Death of Hugo Chavez
Opens Way for Democratic Recovery in Venezuela (La Tercera,
Chile)
"His
obsession with confronting the United States; his proximity to the Cuban regime;
his active support for left regional movements; and on the basis of the 'Bolivarian
socialism' that he promoted across Latin America, he became a kind of benchmark
on the left. ... His death opens the possibility that Venezuelans could move toward
a democratic normalization unthinkable while the omnipresent figure of the 'Comandante' was alive."
The death of Hugo Chavez ends a cycle in the political
history of Venezuela and the Latin American left, and begins a period of uncertainty
over what will happen to the country without its deceased political leader, who
fashioned a custom-made Bolivarian revolution.
Since 1992, when he burst on the scene after leading a
failed coup against the government of Carlos Andres
Perez, Chavez has been a central figure on the Venezuelan political scene. After
reaching the presidency in 1999, he resorted to the route of the plebiscite,
tirelessly molding a regime in which he eventually controlled all the levers of
power, vesting in his person tremendous responsibility, and undercutting all
efforts by a discredited opposition to challenge him (including an attempted
coup). Sheltered by the wealth derived from high oil prices and the political
use he made of those funds, he designed and implemented a social policy based
on subsidies and so-called "missions." This, coupled with his
charisma and extremely aggressive speech toward anyone who disagreed with his
government (including the media), made him a very popular leader who was
defeated only once at the polls.
This is how Chavez came to completely dominate the political
landscape of his country, and his adherents came to depend on him so much that they
even managed to override the Constitution and make changes Chavez designed himself
to allow him to remain in the presidency - despite the fact that his health wasn't
up to it.
His obsession with confronting the United States; his
proximity to the Cuban regime; his active support for left regional movements; and
on the basis of the “Bolivarian socialism" that he promoted across Latin
America, he became a kind of benchmark on the left. He also found allies in several
governments and numerous movements and political parties in the hemisphere, many
of which he generously funded. The continent was divided between countries that
identified with the Bolivarian movement and those which retained democratic
practices, the separation of powers and respect for civil liberties.
The personal touch that Chavez gave all of his activities makes
questions regarding the viability of his political project in Venezuela and the
region legitimate and unavoidable. Although domestically, he intended to leave
everything well secured, naming Vice President Nicolas Maduro
as his political heir, his absence is likely to give rise to unforeseen dynamics
within chavismo
and within the opposition, which is more organized today than it has been for
the past 14 years. It is obvious that in Venezuela, there is no leader with Chavez'
political weight.
Therefore, his death opens the possibility that Venezuelans could
move toward a democratic normalization unthinkable while the omnipresent figure
of the “Comandante” was alive. Something similar may
happen to the Latin American left, which for a moment retreated to levels of
populism and state control that had for a moment seemed overcome, but which, under
the influence of Chavez, returned as part of normal discourse and practice.
