Chávez Wins Again

• subscribe to print magazine

• stay in touch with our email newsletter

  Subscribe to our regular weekly e-mail newsletter. It's packed with updates on recent and upcoming stories, events, campaigns and things every progressive should be informed about.

   

• email this article to a friend

  Your Name Your Email Recipient Email

  Personal message Thought you might be interested in this article from In These Times.

   

  Please help us prevent spam by verifying the word you see in the image above

  Send to multiple recipients. Just separate each email address with a comma.

• Reader Comments (14)

  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 29, 2008 at 6:12 AM

  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 7:07 PM

  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 10:16 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’s painfully obvious authoritarianism’, does he refer to the fact that no one is jailed as a result of, for instance,  either calling for his overthow (including the recently elected, yes elected, Mayor of Caracas: Antonio Ledezma)  or worse yet calling for his assasination as it once appeared in a small paid add in El Nacional.

  Finally,  in my view, it is everybody’s responsability to make rigorous a and serious contributions to prevent the degradation of public and political debate.

  Nando Troyani

  Posted by Nando on Dec 30, 2008 at 5:05 PM

  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 – even if you would not – Chavez’ authoritarian methods and style. But Ellner – in the articles I have read of his – barely even addresses any of these kinds of critiques of Chavez. Instead he artfully dodges them by criticizing other aspects of Chavez’ government, but never (as far as I have seen) actually criticizing “El Commadante’s” lust for personal power. It may be that Ellner really doesn’t see Chavez as being on a huge power/ego trip. If that is the case, than it seems to me this would be a classic case of willful blindness – a phenomenon that is very closely related (in my opinion) to simple-minded apologetics. The other possibility is that Ellner does see what is almost impossible not to see, but he chooses to fend off any serious criticism of Chavez’ style of governance out a sense of political loyalty to the Venezuelan president.. If that is the case, then my description of Ellner would be even more fitting.

  As for the question of whether Venezuela is more or less democratic than it was before Chavez took power – I would agree with you that it is significantly more democratic especially when you include economic democracy. And Chavez deserves a lot of credit for this. But he has also constantly undermined the both the letter and the law of the institutions that are needed for a healthy political democracy to thrive.- not that these institutions were being fully respected by the governments that preceded Chavez – because they certainly were not.

  Nando:  I would urge you to read this article   http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=220 from Dissent magazine.  Even though it is a few years old, it provides ample evidence that Chavez’ brand of political democracy leaves a hell of a lot to be desired. I am not endorsing every point or accusation that Leo Casey makes here – as I simply do not know enough of the details to be able to do so. But even if some of the charges against Chavez are groundless or unfair, it seems to me that one would be extremely hard pressed to deny that the overall picture that is presented here is quite troubling – to put it mildly.

  Posted by kenbrociner on Jan 7, 2009 at 3:50 AM

  Having read Ellner’s article several times, I don’t think Brociner’s characterization of his writing as “simple-minded apologetics” is accurate. After all, anybody who writes “many Venezuelans…. chafe at some of the concrete results of his (Chavez’s) rule” (a sentence which ITT highlights on the side) can not be considered much of an apologist for Chavez. The same goes for his statement that the government’s failure to face the problem of shortages “does not speak well for the efficiency and administrative capacity of the Chavistas.” Ellner also makes reference to the increasing problem of lack of personal security and corruption among pro-Chavez officials.

  When Brociner talks of Chavez’s “authoritarian methods and style” I agree with regard to style, but not “methods.” After all, Chavez has faced an insurgent opposition which has tried to overthrow him on a number of occasions, and yet Venezuela not only has held a record number of elections during these ten years, but voters have the right of recall. Wouldn’t the U.S. be different today had that right existed during Bush’s second term? Troyani wrote about how members of the opposition have openly called for Chavez’s overthrow and assassination. Obviously Venezuela can not be judged by U.S. standards.

  Glen Turner

  Posted by Glen Turner on Jan 11, 2009 at 9:37 PM

  Ken Brociner’s characterization of me as a Chávez apologist is without substance. Over the years, I have developed a reputation for presenting a critical analysis of Chávez’s rule in all its dimensions. This includes three books in English, as well as dozens of scholarly and journalistic articles in English and Spanish.

  Specifically with regard to the consequences of Chávez’s immense power, I devote an entire article in the Fall 2008 issue of the “Harvard Review of Latin America” to the problem. In it, I refer to “Chávez’s status as supreme and undisputed leader of the Chavista movement, which discourages internal dissent and contributes to the failure of the Chavistas to debate openly strategy and ideology.” I go on to say “A leader who is in touch with the people… is no substitute for mechanisms of direct popular input in decision making at all levels.” I believe that the real shortcoming of Venezuelan democracy is not, as Brociner seems to think, the opposition’s lack of liberty (they have plenty of it), but rather the failure of the Chavistas to engage in real self-criticism partly as a result of Chávez’s all-encompassing power.

  Finally, in all my writings I emphasize the complexity of the process of change currently under way in Venezuela and address its many downsides. If anything is “simple-minded,” (Brociner’s words), it is Brociner’s characterization of Chávez as a “demagogue” and emphasis on his authoritarian behavior while ignoring the context of Venezuela’s highly conflictive political scene.

  Steve Ellner

  Posted by Steve Ellner on Jan 12, 2009 at 3:17 PM

  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 15, 2009 at 12:53 AM

  Ken Brociner’s statements are deceptive and dishonest. It’s easy to say that someone’s claim to being an honest scholar is “dubious” but then go on to say let’s just “assume this to be the case.” After 5 posted comments demonstrate that Ellner’s articles put forward valid criticisms of the Chavez government, Brociner repeats his claim that Ellner leaves out “any meaningful criticism of Chavez.” Ellner states above that he has analyzed in depth in important publications the “consequences of Chavez’s immense power,” but this doesn’t satisfy Brociner. Simply because the types of criticisms that Ellner presents of the Chavez government do not coincide with Brociner’s critique, this doesn’t make Ellner an “apologist” for Chavez. 

  I noticed that a while back Brociner, who calls himself a “progressive,” wrote an article for In These Times (posted June 24) calling on the left to treat conservatives with kid gloves and not “defame its opponents.” I quote: “It’s as if we progressives cannot even fathom the possibility that politically engaged people who have sharply different views than ours might also sincerely believe they are working to make the world a better place.”

  If Brociner has such consideration for the ilk of John McCain, why is he so quick to bash fellow progressives? With “friends” like this, who needs enemies?

  Posted by Ron Damiani on Jan 17, 2009 at 4:44 AM

  Any reasonable person who follows world events may fairly recognize Chavez as a demagogue. This doesn’t mean that he’s technically a dictator, but he’s clearly been reaching for a level of personal power that’s unhealthy for any society that values democracy. 

  And I understand that it is not wise for Venzuelan workers who value their livelihood to be identified with any opposition to Chavez.  Was there not a blacklist that removed workers from government jobs and government-run companies?

  While Mr. Ellner’s article is not uncritical, his pro-Chavez sympathies are clear. Whether written by him or someone else, a better article would have told us more about the nature of the opposition to Chavez, including its diversity (Ellner only hints at this).

  Posted by rseliger on Jan 17, 2009 at 6:23 PM

  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 9:30 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 10:18 PM

  I just came across Steve Ellner’s article and the subsequent readers’ comments.  Some of the latter refer to prior articles of Ellner’s that I’m not familiar with and cannot have an opinion on. I do read what I can informally in various Latin American and other Spanish language publications and found the article to provide useful details and context usually lacking in much of the international coverage (certainly in the U.S.) of Venezuela. 

  Chávez has maintained a popular base wide enough to ensure repeated electoral success (and some recent setbacks), despite relentless opposition including the main media outlets, a coup attempt, a shutdown of the country’s dominant oil industry, etc.  At the same time, it is hard to predict how things have turned out in the absence of the country’s oil revenues that were exponentially increasing during much of the past decade. To his credit and unlike predecessors with similar resources, Chávez and company chose to invest them differently and clearly much of the population approves.

  Likewise, after decades of Latin American leaders mouthing slogans about regional integration and solidarity but leaving it at that, Chávez has backed words with funds and initiatives that may make a difference in the region. Of course, in addition to ample funds from high oil revenues, these efforts meet up with the regionally activist leadership of Brazil’s president Lula da Silva.

  Now declining oil revenues in this most serious world economic downturn will force new challenges and difficult choices on Venezuela and some of the questions raised by Ken Brociner become relevant. Despite funding large social programs, insufficient investment in increased productivity and production can quickly become a bottleneck to future development plans. Increased crime rates, especially in violent crime, undermine governing authority when they persist into long-term trends and become especially worrisome during deteriorating economic conditions. In any country this breeds opposition and erodes popular support. And here the style of politics and democracy practiced does matter.

  Chávez has practiced a mix of confrontational and pragmatic styles. His often radical and inflammatory rhetoric clearly plays well to his base, but alienates other sectors that are not necessarily natural allies of the opposition but worry about losing civil and political liberties. This will be increasingly critical if difficult economic times and high crime rates erode his hard-core base. Chávez sometimes goes into a “if you are not with us you are against us” battle-mode of politics that at times treats differences or loss of support, even among followers, as being due to “betrayal” or “treason”. Superheated rhetoric abroad also has consequences, whether calling a neighboring leader “imperial lackey” one day only to embrace him later as a “brother”, or applying personally insulting vulgarities to regional leaders he must deal with. Such antics probably cost Venezuela a regional seat at UN Security Council for Latin America and Caribbean.

  Hopefully the broadly activated popular movements Chávez helped unleash in Venezuela will continue to grow in participation from the grassroots to the governing levels and consolidate the kind of political, social and economic democracy that can deliver progress to the millions left behind in Venezuela, joining others in Latin America and the Caribbean, but without the authoritarianism that has recurred in the region’s history, often coexisting with majoritarian populism.

  Posted by rbueno on Jan 19, 2009 at 3:16 AM

  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 4:05 PM

  Page 1 of 1 pages

• register a new account »Posting Security

  To participate in our forums, please register for a free account.

  Username Password

    Remember me
  

  Retreive lost password »

Also by Steve Ellner

• Rethinking Venezuelan Politics
  Ten years after Chavez's election, the movement he inspired remains divided over goals and strategies.
• Chávez Wins Again
  Venezuelans continue to support socialist leader despite corruption fears
• The Trial (And Errors) of Hugo Chávez
  Venezuelans are debating whether Chávez is putting the windfall of revenue from oil revenues to good use or squandering it through disorganization, corruption and misplaced priorities
• Chávez Consolidates Power
  With the opposition routed, Venezuela's "revolutionary process" seems set to accelerate
• Chávez’s Opposition Opts Out
  
• Chávez Hits a Home Run
  Venezuela’s embattled president calls his own shot by winning the recall election