John Keating | Contributing Writer
When a famous figure dies before their perceived time people tend to lament their loss and imagine “what could have been had they not been so cruelly taken away from us”. This is a trend which seems to affect political figures in a very positive manner. We remember their achievements while their flaws are kept in the dark. In many respects the early deaths of these individuals, such as Michael Collins, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and both John and Robert F Kennedy , are the modern equivalent of a modern day tragic hero. All the aforementioned individuals and countless others are given an almost Hamlet-esque memorial in their wake; they would all have likely to have proved “most royal” had they been “put on”. However, I was surprised to notice these rules being applied to one of the more recent deaths to shock the world; namely the tragic passing of Hugo Chavez.
In the immediate aftermath of his passing, news sites and Twitter were alight with articles and comments of such a champion of the poor. Pre- Chavez Venezuela was one which suffered from serious inequality and crippling poverty. Such a system was crying out for reform and for these people Chavez was a beacon of hope. Some detractors have called this nothing more than a cheap political stunt, an attempt to gain popular support; however, the evidence does not stand up to such an attack. Chavez was not someone from the traditional class, he was a military man of profession. Due to this he had a great deal more in common to those in the barrios than the wealthy in the suburbs of Caracas.
All these actions can perhaps explain his repeated Presidential Electoral successes, 56.8% in 1998, 62.84% in 2006 and 55.07% in 2012. Some would decry this as pure populism, but, not in an insulting manner, that was exactly the type of politician he was. He was one of the few modern examples of a man of the people, the people supported him and he tried to aid them.
All that said, what was the cost of his populism?
In terms of economics, his Presidency was one defined by an increasingly alarming inflation rate. At present the current nominal rate is roughly 22.18%, however in his 14 years in office he witnessed an inflation average of 23% yearly. As a comparison, the current Irish rate is around the 1.2% to 1.5% mark. The situation is now so bad in the nation that they are within in the top 10 nations in the world with the worst inflation, joined by such nations as Sudan and Mongolia. This year on year increase in price is something which will directly devastate those whom Chavez wished to aid the most, those in poverty within his country.
The entire economy is solely dependent on its oil production, far more than Ireland ever was with property. These revenues need to be spent promoting other potential industries in the country which can support the economy once the oil industry inevitably winds down. A failure to do this would cause such economic turmoil that any benefit Chavez introduced to those in need in Venezuela would be swiftly undermined. During his time in office this was an area which simply not acted upon.
Chavez’s time in office was one mired my increasing societal tensions within Venezuela. The nation experienced a record breaking level of homicides in 2011 with close to 20,000 people murdered within the year, or an average of 53 a day. This figure can be interpreted as a rate of 67 murders per 100,000 inhabitants compared to 32 per 100,000 in neighbouring Colombia and 14 per 100,000 in Mexico, both of which experienced high amounts of drug related crime in the same period. Increases in other areas of crime, including robbery and kidnappings, requires one to truly examine whether the levels of inequality in Venezuela changed under this 14 year rule.
Tensions can also be seen to have risen between pro and anti-Chavez sides. While the situation is not as bad as the prelude to the 2002 Coup, it is clearly evident that political allegiance has become an extreme affair. Factors as simple as whether one watches the State or privately controlled television stations has become highly political. While I do not feel that this situation could descend into Civil War like some commentators have suggested, the situation is not healthy for political discourse and need to be, and should have been, rectified.
While Chavez has been remembered as a champion of the poor, what has he done for them? Yes land reforms have aided many farmers and have genuinely improved their lot. However, the barrios still stand, poverty is still rampant (over 25% of the population still live under the poverty line), the economy is spiraling down dangerous inflationary path and is based on a loose footing , crime has become such an issue that the army has had to step in to control the streets.
Perhaps the situation has improved from the pre-Chavez era, but only nominally, and could still be undermined during the time of his immediate successor. And on this point, with the cult of personality which has developed around Chavez can a successor so easily fill his shoes? Will the “Bolivarian Revolution” die with it’s founder? Only time will tell.
To return to what I raised in my introduction, we must be careful not to over-hype the achievements of Chavez due to the fact that we may feel that he died before his time. Part of the thing that made him such an interesting character is that he symbolises different things to different people. For some he is the charismatic statesman who trumpets the poor in the face of Western criticism. To others he was a brutish tyrant who was more interested in managing his appearance than his nation. While we realise that he was this divisive figure one cannot ignore the two sides to the man. He, just like the previously mentioned figures, had his achievements and flaws.
It would be naïve to gloss over one of his aspects of his character, just like Hamlet it can be argued that he was both the tragic hero and the justly punished villain.
