Cowboy in Caracas is written by Charles Hardy, an ex-priest who spent 8 years (as a priest) from 1985 to 1993 living in the Tacagua barrio in Caracas in a tin and cardboard shack, without running water or a sewer system, like most people in the poorest neighborhoods in Caracas. He left the priesthood in 1993 and returned in 1994 to marry a Venezuelan woman and activist. Hardy states clearly in his introduction that his book is biased, but that it is based on his direct observation of events and conditions in Venezuela, or on the observations of people he knows and trusts.
There has been a relentless stream of diatribe by the US government against Hugo Chavez. He has been accused of being a dictator, of being undemocratic, of being a tyrant, a communist, and so on. The reality seems to be very different.
First, let's start with the claim that Chavez is a dictator. He was elected in 1998 with about 60% of the total vote. This despite the fact that he was not running as a candidate of either of the two controlling parties. The Venezuelan press and media, which is controlled by the wealthy elites in Venezuela (as the media is everywhere controlled by the ruling elites) ran non-stop propaganda against Chavez during the election, and has continued to do so ever since. Despite that, he was elected because the people responded to his call for an end to corruption and for Venezuela's oil wealth to be used to help the ordinary working and poor people of Venezuela.
He had campaigned on a promise that he would reform the Venezuelan constitution. Shortly after election he held a referendum to vote on whether a constitutional assembly should be formed. That vote carried by about 60%. Then there was an election to elect the members of the constitutional assembly. Finally, after the assembly had done its job, there was a referendum to approve or disapprove the result. Again, the new constitution was approved by a wide marging. Copies of that constitution in the form of a small blue booklet are now carried proudly by hundreds of thousands of working and poor Venezuelans.
In the spring of 2002 a few generals in collusion with right-wing civilian backers staged a coup, arrested Chavez and spirited him off to a military installation on an island off Caracas, suspended the constitution and declared martial law. Naturally the US government immediately congratulated the new 'government' (thus showing that democracy is not really what the US is worried about in Venezuela). But within two days a mass uprising of the people converged on the presidential palace, forcing the coup leaders to free Chavez and allow him to return to his elected office.
Later that year, the Venezuelan oil company and its highly-paid employees staged a 'strike' that lasted for two months, disrupting the economy and causing great hardship. The ostensible reason for the strike was that Chavez had sought to replace the board of directors with people of his choosing - a right that the Venezuelan president has, since the oil company is nominally a state agency. The claim was that he was appointing political hacks and disrupting the 'meritocracy' that had traditionally run the company. However, the company was poorly run, about 1/3 as efficient as other state- and commercial oil companies. Eventually Chavez was able to take partial control of the company, and within a year its efficiency had increased by 40%, putting the lie to the claim of 'meritocracy'. It had been an outright kleptocracy, with oil money that should have gone to Venezuelans disappearing into offshore accounts.
In 2004 there was what amounted to a recall election - using a provision of the new constitution that Chavez (the alleged dictator) had himself proposed. Chavez won that election by, you guessed it, about 60% of the vote despite the constant shrill propaganda against him in all the privately owned TV stations and newspapers.
Finally, in 2006 Chavez ran for re-election in an election that was overseen by the Organization of American States and other outside independent observers. The election was seen to be fair, and Chavez again won about 60% of the vote.
So, where does the claim of 'undemocratic' come from, since Chavez won the popular vote 6 times in a row? To understand this, you have to understand how the US government uses the term 'democratic'. For many years, starting in the 60s, I could not understand the criteria used by the US to declare a country 'democratic' or 'undemocratic'. Castro was a tyrant, but Samoza was being attacked by 'undemocratic' forces from within Nicaragua. From my perspective they were both dictators, but Samoza was worse, because he killed tens of thousands of Nicaraguans and ran a horribly corrupt government whose sole purpose, as far as I could tell, was to enrich himself and the other power elites in Nicaragua. So why did the US government support him, and continue to impose a cruel embargo on Cuba? Eventually I understood that when the US government declares a country to be 'democratic' or 'undemocratic' you can understand the meaning perfectly if you substitute the phrase 'friendly to US corporate interests'. Then the correlation is clear and immediate.
This, I think, explains the vitriolic attitude of the US towards Chavez. He does in fact represent a threat to US corporate interests, because he believes that Venezuelan resources should be used for the good of Venezuelans.
Is this wrong? You decide.
Books RSS
