions are progressively and unfairly discrediting other, more pragmatic movements within the Latin American left. As his party slowly implodes without Chavez’s unifying presence, power grabs and paranoia are inevitable. Since Venezuela is still a democracy, power is still defined by public opinion. Maduro probably knows that, in such a divided country, the Socialists will probably not maintain majority support for long. And so, just like Bolivar before him, he will progressively relinquish the Revolution’s earlier ideals in order to consolidate power for as long as he can.