Hugo Chávez: Champion of the Poor or Megalomaniacal Autocrat?

The death of Hugo Chávez, the long-time president of Venezuela, last week gave rise to many retrospectives on his life and discussions of his legacy. Those two articles from the BBC touch on the widely contrasting views that critics and supporters of Chávez have had over the years. His supporters and followers viewed him as a champion of the poor and downtrodden, as well as one of the few leaders with the backbone to stand up to the mighty United States. His opponents and critics claimed he was a demagogue and a autocrat with tendencies toward megalomania and paranoia, particularly with respect to the US. So which was the truth? While I can't claim to be particularly knowledgeable about Chávez's record, my own impression, based on what I do know, is that both his supporters and critics were right, at least to some degree.

I have no doubt that many of Chávez's policies did help the poor of Venezuela, and that they amounted to more than just handing out oil money. Any significant improvement in the situation of the disadvantaged in a country such as Venezuela is worth celebrating, and Chávez's achievements in areas such as health and education should be recognized. My sympathy for many of his Venezuelan critics, a fairly large proportion of whom belong to the entrenched upper classes who have controlled far too much of the country's wealth and power for generations, is limited, as for some of them their hostility toward Chávez seems to be based primarily on narrow self-interest, much like many of the Cuban exiles who hate Castro (while Castro's Cuba is clearly an oppressive dictatorship, it's worth remembering that the Cuba of Batista was as well, and social inequality under Batista was far worse). Even if Chávez was a dictator, if he could be seen as a mostly benevolent one who brought equality and social development and ran roughshod over the rule of law only to the extent necessary to get things done, that would be a clear improvement on the right wing dictatorships that dominated South America in the past.

Unfortunately, while Chávez did make substantial progress on social development, income disparity and social inequality remain high in Venezuela, and it is not clear that all of the still limited improvements in the lot of the poor will prove lasting. Then there is the matter of Chávez's methods. It is human nature for people to want heroes, and so to the extent that Chávez did help the disadvantaged people of his country, it's somewhat understandable that many of them practically worshiped him. In addition, to the extent that Chávez faced opposition from entrenched interests who could manipulate a corrupt system, some bending of the rules to get things accomplished would also be understandable. But Chávez seemed to actively encourage the personality cult around him, which is not the same thing as simply accepting that some people would overdo their adulation of him, and his efforts to muzzle critics seemed to go well beyond steamrolling through intransigent opposition in order to improve the society, though as far as I know direct repression of the sort seen under people like Pinochet, Castro, or the Argentine junta has been relatively uncommon. Likewise, some of his nationalizations seemed motivated as much by opportunism as a genuine desire to ensure that the people of Venezuela got a fair share of the profits from their nation's resources. So while Chávez's record domestically certainly has to be considered better than those of most earlier right-wing South American leaders, it was far from unequivocally positive.

The other aspect of Chávez's record, of course, is his foreign policy, especially his relations with the United States. Probably the most notable feature of Chávez's foreign policy was his outspoken opposition to the United States and its policies, not only in Latin America but all over the world. There is of course nothing wrong with opposing US foreign policy, whether it is excessive reliance on military force, hypocritical and inconsistent rhetoric on human rights, or economic bullying in the service of American multinationals. But like many critics of America, including many of those in the West who defend him, Chávez did not merely oppose American policies because they were clearly unjust, but because they were American; worse yet, he indiscriminately sided with the enemies of the US, no matter who they were. Not only was he friendly with nations such as Iran, Libya, Russia, Vietnam, Zimbabwe and especially Cuba, he also spoke in defense of Omar al-Bashir of Sudan when the International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant for him. Despite his frequent criticism of US imperialism, he was friendly with China, which exercises an even more naked form of imperialism, though for the moment it lacks the ability to project power worldwide. While American policy toward many of these countries may be inconsistent and sometimes hypocritical, it doesn't follow that those countries are not themselves highly flawed; in most cases they are (or, in the case of Libya under Gaddafi, were) brutal dictatorships, so being friendly with them doesn't win Chávez any points in my book. Furthermore, many of Chávez's criticisms of the US were delusional nonsense, like saying the US marines caused the Haitian earthquake. I would love to see a leader who is outspoken in his criticism of the US if that criticism is rational and equally applied to other nations who deserve criticism for their bad behavior. But Chávez seemed less interested in being on the side of justice than being on whatever side the US wasn't.

So I have to say that despite Chávez's real accomplishments, the overall picture is decidedly mixed. Both his defenders and detractors seem at least partially correct in their views of him, though they both conveniently ignore the other side. My own impression of him leans toward the negative due to some of his frankly unhinged statements, though it is tempered by the improvements that he made in the lives of at least some Venezuelans and by limited sympathy for the main targets of his ranting. What his long-term legacy will be remains to be seen.

For another (largely negative) look at Chávez, see this commentary. The writer's comments on the other leftist leaders in Latin America are also interesting, though I take issue with his backhanded complimenting of José Mujica and especially his dismissal of Uruguay's moves toward legalizing marijuana, which are in fact very forward looking and worth imitating by other nations.