I’ve never claimed to be anything of an expert on Venezuela or Latin America. But lately I have been fascinated by the polarized reaction to the death of former Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez. His critics have characterized his legacy as one of authoritarianism, corruption and rebelliousness. But his supporters, outpouring with grief over their recent loss, remember him as a champion of the poor and one of the greatest Latin American leaders that ever lived.
The truth is probably somewhere in between these two extremes, but as a leftist myself, it’s hard to overlook Chavez’s many accomplishments in alleviating poverty and empowering the lower class in Venezuela.
Poverty levels were cut in half during his presidency, and extreme poverty declined by 72 percent. In his first term, he led the creation of a new Venezuelan constitution that expanded political and civil rights for women and indigenous peoples. And during his 14 years as president, he increased access to health care for millions, made higher education more affordable and made Venezuela the most equitable country in Latin America measured by the Gini coefficient. On the other hand, some criticize Chavez for wasting his country’s vast amount of oil reserves and achieving sub-par economic development.
Despite the fact that Chavez was voted into office in fair, democratic elections on four separate occasions by at least a margin of 10 percent every time, media in the United States consistently refer to him as “a dictator.” The justification for this comes from a laundry list of accusations from organizations like Human Rights Watch about Chavez’s attempts to consolidate power and silence political opponents. Perhaps most recently and controversially, the United Nations and human rights groups criticized Chavez for creating a climate of fear with the 2009 arrest and imprisonment of Judge Maria Lourdes Afiuni.
Unfortunately, this ubiquitous characterization of Chavez as an autocrat during his life and presidency has apparently given the US media license to simplify and make a mockery of Chavez’s death. Less than a week after Chavez died, Justin Timberlake performed a crude version of Elton John’s “Candle In the Wind” on Saturday Night Live with lyrics that ridiculed Chavez as a baffoon who believed that “capitalism killed Mars.” Even National Public Radio noted that Chavez has been labeled “a dictator” and a “tyrant” just days after his death, while millions of Venezuelan citizens wept bitterly over their loss.
I do not want to defend Chavez as a flawless leader — he certainly was not. Rather, I want to condemn the arrogance and hypocrisy with which many in the United States sneer at Chavez’s life and legacy at the time of his death. In a country where our president has unconstitutionally granted himself the power to murder American citizens without due process or oversight, the media should pause before referring to Hugo Chavez as a tyrannical dictator.
Those who would quickly jump on the anti-Chavez bandwagon should be aware that the U.S. government has long had an interest in sullying Chavez’s reputation. Just days ago, Wikileaks published a 2006 cable written by former US ambassador to Venezuela, William Brownfield, in which he wrote that the embassy’s core objectives in the country were to undermine the Chavez regime and his political base. The reason? “(To protect) vital US business.” In coordination with USAID and the Office of Transition Initiatives, Brownfield said the “majority” of the agencies’ activities were directed at “penetrating Chavez’ political base,” “dividing Chavismo” and “isolating Chavez internationally.”
The United States, which many have called the world’s “policeman” and “beacon of democracy,” has been caught red-handed — again — interfering with another sovereign nations’ democratic process. And sadly, the U.S. media continues to loyally serve as Washington’s handmaiden in the promulgation of propaganda to undermine U.S. politicians’ political enemies.
Right now, as the pundits impugn Chavez and lampoon his life, it may be difficult for the average American to understand the historical significance of his presidency and his death. But I think in time we will look back at Chavez the same way we look back at Salvador Allende, the charismatic socialist leader of Chile during the early 1970s. Like Chavez, Allende was seen as a political enemy because he threatened U.S. business interests and Washington’s neoliberal agenda in the region. Both men are examples of democratically elected leaders that the United States discredited and undermined for purely self-interested reasons. But both men will continue to be revered in their respective countries for years to come for their attempts to alleviate poverty and empower the lower class.
With our own nation’s disturbing history of corruption, military dominance and propaganda campaigns, it’s more than hypocritical for the U.S. media to continue to hurl insults at Chavez while Venezuelans still mourn their leader’s death — it’s utterly disrespectful. My advice to Americans: Don’t throw stones in a glass house.
Jared Moffat ’13 can be contacted at jared_moffat@brown.edu.
ADVERTISEMENT
