Latin America continued its bright political and social development with the election of Fernando Lugo last Sunday (20th). It would be facetious and fallacious to cast Lugo in the mould of other popular leftist leaders elected in the continent (like Lula and Bachelet) because this presupposition about Latin America and its politics is wrong: there are profound and complicated political and social differences between the countries and their political development has to be addressed on its own merits. Those who claim Lugo for another Chavez or Morales forget the former's significant middle class support. Instead, Lugo is a pragmatic social democrat - 'bishop of the poor,' undoubtedly, but not a radical in terms of economic policy and not an America hater - today, Lugo had a positive meeting with the American ambassador.
This is not to say Lugo's defeat of the Colorado party is without stormclouds. The politics of Paraguay have been intractibly, tragically and sometimes even hilarously corrupt for more than half a century - Lugo pledged to end this, but today his vice-president elect Frederico Franco was accused of being bribed $1 million by the U.S. to further their economic interests in the country. This does not bode well. Nor does Lugo's lack of a majority in parliament. The transition will be slow and painful. But the existence of left leaning parties coming to power democratically at this stage in nation's economic and political development need not fill people with alarm - this was exactly the case in Britain in the 1910's and 20's with a newly enfranchised working class that challenged existing political hierachies without overturning them. Current labour movements are generally less radical now, and democracy is more stable than then. Compare this to the backward politics of China and India, where democracy and liberal democratic ideas of political thought struggle against cultural and historical prejudice. Paraguay has achieved this week in political terms what the Chinese can only dream of.
Friday, 25 April 2008
Friday, 18 April 2008
Chavez is no worse than Berlusconi
Witness the moral high ground taken by presidential candidate Hilary Clinton at a speech to George Washington University in March. 'I will not be pencilling in...[to meet] these dictators,' said Clinton, referring to the leaders of Venezuela, Iran and North Korea. Lumbering in Chavez with Ahmadinejad and Kim Jong Il shows Clinton's foreign policy thinking, on Venezuela at least, does not seem to have advanced beyond the primitive belligerence of Bush, but it also reflects a wider perception in Washington and Europe that Venezuela is a 'rogue state,' or at least one in the making.
The reasons are simple - Chavez represents an unrestrained ego (moulded by his military backround) only too willing to change the constitution and bend the rules of law to get his own way. He has amassed power in the executive, and has accumulated control of a majority (although by no means all) of the press, making it sympathetic to the government, he is a political radical who rejects the recieved wisdom of free trade and liberal economic policy, he is a maverick statesman who makes incendiary speeches that offend other governments and leaders and he is a populist politician who often dismisses the concerns of many in his country to get the enthusiastic backing of the majority. This, and most importantly his anti-Americanism, is seen as reason enough to make him a pariah and has sparked American accusations of dictatorship.
However, all these characteristics seem strangely and uncomfortably familiar. Haven't we seen them somewhere closer to home? If Washington sets its moral compass by Chavez, perhaps they better take a look at another country, one across the Atlantic and part of that standard bearer of liberal democracies that is the EU. Silvio Berlusconi, who has just won his third election in Italy, shares all of the above characteristics, apart from being pro-American and anti-socialist, with the exception that he has an even closer control over the press in Italy than perhaps Chavez does, and has treated equality under the law with even more contempt. Look at the shameless changing of rules under his last premiership to avoid corruption charges.
It is inconcievable that the U.S.(with its vast Italian immigrant population), or even European countries would have the courage to raise these issues - after all, Italy is a key player in the EU isn't it? Millions of Europeans and Americans holiday there every year. The fact is that both Italy and Venezuela are not exactly paradigms of liberal democracy, but nor are they threats to international security, or in the grip of dictatorship. Both of them have their own democratic system, which may seem unfamiliar, but they are democracies. Chavez has won both the last elections fairly and squarely, and has agreed to accept the verdict of the supreme court that he cannot stand for another one. And for all his bluster, Chavez has backed down over the Colombian FARC affair. We are dealing with a rational man, not a crazed monster.
The crass charicaturing of Venezuelan politics should stop, and if America does not like to hear what Chavez has to say (and a lot of it, they shouldn't) they should at least be sensible enough not to try to convince us that he is a dictator.
The reasons are simple - Chavez represents an unrestrained ego (moulded by his military backround) only too willing to change the constitution and bend the rules of law to get his own way. He has amassed power in the executive, and has accumulated control of a majority (although by no means all) of the press, making it sympathetic to the government, he is a political radical who rejects the recieved wisdom of free trade and liberal economic policy, he is a maverick statesman who makes incendiary speeches that offend other governments and leaders and he is a populist politician who often dismisses the concerns of many in his country to get the enthusiastic backing of the majority. This, and most importantly his anti-Americanism, is seen as reason enough to make him a pariah and has sparked American accusations of dictatorship.
However, all these characteristics seem strangely and uncomfortably familiar. Haven't we seen them somewhere closer to home? If Washington sets its moral compass by Chavez, perhaps they better take a look at another country, one across the Atlantic and part of that standard bearer of liberal democracies that is the EU. Silvio Berlusconi, who has just won his third election in Italy, shares all of the above characteristics, apart from being pro-American and anti-socialist, with the exception that he has an even closer control over the press in Italy than perhaps Chavez does, and has treated equality under the law with even more contempt. Look at the shameless changing of rules under his last premiership to avoid corruption charges.
It is inconcievable that the U.S.(with its vast Italian immigrant population), or even European countries would have the courage to raise these issues - after all, Italy is a key player in the EU isn't it? Millions of Europeans and Americans holiday there every year. The fact is that both Italy and Venezuela are not exactly paradigms of liberal democracy, but nor are they threats to international security, or in the grip of dictatorship. Both of them have their own democratic system, which may seem unfamiliar, but they are democracies. Chavez has won both the last elections fairly and squarely, and has agreed to accept the verdict of the supreme court that he cannot stand for another one. And for all his bluster, Chavez has backed down over the Colombian FARC affair. We are dealing with a rational man, not a crazed monster.
The crass charicaturing of Venezuelan politics should stop, and if America does not like to hear what Chavez has to say (and a lot of it, they shouldn't) they should at least be sensible enough not to try to convince us that he is a dictator.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
A politics of liberation
