Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter Share on Facebook 1 Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit 1 Share on StumbleUpon 1 Tell A Friend 1 (4 Shares)  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites View Article Stats   6 comments

OpEdNews Op Eds

Hugo Chávez, Venezuela and the Corporate Media

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 3 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

Must Read 1   Well Said 1   Supported 1  
View Ratings | Rate It Headlined to H3 4/6/13

From Hugo-Chavez-2009-
Hugo-Chavez-2009- by Wikipedia

These days the big powers, along with their embedded corporate media, like to undermine independent states by branding them as either "dictatorships' or "populist' regimes. The first label suggests generalised repression, though of greatest concern is the repression of corporate privilege; the second suggests some form of deceptive demagoguery.

Venezuela's late President Hugo Chávez, in life and death, was branded both a "dictator' and a "populist'. In fact, he was neither. What he did, as Luis Bilbao and William Robinson note, was lead Latin America's break with neoliberalism and "put socialism back on the public agenda'. The impact of this is still being felt

Chávez was also the main driver behind south-focussed regional integration in the Americas, initiating both the eight-nation ALBA group and the 34 member CELAC, a clear counter-weight to the Washington-controlled Organization of American States (OAS). He therefore leaves a powerful regional legacy.

In Venezuela Chávez won successive election victories, gaining between 55% and 63% of the vote, in an electoral system described by former US President Jimmy Carter as "a model for other democracies'. You might not appreciate this, from the corporate media. In one of the many half-truths and outright lies peddled daily about Chávez, Alejandro Chafuen in Forbes magazine claims Chávez was "one of the most unpopular' Latin American leaders. He cites polls by Latinobarometro in other parts of Latin America, where the man was demonised by the corporate media. However within his own country (which is what matters in any democracy) Chávez had great popularity. Indeed Latinobarometro shows that Venezuelans rated satisfaction with their own democracy very highly (7 out of 10, in 2010), an achievement reinforced by the near doubling in participation rates at Presidential elections, to more than 80% in 2012.

Populism means over-blown rhetoric, hand-outs and empty promises; but Chávez, with the style of a populist, went well beyond this. In the best traditions of social democracy he fomented broad participation, widening rights through a new constitution, mass education and health services and giving ordinary people a real say in their own communities. The central government used oil money to directly fund a wide range of social programs, cooperatives, local communal councils and communities. Former Chávez adviser Marta Harnecker pointed out that Chávez, as a charismatic leader, communicated with the style of a populist, but he helped people organise: "that is not populism; it is revolutionary leadership'.

An important test of the resilience of the Chávez legacy will come on 14 April, when his successor Nicolás Maduro stands against right wing candidate Henrique Capriles Radonski. Maduro is a former transport union leader who worked with Chávez for two decades. Capriles became famous for his personal involvement in an attack on the Cuban Embassy during the 2002 US-backed coup. He was soundly defeated by Chávez in elections last October and few expect him to win in 2013. Polls put Maduro well in front. Majority support appears firm for the socialist transition program initiated by Chávez back in 2005.

None of this is good news for the international investor groups who still control most media channels, in Venezuela as elsewhere. Indeed, the anti-Chávez rhetoric has hardly abated with the man's death. Both Canadian Prime Minister Steven Harper and US President Barack Obama claimed the death of President Chávez "brings hope' to Venezuela. Business magazine headlines read: "Why Chávez was bad for Venezuela', "Hugo Chávez leaves Venezuela in an economic muddle' and "Chávez leaves legacy of economic disarray'. All this suggests a burning desire to tarnish the man's image, in attempts to rein in the Chávez bandwagon.

Why was Chávez so influential and so popular? It had much to do with the powerful social programs, in education, health, housing, food, social security, local infrastructure and land reform. Poverty fell dramatically. In 1999, when Chávez first came to office, household income poverty was 42% and extreme poverty 18.9%; in 2011 these figures had fallen by 35% (to 27.4%) and 71% (to 7.3%) (INE 2011). Inequality also fell from 48 to 39 on the Gini scale, by far the greatest improvement in Latin America. A key Chávez slogan was: "the only way to reduce poverty is to empower the poor'. Beyond income measures, Venezuela's Human Development Index rank rose strongly, from the expansion in health services and education.

Chávez recognised and returned land to indigenous communities and invested much of the country's oil wealth in people and communities that had been ignored and marginalised for decades, if not centuries. This helps explain the extraordinary reverence given to Chávez in the more humble parts of the country. For example, the January 23 community in Caracas, without waiting for Vatican approval, have opened their own shrine to "Saint Hugo Chávez '. To them, he had performed real miracles.

It is perhaps not surprising that corporate media analyses tend to ignore or trivialise these achievements, and look for weak spots. The Economist (5/3/13), representing private financial groups, launched a broadside against Chávez on the day of his death. He had been "as reckless with his health as with his country's economy and its democracy', said the finance magazine. Accusing him "narcissistic' rule, the magazine did admit that a quick election would favour Maduro over what it called the "moderate centrist', Capriles.

The Economist claimed Chávez had "squandered' his country's oil wealth, but had been lucky with high oil prices, clever advice from Fidel Castro on social programs and an unpopular nemesis in the form of George W. Bush. However the Bolivarian Revolution was "a corrupt, mismanaged affair' which failed to invest and relied on handouts. Venezuela under Chávez, it continued, came "towards the bottom of just about every league table for good governance or economic competitiveness'. It is hardly a coincidence that the relentless demonization of the man comes from those investment groups most affronted by his re-nationalisation of Venezuela's huge oil industry.

One important source to counter such assertions has been the Washington-based Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR). A recent article by Mark Weisbrot and Jake Johnston (CEPR, September 2012) observes that IMF forecasts "repeatedly underestimated GDP growth' in Venezuela. Recovery from its two recessions (from the coup and oil conflict of 2002-2003, then the US financial crisis of 2008-09) had been much stronger than expected. Despite the dependence on oil income, there had been substantial investment across a range of sectors. Yet the Chávez "bias' towards public and social sectors was not received well by predatory investor groups.

Precisely because of this corporate media onslaught, it can be difficult to read Venezuela. But, with a little patience, we can find independent sources and identify the distortions. For example, Roy Carroll of the British Guardian claimed "a third of the country' revered Chávez, while "millions detested him as a thug and a charlatan'. None of this explains the successive election victories, nor the fact that polls, two weeks after his death, showed that 79% of Venezuelans retained a positive image of their late president (USA Today 2013).

In another example, The Economist, seizing on a partial truth, claimed Venezuela had become "even more dependent' on imported food, as "State takeovers of farms cut agricultural output'. In fact, while Venezuela's spending on food imports rose from 2.0 to 2.2 of GDP, between 2000 and 2009, local food production also increased. The FAO (2012: Table 19) shows that the country's caloric self-sufficiency rose from 58% to 62% in that same period. More importantly, the FAO also shows that the proportion of under-nourished Venezuelans more than halved in just a few years under Chávez (FAO 2011, 2012). The country's nutritional problems have changed. By 2009 the rate of underweight children was down to 4% but that of overweight and obese adults was up to 30% (FAO 2012: Table 18). By way of comparison, the rate of food insecurity in the USA had worsened, from 10% of families in 2000 to 15% in 2011 (ERS 2012). "Mismanaged' Venezuela was overcoming hunger while the much wealthier USA was going backwards.

The Economist also suggested that mass education in Venezuela had been a mistake, as the "millions who enrolled in "universities' that mainly impart propaganda [a reference to the promotion of Bolivarian values of solidarity and egalitarianism, as opposed to neoliberal individualism and commodification] have raised expectations that are almost bound to be dashed'. Chávez , according to the finance magazine, had failed "to provide the best education and health services money can buy'. Nevertheless, the UNDP recognised the massive rise in Venezuela's educational enrolments, a major factor in its above-average performance in the Human Development Index (PNUD 2013).

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3


Tim Anderson is an academic and social activist based in Sydney, Australia

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

The Libyan Tragedy: lessons for the western left

Syria: how the violence began, in Daraa

Al Jazeera's attacks on Syria: some background

In Defence of the Syrian Arab Army

Syria's "false flag' terrorism, Houla and the United Nations

Hugo Chávez, Venezuela and the Corporate Media


The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
5 people are discussing this page, with 6 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

the corprpate media have cast a shroud over the da... by Tim Anderson on Saturday, Apr 6, 2013 at 10:46:34 AM
at least many people know better.  Unfortunat... by Amy Schreiner on Sunday, Apr 7, 2013 at 6:12:53 PM
are a gang of murderous thugs. What else can you e... by intotheabyss on Saturday, Apr 6, 2013 at 4:10:41 PM
You've nailed the fundamental motive for all the ... by Derryl Hermanutz on Saturday, Apr 6, 2013 at 8:23:10 PM
Derryl Hermanutz put it all right. Robert McNamara... by Guglielmo Tell on Saturday, Apr 6, 2013 at 9:32:23 PM
for setting the record straight, and for doing all... by Amy Schreiner on Sunday, Apr 7, 2013 at 6:02:37 PM