In normal times, the phrase “Go to hell, gringos” would rarely appear on CNN.com’s homepage, but in a world with Hugo Chavez, apparently anything is possible.
As of late, the Venezuelan president has been assuming power at an alarming rate and when Washington leaders expressed their concerns, Chavez, in his typical immature demeanor, aimed those unequivocal words at the United States.
Normally leftists could write off Washington’s opposition to Chavez as ideologically bankrupt banter coming from the powerful but divisive Washington Consensus, but in this case few, if any, Americans can disagree with our government’s contentions.
Years of Washington’s fears of an authoritarian Venezuela became a reality Jan. 19, as Chavez’s cohorts in the Venezuelan National Assembly granted the president rule by decree, or near universal authority, in a move that could precipitate major changes throughout Latin America for years to come.
According to the BBC, despite the rule of decree powers Chavez assumed, he claimed that the National Assembly’s move still made Venezuela “democratic.” But the only thing democratic about this plan is that the Assembly voted for authoritarianism.
Chavez’s plans with these newly acquired powers may sound inspiring to the left, as he aims to tackle poverty by redistributing the wealth garnered by oil revenues and challenge American hegemony in the region, but his implementation of this plan will be nothing short of abhorrent.
By pushing for radical reformation through this medium, Chavez will indeed be violating fundamental principles of democracy, all in the name of his paternalistic defense of the poor and his infantile opposition to the United States.
If Chavez’s plans for reform are so noble that everyone will be pleased with the outcomes, then why does he need to rule by decree to do so?
The answer is simple: He does not enjoy universal support for these reforms and is quite content branding his opposition as “gringos” and “Satan” in order to accomplish his deluded goals.
However, unfortunately for Chavez, “Satan” and the “gringos” are justified, for once, in their opposition, even if their motivation behind it is less than stellar.
Washington may be opposed to Chavez’s plans based upon capitalistic interests, but Chavez is still instituting an undemocratic system to which everyone in this country can be opposed.
For the left, we have to understand that though our leaders in charge might have dirty hands, it does not necessarily mean that their opposition is completely without validation.
Rule by decree is just as bad as any authoritarianism, and simply because Chavez has chosen to pursue a plan that is populist does not mean that he does not deserve criticism for pursuing these undemocratic means.
Chavez’s plan might ring a few bells for historians who may recall similar episodes abroad of power assumption by leftist groups seeking to further their moral mission in a vacuum.
These regimes, most notably the Soviet Union, operated without dissent. By doing so, policies were not built around the people who needed them the most but instead around vague ambitions of their own global hegemony.
Chavez is taking the same path by using his position for the building of defense systems, seeking to unify Latin America against the United States’ fundamental principles, and silencing dissent to his policies by operating in a rule by decree system.
It appears Venezuela might have taken the unfortunate road to authoritarianism without realizing and, consequently, the future of the country is now at stake.
The United States realized this reality and voiced concerns, and Chavez defiantly responded in a way that is universally understood as immature.
However, before we simply write off the U.S. response as rhetoric, it is worth understanding that the United States, though rife with its own corrupt leaders, is not wrong about this one.
Robert Phansalkar ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in languages and cultures of Asia and political science.
