2008 Woodie Awards
Reading the machinations of Mary Anastasia O’Grady in the WSJ today (subscription only), and then reading Dean Slaughter’s post at TPMCafe, I’m struck by the need to adopt a more balanced, measured approach to the presidency of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. Most of those on the Right would like to paint Chavez as basically another anti-democratic Fidel Castro, as O’Grady tries to do, but I think this is grossly at odds with what scholars have found about the real impact of Chavismo. Sujatha Fernandes, an up-and-coming scholar at Princeton, has done some truly fascinating work on the pros and cons of the Chavez revolution- and has revealed its impact to be far more complicated than both the anti-populist Right AND the apologist Left have made it out to be.
I’ve had the pleasure of getting to know Dr. Fernandes during my time at Princeton, and have had the good fortune to hear her present several times on her work on the politics of urban social movements in contemporary Venezuela. I can’t possibly summarize all that I’ve learned from her here (for that, look for a book she’s working on on this topic coming out in the next few years), but suffice to say, she has documented that Chavez’s impact has been both good AND bad for Venezuela. It’s undoubtedly true that there are some seriously undemocratic elements about Chavez’s behavior. But what’s been utterly ignored is the populist, democratic revolution he’s inspired among the poor and previously disenfranchised sectors of the populace- particularly among those living in the barrios of Caracas. Chavez’s right-wing critics, who claim to criticize him in the name of “democracy,” don’t give him enough credit for inspiring this democratic revolution.
That being said, we need to be seriously critical of the way Chavez has failed to ensure many basic freedoms to Venezuelans. But we also must understand that the impetus for doing so comes out of the threat Venezuelan elites (particularly big oil interests fearing new regulatory impositions) feel from Chavez, and how they’ve sought to oust him in the most undemocratic of coups. They also may have perpetated voter fraud in several elections.
Viewing Venezuela’s situation as complex and dynamic, with many competing interests, all of which are far from pure, will result in a more sensitive foreign policy approach from the US- one that promotes democracy through democratic means, while seeking to enhance populist politics and grassroots citizen engagement. That’s where Dean Slaughter’s right, and the Right is wrong.
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
Just another WordPress weblog
RSS 2.0
