|
The question of Col. Chavez and his rule of Venezuela has several distinct components as an issue, and it seems to me wise to seperate these out when people here take stands in this matter.
One element is that of the domestic politics of the United States itself. There remains something of a hang-over among the people of our country from the Cold War, that inclines a great many to a dislike of foreign leftists, as these would have been in those days certainly enough allies sooner or later of the Soviets. The number of people readily moved in this direction is larger than the number readily moved to support of such figures, and therefore it does not bother me much if a Democratic Party politician makes occassional noises of distancing or even denunciation of Col. Chavez: that is how the game is played. The issue really has very little impact on U.S. politics, so it is a cheap way to gain some armor against standard rightist attack lines. Nor does it bother me that a Democrat does not share my views on the matter, but views Col. Chavez with disfavor: my view is that such persons are in their hearts un-reconstructed Cold War sorts, and being myself someone who viewed the Soviets as well worth fighting, this strikes me as perfectly understandable. But it is a fact that the Cold War is over. The rise of a left government, even a radical left government, in some other land is not today an added increment of power and global influence to the Soviet Union. This removes, in my view, any real legitimate interest of the United States in the matter: even if one opposes such governments on principle, the over-riding American principle that people get to hie themselves to Hell by the conveyance and route of their own choice seems to me to supercede in such a matter. Put bluntly, it simply is not our business what political choices other countries make, or what political developments they acquiesce in, providing these do not pose a real threat of violence against our country.
One element is that of whether the rule and programs of Col. Chavez are good for the people of Venezuela or not, or popular with the people of Venezuela or not. It seems to me that the answer is yes on both counts. Venezuela is a country that has long been afflicted with grotesque disparities of wealth, with a great majority of its people mired in circumstances that offer no prospect of anything hard work in life-long poverty. There is no doubt that Col. Chavez has in some small but measureable degree improved the condition of this poverty-mired mass of his country's people. Both diet and education among the poor of Venezuela have improved under his rule, and there is every prospect this will continue. It is abundantly clear that he enjoys the deep allegiance of the greatest proportion of Venezuela's people, by every available measure from the loyalty of conscripts in the armed forces durng an attempted coup against him to the total of votes in his various campaigns for office. Even if one were to accept for purposes of arguement a characterization of him as a dictator, it could still not be denied that he is a very popular dictator, and it is an interesting point for debate whether a genuinely and widely popular dictator is in fact an anti-democratic phenomenon: if one accepts as a base definition of democracy that the will of the majority of the people is the animating element of their government, an excellent case could be made that such a dictator is not an anti-democratic figure, though he might not be the best possible expression of democracy.
One element is the actual state of political and social affairs in Venezuela. There is no doubt that Col. Chavez is a revoutionist, and that the alterations he seeks to make in Venezuela's social and economic life are revolutionary ones. Where-ever there is revolution, there will be counter-revolution, for revolution cannot be made to the of the benefit of some without stripping existing advantage from others, and these latter naturally will resist losing advantages they possess, and owing to these very advantages, they will be well placed to make effective resistance in their own interest. It is, therefore, a mistake to read political events in Venezuela today as if they were about the same thing as, say, a parliamentary election in Europe, or the next Presidential cycle in the United States. They have no more similarity to these things than negotiations by diplomats have to combat on a battlefield. That both the revolutionary and the counter-revolutionaries in Venezuela are conducting themselves in an unusually civil fashion, so that the process has been a largely bloodless one over the past several years, should not blind any observer to the fact that it is indeed a revolutionary struggle, and both sides are pressing it with full awareness that is what it is. Either the revolution will prevail, and the old order be overthrown to be remade into something the mass of Venezuela's disadvantaged desire, or the counter-revolution will prevail, and the old order be re-imposed in a manner removing any potential threat to the priviliges and prerogatives of the small slice of persons that has traditionally held the reins, and reaped the profits, of its economic structure.
"Revolution is not a tea party."
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
