The Editorial Face-Off        
The Editors
(Gabe and Anshula duke it out.)

What Would Bolivar Do?
Anshula Chowdhury - first year student studying political science.

“Why don’t you shut up?” These words, delivered to Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez by the King of Spain at a recent Ibero-Latin America conference earlier this year have been received with either looks of disgust or laughter depending on the colour of ones political stripes. Chavez, in what has become a characteristic disregard for other countries leaders, was in the process of labelling Spain’s last Prime Minister, Jose Maria Aznar a “fascist imperialist”. Events quickly took a downturn as Chavez began interrupting other heads of state to repeat (with little variance of expression) his views. Later, Spain’s current PM, Jose Luis Zapatero asked for respect regarding Spain’s political past, receiving vocal support from other conference attendees.

For some, the conference is evidence that Spain’s lingering paternalistic imperialism has met its match in Chavez’s razor edged tongue. For others, the incident shows Chavez’s worrying flirtations with a brand of populism that has polarized Latin America with meaningless rhetoric. The truth is probably more complex than either supposition.

Take for example, Chavez’s controversial education reforms.  The legislation enshrines “education, morals and enlightenment in all spheres, everywhere, at all times”. Well, with one small(ish) caveat: Only socialist morals, in socialist spheres. Indeed, a detailed reading of the reforms leaves one with the feeling that Chavez is more interested in furthering his version of the Bolivarian Revolution than investing in meaningful change. The reform highlights with clarity the heart of Chavez’s means: limiting the scope of discussion, even censoring public debate if it means further consolidating power. His proclamation of “making the Bolivarian Revolution permanent” can be taken as little else. And if education, arguably the backbone of sustainable development, is censored so easily, then what else is Chavez willing to do?

The Economist, a public affairs newspaper, often depicts Chavez as a blustering fool with a penchant for bursting into ill conceived tirades about western imperialism. However, he is a far cry from any of these caricatures. Indeed, the President understands the importance of economic power, supplying America with 11% of its crude oil (or 60% of Venezuela’s total exports) and investing the profits in a variety of different projects. This capitalist approach has led to the Banco Del Sur, or the Bank of the South. Unfortunately, the bank has served as a political thermometer for other Latin American countries, polarizing the region into pro- and anti-Chavez parties. Paired with the bank’s dearth of infrastructure to back up the rhetoric, one is left questioning whether Chavez’s Bolivarian revolution is anything more than fancy wording meant to solidify Venezuela’s growing hold on the region.

Chavez displays a repeated back-and-forth between clear vision and contradictory execution, perhaps pointing to his understanding that revolutions rarely effect lasting change quickly. Notwithstanding best intentions, the President creates distractions that are essential to maintaining the illusion of revolution. However, the recent defeat of his constitutional reforms shows evidence that the people of Venezuela, about half of whom live in poverty, have begun to question the benefits of Chavez’s power. They will find that their lot has not improved by much. Perceived improvements in literacy are actually more representative of changes in demographics: much of Venezuela’s older (and largely illiterate) population is passing away. This is juxtaposed to a dramatic increase in the birth of malnourished children and growing animosity towards Chavez’s stance from international leaders. Venezuelan politicians who point out these gaps are quickly silenced.

Venezuelans will also find that, unlike the rest of the world, they do not have the option of laughing at Chavez’s poor manners. In Venezuela, where political loyalties determine access to social services, the Bolivarian Revolution does not stand for jests at its expense. -R

Democracy for Dummies
Gabe Giauque - first year student studying political science.

You've probably heard of Hugo Chavez. He's loud, proud, and depending on your ideological persuasion, either inspiring, infuriating, or simply annoying. His recent performances include calling President Bush “the world's greatest terrorist” and “the devil” (pictured centre) at the UN General Assembly. Foreign Affairs says that Chavez is a “formidable menace to his own people” - a “power-hungry dictator who disregards the rule of law and the democratic process” with “wrong-headed social programs that will set Venezuela back.” The Bush administration claims he has committed an “assault on Venezuela's democratic institutions.”

All rhetoric aside, what is really happening in Venezuela? What do ordinary Venezuelans think about this “menace”? In the era of sound-bite journalism the facts on the ground are all too often buried beneath sensationalist headlines and government rhetoric. As a result several misconceptions exist about Chavez and his government. With the help of our misinformed questioner, let me clear up a few things.

Everyone knows that Chavez is a dictator - he's a menace to democracy! Didn't he try to be president-for-life?

Chavez was elected to office in 1998 with 56% of the vote, in democratic elections deemed “free and fair” by international observers. He was re-elected in 2000, and again in 2006.

It's true that Chavez recently proposed to scrap presidential term limits. In his own words, he wanted to stay in office “as long as the Venezuelan people support [him].” This proposal, among other constitutional changes, was given to the people in a national referendum. They narrowly voted down the measures with the “no” vote at 51%, and Chavez accepted the results. But what's the big deal in this effort anyways? He was only following the conventions of France, Italy, UK, and Canada, among other nations.

What are the gains of this so-called revolution? I heard it was a failure.

The last ten years have seen significant improvements in quality of life for the people of Venezuela.

A key part of the government's policy is the Bolivarian Missions: massive anti-poverty initiatives that use the country’s oil wealth to take on specific issues such as education and health care.

The educational missions provide free literacy training and the opportunity to complete high school to all adults. As a result one million Venezuelans have become literate, raising the literacy level to 99%. Educational spending has doubled, allowing one million more students the chance to go to school.

Mission Into the Neighbourhood aims to provide universal health care to all Venezuelans. The government built thousands of medical clinics in the country's most marginalized neighbourhoods which provide free health, dental, and preventative medical care. The World Health Organization and UNICEF have praised the program for its success.

Mission Identity provides national identity cards to the poor to facilitate their access to social services and allow them to vote in federal elections. 5.5. million poor Venezuelans, who did not have the resources to obtain an ID, can now vote for the first time in their lives.

But surely the Venezuelan people no longer support this left wing lunacy. They want Starbucks, not socialism!

Actually as of February 2008, Chavez had an approval rating of 67%. Support for the Bolivarian Missions is at 75%. These numbers come from independent polling companies – the same kind that show Bush's support is at 34%. Maybe the Bush gang dislikes Chavez so much because they're jealous that his population actually likes him.

It's no wonder his “support” is so high - Chavez silences all opposition. After all, Venezuela is the next Cuba!

In reality, the private media is fiercely anti-Chavez. Owned by members of the opposition who are opposed to the government's reforms, they are critical of his every move. They even supported his overthrow during the attempted coup of 2002. That's right – they called for the overthrow of the democratically elected government.  Translation: they committed treason. After the coup failed, Chavez declined to shut down any of these TV networks. How's that for freedom of the press?

Since coming to power, Chavez and his government have begun a progressive transformation of the state. Rejecting the neoliberal past, which emphasized IMF and World Bank directed privatizations and austerity measures, the new Bolivarian model prioritizes community development and social justice. Most importantly, Venezuelans support this independent path for their country. No matter how we feel about Venezuela we have to recognize that it is they who have rightfully chosen their leader and development model, not us. -R