A YEAR after Hugo Chávez passed away following a two-year battle with cancer, the former president of Venezuela still evokes passionate debate.
His admirers in Africa still regard el comandante as a transformative leader who sought to build a more equal and socially just society in the face of formidable opposition from big business and the established global order, led by the United States.
Chávez’s detractors argue that his leadership and policies had a ruinous effect on Venezuelan society and have led directly to the widespread civil unrest occurring daily on the streets of Caracas and other parts of the country.
In South Africa, one party – the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) – have sought to model themselves on his movement. But prominent figures across other parties are also inspired by his life and legacy, averring that South Africa’s widening inequality and grinding poverty require a Chávez-type solution.
As we explain in a recent Brenthurst Foundation discussion paper, this line of argument is as flawed as it is dangerous.
Chávez was born in 1954, the second of seven children of school teachers. He was middle class but portrayed himself as a child of “extreme poverty”, which fit nicely with his portrayal of the 1992 coup – which the then 38-year old officer led – not just as a military uprising, but as “the cry of an oppressed people”.
Pardoned in March 1994, Chávez was elected president in a landslide in 1998. Briefly ousted in a 2002 coup following popular demonstrations, he was quickly returned to power and ruled Venezuela until his death last year.
None could dispute that Chávez was an exceptionally charismatic and astute politician, possessed of a mischievous sense of humour and an extraordinary common touch, often playing the guitar and breaking into song. Above all, he was a game changer, a man who through force of personality and political ruthlessness radically transformed the character of Venezuelan politics.
His initial success at reducing poverty came at a steep price, however, both politically and economically. In pursuit of his stated political aims of creating a more equal and socially just society, Chávez deliberately divided Venezuelan society into two camps: those who supported him versus those he described as “enemies and oppressors of the poor”.
The strategy has left Venezuela bitterly fractured both in spirit and economically. It has led to mass emigration and, in conjunction with ceaseless attacks on private business, to the collapse of the productive sector of the economy.
All this in a country with a fantastic endowment of natural resources, including the world’s largest reserves of oil and significant stores of gold, coltan, copper, bauxite, and nickel. Venezuela also possesses rich farming areas and enjoys abundant rainfall.
Yet the past 15 years of redistribution and economic folly have destroyed local industry, and most food, like everything else, is imported. The bulk of the Latin American nation’s 30 million people continue to live in barrios like Petare, slums that climb the mountainsides and at times overlook wealthier suburbs.
How, one might ask, is this even possible in a country whose oil wealth during the last decade – averaging 2.7 million barrels per day – has provided the equivalent of $1000 (R10000) per family per month, or $200-million per day in government income?
The economic policies that underpinned his Bolivarian revolution were largely illiterate and unsustainable, predicated on short-term redistribution and spending rather than long-term growth and investment. His attempted revolution was riddled with contradictions and fundamentally dependent on conflict as a strategy.
Internationally, Chávez sought common cause with the world’s downtrodden through the liberation mythology of the Bolivarian revolution. He built an ideological and business partnership with Castro’s Cuba while externalising his problems by blaming the local elites and the “imperialist” US.
This approach won Chávez many friends and bedfellows, but also turned Venezuela into a pariah in the eyes of many countries – not least its most important trading partner, the United States. For all its failings, Chavez’s populist alternative, focusing on its revolutionary symbols and slogans, the plight of the poor and the dispossessed and the use of direct transfers as a means of instant social justice, has still become a model for those elsewhere that seek a rapid way out from poverty and inequality.
In South Africa, inequality and widespread poverty are becoming more entrenched. As a nation we have to dedicate ourselves to the notion that inequality and grinding poverty for large segments of our society are not only a blight on our nation, they are unsustainable and unconscionable and have to be addressed as a matter of national priority.
But Chávez presents no viable path out of our current malaise.
Promoting the idea of expropriation and nationalisation as a seemingly simple solution to South Africa’s dire inequalities resonates among the poor. But these policies will have precisely the same effects as in Venezuela. Namely, they will divide society more than ever and will lead to the demonisation of the opposition to justify and legitimise confiscations. This will end in the gradual dismantling of the productive and industrial base of our society.
Unlike Venezuela, South Africa does not have a single commodity that can produce the enormous bounty which oil has been for the Chávez government. Even the 17-fold increase in government revenues achieved as a result of oil price increases during the Chávez years eventually became insufficient to support the vast social project his administration embarked upon. Ultimately, after a decade and a half, it has started imploding under its own weight.
In contrast, the model chosen and followed by numerous other Latin American leaders, who have delivered equally impressive improvements in the condition of the region’s poor, have proved to be not only sustainable, but also enduring.
Education – something which South Africa has simply not got right – has proved absolutely pivotal. It is the single most powerful dynamic driving economic growth and the improvement of circumstances that cause inequality and poverty. Improving education across the board is the absolute priority “must do” for South Africa.
Chávez’s revolution illustrated that it is very difficult to build a country (and an economy) based on conflict, without social peace. Polarisation, while a useful ploy to gain and retain power, is ultimately costly for all – opposition and government alike. And the same goes for redistributive spending.
We will never know what political fate awaited el comandante had he not died in office. But as Venezuela plunges deeper into crisis, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the system Chavez created resembles a rickety house of cards rather than the solid foundations of the new society he had promised.
That’s a salutary warning to us all.
Malcolm Ferguson is a retired South African diplomat and Greg Mills heads the Brenthurst Foundation. This article draws on the authors’ recently-published Brenthurst Foundation discussion paper “The Red Berets of Hugo Chávez: Lessons for South Africa?”
Chávez model certain to lead SA to disaster
His admirers in Africa still regard el comandante as a transformative leader who sought to build a more equal and socially just society in the face of formidable opposition from big business and the established global order, led by the United States.
Chávez’s detractors argue that his leadership and policies had a ruinous effect on Venezuelan society and have led directly to the widespread civil unrest occurring daily on the streets of Caracas and other parts of the country.
In South Africa, one party – the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) – have sought to model themselves on his movement. But prominent figures across other parties are also inspired by his life and legacy, averring that South Africa’s widening inequality and grinding poverty require a Chávez-type solution.
As we explain in a recent Brenthurst Foundation discussion paper, this line of argument is as flawed as it is dangerous.
Chávez was born in 1954, the second of seven children of school teachers. He was middle class but portrayed himself as a child of “extreme poverty”, which fit nicely with his portrayal of the 1992 coup – which the then 38-year old officer led – not just as a military uprising, but as “the cry of an oppressed people”.
Pardoned in March 1994, Chávez was elected president in a landslide in 1998. Briefly ousted in a 2002 coup following popular demonstrations, he was quickly returned to power and ruled Venezuela until his death last year.
None could dispute that Chávez was an exceptionally charismatic and astute politician, possessed of a mischievous sense of humour and an extraordinary common touch, often playing the guitar and breaking into song. Above all, he was a game changer, a man who through force of personality and political ruthlessness radically transformed the character of Venezuelan politics.
His initial success at reducing poverty came at a steep price, however, both politically and economically. In pursuit of his stated political aims of creating a more equal and socially just society, Chávez deliberately divided Venezuelan society into two camps: those who supported him versus those he described as “enemies and oppressors of the poor”.
The strategy has left Venezuela bitterly fractured both in spirit and economically. It has led to mass emigration and, in conjunction with ceaseless attacks on private business, to the collapse of the productive sector of the economy.
All this in a country with a fantastic endowment of natural resources, including the world’s largest reserves of oil and significant stores of gold, coltan, copper, bauxite, and nickel. Venezuela also possesses rich farming areas and enjoys abundant rainfall.
Yet the past 15 years of redistribution and economic folly have destroyed local industry, and most food, like everything else, is imported. The bulk of the Latin American nation’s 30 million people continue to live in barrios like Petare, slums that climb the mountainsides and at times overlook wealthier suburbs.
How, one might ask, is this even possible in a country whose oil wealth during the last decade – averaging 2.7 million barrels per day – has provided the equivalent of $1000 (R10000) per family per month, or $200-million per day in government income?
The economic policies that underpinned his Bolivarian revolution were largely illiterate and unsustainable, predicated on short-term redistribution and spending rather than long-term growth and investment. His attempted revolution was riddled with contradictions and fundamentally dependent on conflict as a strategy.
Internationally, Chávez sought common cause with the world’s downtrodden through the liberation mythology of the Bolivarian revolution. He built an ideological and business partnership with Castro’s Cuba while externalising his problems by blaming the local elites and the “imperialist” US.
This approach won Chávez many friends and bedfellows, but also turned Venezuela into a pariah in the eyes of many countries – not least its most important trading partner, the United States. For all its failings, Chavez’s populist alternative, focusing on its revolutionary symbols and slogans, the plight of the poor and the dispossessed and the use of direct transfers as a means of instant social justice, has still become a model for those elsewhere that seek a rapid way out from poverty and inequality.
In South Africa, inequality and widespread poverty are becoming more entrenched. As a nation we have to dedicate ourselves to the notion that inequality and grinding poverty for large segments of our society are not only a blight on our nation, they are unsustainable and unconscionable and have to be addressed as a matter of national priority.
But Chávez presents no viable path out of our current malaise.
Promoting the idea of expropriation and nationalisation as a seemingly simple solution to South Africa’s dire inequalities resonates among the poor. But these policies will have precisely the same effects as in Venezuela. Namely, they will divide society more than ever and will lead to the demonisation of the opposition to justify and legitimise confiscations. This will end in the gradual dismantling of the productive and industrial base of our society.
Unlike Venezuela, South Africa does not have a single commodity that can produce the enormous bounty which oil has been for the Chávez government. Even the 17-fold increase in government revenues achieved as a result of oil price increases during the Chávez years eventually became insufficient to support the vast social project his administration embarked upon. Ultimately, after a decade and a half, it has started imploding under its own weight.
In contrast, the model chosen and followed by numerous other Latin American leaders, who have delivered equally impressive improvements in the condition of the region’s poor, have proved to be not only sustainable, but also enduring.
Education – something which South Africa has simply not got right – has proved absolutely pivotal. It is the single most powerful dynamic driving economic growth and the improvement of circumstances that cause inequality and poverty. Improving education across the board is the absolute priority “must do” for South Africa.
Chávez’s revolution illustrated that it is very difficult to build a country (and an economy) based on conflict, without social peace. Polarisation, while a useful ploy to gain and retain power, is ultimately costly for all – opposition and government alike. And the same goes for redistributive spending.
We will never know what political fate awaited el comandante had he not died in office. But as Venezuela plunges deeper into crisis, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the system Chavez created resembles a rickety house of cards rather than the solid foundations of the new society he had promised.
That’s a salutary warning to us all.
Malcolm Ferguson is a retired South African diplomat and Greg Mills heads the Brenthurst Foundation. This article draws on the authors’ recently-published Brenthurst Foundation discussion paper “The Red Berets of Hugo Chávez: Lessons for South Africa?”
Would you like to comment on this article?
Register (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.
Trending Now
Latest Videos