Page 1 of 1 pages
As usual, Ellner’s analysis of what is going on in Venezuela casually dismisses any and all criticism of Chavez’s painfully obvious authoritarianism as being nothing more than opposition propaganda.
But the fact is that many on the Venezuelan left have also issued strong criticisms of Chavez’s governing style, constant power plays, and transparently anti-democratic maneuvering.
For the left to gain greater credibility - and deepen our own understanding of contemporary politics- we need to move beyond the kind of simple -minded apologetics that Ellner offers time and time again.
It should be possible to support the general thrust of Chavez’s economic policies, acknowledge that he hasn’t totally undermined Venezuela’s fragile democracy, while also being able to see what any casual observer would be hard pressed not to see - that Chavez is a demagogue who has strong authoritarian tendencies.
Ken Brociner
Posted by kenbrociner on Dec 28, 2008 at 10:12 PM
I took Steve Ellner’s account to be a necessary corrective to the mainstream news accounts that have portrayed the recent elections almost exclusively as a defeat, when in fact the results are mixed.
Perhaps I’m assuming to much, but I take Brociner’s comments to mean that on whole he thinks Chavez has undermined rather than strengthened Venezuelan democracy. While I think that it’s fair to criticize the personalist and macho character of his leadership, or to debate the wisdom of changing the constitution, I think on balance Venezuela is a more democratic place today because, in part, of Chavez’s leadership. I also think that it would be more democratic if Chavez adhered more to the “participatory” and “protagonistic” spirit of the Bolivarian constitution. I did not think Ellner was dismissing criticism of Chavez as merely an opposition ploy. I do think Venezuelan democracy would be healthier if there were more democratic debate and criticism in chavismo itself, and the lack of it must be attributed in some important measure to Chavez himself.
Could we avoid comments, such as “simple -minded apologetics that Ellner offers time and time again” (which should apply to replies to Brociner as well), and stick to debating the issues.
Posted by hellindc on Dec 29, 2008 at 11:07 AM
Ken Brociner calls Chavez an authoritarian, yet Chavez has both been elected and won constitutional affirmation probably more than any other candidate in Latin America. Indeed, what he seeks with the upcoming referendum is the right to face the voters again. What kind of an authoritarian is that?
Let’s recall that the Republicans imposed term limits on the United States because they were unable to defeat FDR at the ballot box.
Having read Ellner’s work for years, he’s hardly an apologist for Chavez, whose actions Ellner has critically assessed more than once. Thanks for providing Ellner with a platform.
Chavez is trying to bring about substantial radical political change through a parliamentary democratic system. That’s a rather infrequently-chosen route to social change. It should be applauded rather than bad-mouthed, in my opinion.
Posted by walterlx on Dec 29, 2008 at 2:16 PM
One would hope that someone who writes opinion articles keeps minimum standards of debate. Unfortunately, Mr. Brociner does not. More to the point, while Mr. Ellner gives us a well balanced view of Venezuela’s current political affairs (there is both praise and criticism in his article regarding Chavez and Chavismo) with clearly stated verifiable facts, Mr. Brociner uses similar generalizing opinion strategies as the Venezuelan oposition does for the most part in the media such as ‘expert political analysts say…, well known economists critizise…, etc..
For instance, who are the ‘many on the Venezuelan left’ referred to by Mr. Brociner?, perhaps those who abandoned leftist political views held for years in Venezuelan Politics, including armed insurgency but who now hold rightist polititcal views?. On the other hand, is there a political leader or president anywhere in the world who does not receive criticism from people who profess the same ideology?.
Additionally, when Mr. Brociner writes ’ Chavez
Posted by Nando on Dec 30, 2008 at 9:05 AM
First let me apologize for taking so long to reply to the thoughtful comments above.
Hellendic: Perhaps my tone was a bit too harsh. But I really believe that accusing Steve Ellner of employing simple minded apologetics is an accurate description of the stance he repeatedly takes towards Hugo Chavez.
You yourself listed a number of concrete examples of what I would call
Posted by kenbrociner on Jan 6, 2009 at 7:50 PM
Having read Ellner
Posted by Glen Turner on Jan 11, 2009 at 1:37 PM
Ken Brociner
Posted by Steve Ellner on Jan 12, 2009 at 7:17 AM
That Steve Ellner has “developed a reputation for presenting a critical analysis of Chavez’s rule in all its dimensions” seems to me to be a rather dubious claim. But assuming this to be the case, one can only wonder why he left out any meaningful criticism of Chavez in his current article in ITT as well as in his lengthy article that appeared in ITT in 2007.
If a journalist writes two such long articles about Venezuela and Chavez without including a single serious reference to Chavez’s authoritarian style of governance, then in my book, he clearly fits the bill of being “an apologist.”
Secondly, it is quite striking that even in his comments here, Ellner only addresses the problem of decision making within the Chavista movement. He doesn’t have a single word to say about any of the charges that groups like Human Right Watch and others have made against some of Chavez’s repressive policies in Venezuelan society as a whole - charges that are spelled out in some detail in the article by Leo Casey that appeared a few years ago in Dissent magazine (see the URL in my comment above).
As I indicated above, I am willing to accept - for arguments sake- that some of what Casey reported may have been exaggerated or perhaps even inaccurate. But the overall picture he presents - with the many documented accusations of heavy - handed acts of repression he lists - should leave progressives concerned - to say the least.
I would invite Ellner to address each of these points and would then leave it up to readers to judge if he is an apologist or not.
Posted by kenbrociner on Jan 14, 2009 at 4:53 PM
Ken Brociner
Posted by Ron Damiani on Jan 16, 2009 at 8:44 PM
Any reasonable person who follows world events may fairly recognize Chavez as a demagogue. This doesn
Posted by rseliger on Jan 17, 2009 at 10:23 AM
I would challenge Ron Damiani to indicate where -in either of the last two articles that Ellner has written for ITT - he even comes close to pointing out Chavez’s authoritarian style of governance and/or the numerous violations of human rights that have been documented by Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and the International Labor Organization (among many other such groups).
As for my column - “What Progressives Can Learn From Obama” - to say, as Damiani does, that I called on the left “to treat conservatives with kid gloves” is a complete distortion of what I actually wrote. At the same time that I urged progressives to avoid mean-spirited, personal attacks on our adversaries, I also said we should be “vigorously critiquing ideologies, policies, priorities and values that we disagree with.” Apparently Damiani doesn’t understand the meaning of “vigorously.”
Posted by kenbrociner on Jan 17, 2009 at 1:30 PM
Hugo Chávez has obviously created fundamental changes in Venezuelan society. Just as clearly, from a progressive democratic point of view, some have been positive and some not. On the negative side have been human rights issues.
I find Human Rights Watch to be careful and credible in their analysis. On September 18, 2008, they issued a 230 page report, “A Decade Under Chávez: Political Intolerance and Lost Opportunities for Advancing Human Rights in Venezuela.” It is worth reading.
While recognizing that prior to 1998 Venezuela s political system was “largely discredited,” and that human rights problems ran wide and deep, HRW finds that during the rule of Chávez, particularly after the 2002 coup attempt, the government’s policies have “degraded the country’s democracy” in the areas of labor, the courts, and the media, and in terms of political discrimination and hostility toward human rights advocates. Their overall conclusion: “Ten years ago, Chávez promoted a new constitution that could have significantly improved human rights in Venezuela. But rather than advancing rights protections, his government has since moved in the opposite direction, sacrificing basic guarantees in pursuit of its own political agenda.”
The night the report was released, the staff members of HRW went back to their hotel and found twenty security agents waiting for them, to inform them that they were being expelled from the country.
Posted by KenThomson on Jan 17, 2009 at 2:18 PM
I just came across Steve Ellner
Posted by rbueno on Jan 18, 2009 at 7:16 PM
On the issue of human rights: There is no excuses whatsoever for the treatment of the HW team, and it reinforces, to some degree, the criticism of the regime. But it is not the complete record.
Also, over 100 academics, including former presidents of the Latin American Studies Assocation, issued a strong critique of the HW report. You can read it, along with a response from HW and a counterpoint from the critics, at www.venezuelanalysis.com.
(And let the record show that before Chavez said anything inflammatory about Obama, he launched a confrontational and inflammatory round of bombast against Chavez. How about some criticism there?)
Disclaimer: I’m a friend and co-author of Ellner. I should have mentioned that in my earlier posts. Apologies to readers.
Dan Hellinger
Posted by hellindc on Jan 19, 2009 at 8:05 AM
Page 1 of 1 pages
SAVE 53% OFFTHE NEWSSTAND PRICE!
Reader Comments
As usual, Ellner’s analysis of what is going on in Venezuela casually dismisses any and all criticism of Chavez’s painfully obvious authoritarianism as being nothing more than opposition propaganda.
But the fact is that many on the Venezuelan left have also issued strong criticisms of Chavez’s governing style, constant power plays, and transparently anti-democratic maneuvering.
For the left to gain greater credibility - and deepen our own understanding of contemporary politics- we need to move beyond the kind of simple -minded apologetics that Ellner offers time and time again.
It should be possible to support the general thrust of Chavez’s economic policies, acknowledge that he hasn’t totally undermined Venezuela’s fragile democracy, while also being able to see what any casual observer would be hard pressed not to see - that Chavez is a demagogue who has strong authoritarian tendencies.
Ken Brociner
I took Steve Ellner’s account to be a necessary corrective to the mainstream news accounts that have portrayed the recent elections almost exclusively as a defeat, when in fact the results are mixed.
Perhaps I’m assuming to much, but I take Brociner’s comments to mean that on whole he thinks Chavez has undermined rather than strengthened Venezuelan democracy. While I think that it’s fair to criticize the personalist and macho character of his leadership, or to debate the wisdom of changing the constitution, I think on balance Venezuela is a more democratic place today because, in part, of Chavez’s leadership. I also think that it would be more democratic if Chavez adhered more to the “participatory” and “protagonistic” spirit of the Bolivarian constitution. I did not think Ellner was dismissing criticism of Chavez as merely an opposition ploy. I do think Venezuelan democracy would be healthier if there were more democratic debate and criticism in chavismo itself, and the lack of it must be attributed in some important measure to Chavez himself.
Could we avoid comments, such as “simple -minded apologetics that Ellner offers time and time again” (which should apply to replies to Brociner as well), and stick to debating the issues.
Ken Brociner calls Chavez an authoritarian, yet Chavez has both been elected and won constitutional affirmation probably more than any other candidate in Latin America. Indeed, what he seeks with the upcoming referendum is the right to face the voters again. What kind of an authoritarian is that?
Let’s recall that the Republicans imposed term limits on the United States because they were unable to defeat FDR at the ballot box.
Having read Ellner’s work for years, he’s hardly an apologist for Chavez, whose actions Ellner has critically assessed more than once. Thanks for providing Ellner with a platform.
Chavez is trying to bring about substantial radical political change through a parliamentary democratic system. That’s a rather infrequently-chosen route to social change. It should be applauded rather than bad-mouthed, in my opinion.
One would hope that someone who writes opinion articles keeps minimum standards of debate. Unfortunately, Mr. Brociner does not. More to the point, while Mr. Ellner gives us a well balanced view of Venezuela’s current political affairs (there is both praise and criticism in his article regarding Chavez and Chavismo) with clearly stated verifiable facts, Mr. Brociner uses similar generalizing opinion strategies as the Venezuelan oposition does for the most part in the media such as ‘expert political analysts say…, well known economists critizise…, etc..
For instance, who are the ‘many on the Venezuelan left’ referred to by Mr. Brociner?, perhaps those who abandoned leftist political views held for years in Venezuelan Politics, including armed insurgency but who now hold rightist polititcal views?. On the other hand, is there a political leader or president anywhere in the world who does not receive criticism from people who profess the same ideology?.
Additionally, when Mr. Brociner writes ’ Chavez
First let me apologize for taking so long to reply to the thoughtful comments above.
Hellendic: Perhaps my tone was a bit too harsh. But I really believe that accusing Steve Ellner of employing simple minded apologetics is an accurate description of the stance he repeatedly takes towards Hugo Chavez.
You yourself listed a number of concrete examples of what I would call
Having read Ellner
Ken Brociner
That Steve Ellner has “developed a reputation for presenting a critical analysis of Chavez’s rule in all its dimensions” seems to me to be a rather dubious claim. But assuming this to be the case, one can only wonder why he left out any meaningful criticism of Chavez in his current article in ITT as well as in his lengthy article that appeared in ITT in 2007.
If a journalist writes two such long articles about Venezuela and Chavez without including a single serious reference to Chavez’s authoritarian style of governance, then in my book, he clearly fits the bill of being “an apologist.”
Secondly, it is quite striking that even in his comments here, Ellner only addresses the problem of decision making within the Chavista movement. He doesn’t have a single word to say about any of the charges that groups like Human Right Watch and others have made against some of Chavez’s repressive policies in Venezuelan society as a whole - charges that are spelled out in some detail in the article by Leo Casey that appeared a few years ago in Dissent magazine (see the URL in my comment above).
As I indicated above, I am willing to accept - for arguments sake- that some of what Casey reported may have been exaggerated or perhaps even inaccurate. But the overall picture he presents - with the many documented accusations of heavy - handed acts of repression he lists - should leave progressives concerned - to say the least.
I would invite Ellner to address each of these points and would then leave it up to readers to judge if he is an apologist or not.
Ken Brociner
Any reasonable person who follows world events may fairly recognize Chavez as a demagogue. This doesn
I would challenge Ron Damiani to indicate where -in either of the last two articles that Ellner has written for ITT - he even comes close to pointing out Chavez’s authoritarian style of governance and/or the numerous violations of human rights that have been documented by Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and the International Labor Organization (among many other such groups).
As for my column - “What Progressives Can Learn From Obama” - to say, as Damiani does, that I called on the left “to treat conservatives with kid gloves” is a complete distortion of what I actually wrote. At the same time that I urged progressives to avoid mean-spirited, personal attacks on our adversaries, I also said we should be “vigorously critiquing ideologies, policies, priorities and values that we disagree with.” Apparently Damiani doesn’t understand the meaning of “vigorously.”
Hugo Chávez has obviously created fundamental changes in Venezuelan society. Just as clearly, from a progressive democratic point of view, some have been positive and some not. On the negative side have been human rights issues.
I find Human Rights Watch to be careful and credible in their analysis. On September 18, 2008, they issued a 230 page report, “A Decade Under Chávez: Political Intolerance and Lost Opportunities for Advancing Human Rights in Venezuela.” It is worth reading.
While recognizing that prior to 1998 Venezuela s political system was “largely discredited,” and that human rights problems ran wide and deep, HRW finds that during the rule of Chávez, particularly after the 2002 coup attempt, the government’s policies have “degraded the country’s democracy” in the areas of labor, the courts, and the media, and in terms of political discrimination and hostility toward human rights advocates. Their overall conclusion: “Ten years ago, Chávez promoted a new constitution that could have significantly improved human rights in Venezuela. But rather than advancing rights protections, his government has since moved in the opposite direction, sacrificing basic guarantees in pursuit of its own political agenda.”
The night the report was released, the staff members of HRW went back to their hotel and found twenty security agents waiting for them, to inform them that they were being expelled from the country.
I just came across Steve Ellner
On the issue of human rights: There is no excuses whatsoever for the treatment of the HW team, and it reinforces, to some degree, the criticism of the regime. But it is not the complete record.
Also, over 100 academics, including former presidents of the Latin American Studies Assocation, issued a strong critique of the HW report. You can read it, along with a response from HW and a counterpoint from the critics, at www.venezuelanalysis.com.
(And let the record show that before Chavez said anything inflammatory about Obama, he launched a confrontational and inflammatory round of bombast against Chavez. How about some criticism there?)
Disclaimer: I’m a friend and co-author of Ellner. I should have mentioned that in my earlier posts. Apologies to readers.
Dan Hellinger
register a new account »Posting Security