Illuminating the Arts-Policy Nexus 

By Robert Valencia

Hugo Chávez changed the name of his country from the Republic of Venezuela to the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. He changed the flag so the horse on the coat of arms could gallop to the left. He changed the constitution 15 times, and he even changed the country’s time zone.

But despite Venezuela’s abundant natural resources, Chavez couldn’t change Venezuela’s instability during his 14-year reign. While Chavez promoted previously disenfranchised groups into the structures of power, he failed to change the corrupt foundations of Venezuela's political system.

Chávez’s death is not the automatic end of chavismo, a political ideology that seeks to foster a radical socialist model in Venezuela and other Latin American countries. But now there is an opportunity for real social and economic change. While the intent of Chavez’s Revolution was to spread his socialist blueprint throughout the Americas, it instead gravitated around his messianic persona. With Chavez dead, there is no charismatic figure to hitch the ideology to. At the same time, Venezuela has with Latin America’s largest fiscal deficit, skyrocketing inflation rates, and serious security issues. Chavismo isn’t dead, but it is vulnerable.

The first step toward change in a post-Chávez era is the elimination of social resentment and political polarization. On numerous occasions, Chávez attacked his adversaries using incendiary terms. He once called President George W. Bush “the Devil” who left a whiff of sulfur at the 2006 U.N. General Assembly and referred to former Spanish President Jose María Aznar as “fascist” during a 2007 Ibero-American Summit.

Chávez’s rule contributed to social polarization within the country as well. Chávez wanted to portray himself as the hero of Venezuela’s disadvantaged, and every hero needs a villain. The oligarchy, opposition, and the “Yanqui Empire” were perfect archrivals. While he did help the poor with social programs called misiones, he told them the Venezuelan oligarchy despised the lower class because “they are niches” (Venezuelan slang for the “marginalized”).

But the opposition may now have a chance to alter the divisive discourse and promote a pluralistic Venezuela. In this time of grief for many Venezuelans, the chavistas should view recent declarations as peace offerings. Opposition leader Henrique Capriles Radonski said of Chávez: “We were adversaries, but never enemies. … We understand the pain many Venezuelans, his family, and his comrades are feeling. To them we offer our deepest condolences.” Radonski called for the current government to ensure peaceful coexistence of rival parties. Meanwhile, President Barack Obama expressed interest in rebuilding a future relationship with Venezuela and declared his support for Venezuelans—despite Vice President Nicolás Maduro’s decision to expel two U.S. diplomats from Caracas, whom he accused of spying on the country’s military.

A second step to upend Chávez’s influence would be to simply follow the constitution. During the Chávez administration, more than 15 referenda took place to change the constitution. These referenda posed a threat to democracy, free and fair elections, and civil liberties. Months prior to the 2012 presidential elections, Chávez took over a greater share of the airwaves, leaving little to no room for a debate with Capriles Radonski. Despite all these changes, Maduro is still constitutionally obligated to call for new elections in the next 30 days—a period during which Caracas could demonstrate whether it is capable of restoring a fair electoral campaign that will allow both sides of Venezuelan politics to present their proposals.

Now is the time for Chávez loyalists to either remain steadfast in their belief in a radical leftist movement founded on the narcissistic figure of Chávez, or to acknowledge that, based on the current realities of Venezuela and the Latin American region, changes must be made. Indeed, while Chávez managed to unify all Latin American countries under the wing of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC), several states in the region are now coalescing in different blocs. Mexico, Chile, Colombia, and Peru recently inked the Pacific Alliance agreement. The latter three countries have gone so far as to merge their stock markets. Venezuela, under Chávez, decided to withdraw from the Andean Pact. With Chávez’s death and the announcement that Raúl Castro will relinquish power in 2018, the Bolivarian movement is losing clout. The growth of other regional blocs like MERCOSUR and the growing influence Brazil suggest a re-aligning of power in the region.

The chavistas can’t keep relying on oil. Bankrolling the radical bloc of the Bolivarian Alliance of the Americas will be untenable if Venezuela’s economy doesn’t diversify. The Bolivarian Revolution’s grew with global oil prices. By 2006, when oil was $80 a barrel, Chávez was giving $3 billion to other Latin American countries. In 2008, oil prices hit $146 a barrel and his leverage in Latin American affairs peaked. But since Chávez’s illness and the oil free-fall, the Venezuelan economy is suffering from a devaluating currency and soaring hyperinflation.

Venezuela should mirror its Latin American counterparts. Brazil, Peru, and Chile have managed to close the poverty gap without resorting to populist reforms like the expropriation of private properties and forced foreign enterprise capital takeover. Indeed, a moderate approach involving a new ease in creating business without the fear of governmental intervention will spur foreign investment in Venezuela’s economy. Chávez often he said he wanted to stamp out inequality, poverty, and social marginalization, but it will take overturning his legacy to make his goals a reality.

*****

*****

Robert Valencia is a Research Fellow at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs and is a contributing writer for Global Voices. He also has a personal blog called My Humble Opinion.

[Photo courtesy of Bernardo Londoy]