"Are you a Chavista" is something I have been asked a few times in the last few days. It means "Are you in support of Chavez?" There are people in the street with his red shirts saying things like, "10 million votes against imperialism." If you are wearing a red shirt or a red hat it's a symbol of supporting Chavez here. This is the way that the people speak and represent their political persuasions in Venezuela. Everybody knows if there friends and family are with him or against him and some even have parted ways because of it. To answer this question I really need to think about how far along an ideological path I am.
I have been thinking about politics a lot for the last year or two and have always had thoughts about the way things are but they have never really been any kind of subscription, never as part of a group. I have got to a point of being quite sure about our destructive path and lack of world leadership. I believe in change but the question is down what path. To me Chavez represents hope for a region destroyed economically by IMF and World Bank policies and politically by foreign interventions against democratically elected governments and other meddling mostly by the US since the second world war under the Munroe Doctrine. When people hear this they think I´m a fanatic in supporting him but really I just think that he gives a hope for economic independence from the US by forming alliances and perhaps even a monetary fund outside their (direct) influence. Does this mean that I love Chavez?
I think to get out from under the US's economic pressures is a good thing. In that I support Chavez and I hope that the links he is creating with the other governments of the region, such as to exchange oil for doctors and other professionals with Cuba, are fruitful for all parties involved. The examples of open markets versus protected markets, South East Asia vs Latin America suggest that greater protectionism is needed from free market pressures enforced for funding by the world bank and in the free trade agreements that the US is in the process of negotiating or has just completed with the majority of countries in Latin America. Chavez speaks out against these agreements as history shows for Mexico it was a disaster and other markets that were "opened" after the fall of the Communist block also saw very hard times. In Russia poverty rose from 2% to over 20% coming out of their oppressive communist regime. I agree with this stance.
He quoted Noam Chomsky´s book "Hegemony or Survival" and called Bush the devil. I agree with this in some ways. The world does need to speak out against tyrant leaders of which Bush is surely one and Noam Chomsky is someone that everyone who cares to know about the world should read. These actions however really pushed away those not in support of him even further by being so extreme and outspoken. He does say what he wants and speaks out about many things on a daily basis here in Venezuela. So maybe I do love Chavez?
The next thing is to look at spending. He talks about helping the poor by getting them cheaper food, more access to cheap housing, free education, free health care and employment. It seems from most statistics that I have seen and people I have spoken to that he is making some changes in all these departments. The main criticisms in this area are that by providing for people he is taking away the incentive to work and that he really needs to invest in big business and the rest will follow. I'm definitely with Chavez on this one, people should be provided with these basic rights as a first priority and that is the function of government to strive to provide them to the highest level through economy. The argument of a disincentive to work doesn't come true when you look at the welfare states of Europe who provide much more for free (at least for now) than Chavez can.
Military spending? I don't know the numbers but he is definitely growing his army with a target of 1 million soldiers and using free education plus pay as an incentive to join. He is also acquiring weapons mostly from Russia (most of the world are buying them from Israel and the US - big business). I don't agree with military on the whole but with the coup against him in 2002 and the US history of military interventions against governments that oppose there economic or ideological goals he could make a case that it's necessary. I really don't like this reality.
Advertising and propaganda! Chavez and slogans supporting his government are on every wall in the city. You can see slogans about capitalism and about freeing Palestine paid for by government funds. In someways it's a good thing to get people thinking about things like Palestine but Chavez is really investing a lot of money to get his face and words everywhere he can. In the current war of publicity he faces against the world media telling his people everything he is doing is bad he does need to try to keep people loyal but I think if I lived here it would bother me seeing him so much.
So I guess from all that I have said it looks like I will be putting his poster up on my wall! In fact though what this has all really taught me is that politics shouldn't be about making heroes or demons from politicians. This goes for "the devil - Mr Danger - Bush" and Jugo Chavez they should both by individual policies and the merit of each rather than the ideology they represent. What actions their governments take should each be judged on there merits rather than creating cults of blind support or hate. Another thought I have had to go along with this is that individual policies and changes are really what a government is about.
It seems obvious that each policy is important to what legacy a government will leave but really if that is what government is about how does our democracy function. We don't have any say in policy making! We can say something every 3-7 years depending on which democracy we are a part of but in between there is little that can be done about how your country is running. Many big decisions such as going to war or privatizations are made without public consensus. This is not what the Athenian's intended for the democratic system as far as I know. They had a meeting of all men who would be required to fight a war where they would all be allowed to make statements for or against and about how the war would be carried out. Of course there were some popular voices who swayed opinion but the did require a consensus and allow input. We don't have that! In Switzerland they have referendums on big decisions every few months which requires people to take more of an interest in the decisions that there government although some seem to abuse this privilege by just towing the media line according to my friend from there.
What does this all mean about Chavez and Bush and Howard (Australian Prime Minister). It means that loving or hating your leader really isn't what politics is about. It's about making decisions to make the life better for the people that live in area being governed. I also think that we need to make a move away from governments with immunity to make big decisions about war and economy, which will affect many people both in the country they are made and abroad, to a system where what people want is reflected in policy.
From my travels I see that people want Peace, Environmental reform (people with more education value this more than those without generally) and welfare (food, housing, health, education etc.) The direction of neo-liberal regimes is away from all these goals according to all evidence in privatisation and war! Democracy ?!
So for now I'm with the ideas of Chavez but really I don't love him more than I hate Bush. I think they would both be good to have a beer with if there was no politics involved. Policies not personalities, participation not isolation from decision making.
I have been thinking about politics a lot for the last year or two and have always had thoughts about the way things are but they have never really been any kind of subscription, never as part of a group. I have got to a point of being quite sure about our destructive path and lack of world leadership. I believe in change but the question is down what path. To me Chavez represents hope for a region destroyed economically by IMF and World Bank policies and politically by foreign interventions against democratically elected governments and other meddling mostly by the US since the second world war under the Munroe Doctrine. When people hear this they think I´m a fanatic in supporting him but really I just think that he gives a hope for economic independence from the US by forming alliances and perhaps even a monetary fund outside their (direct) influence. Does this mean that I love Chavez?
I think to get out from under the US's economic pressures is a good thing. In that I support Chavez and I hope that the links he is creating with the other governments of the region, such as to exchange oil for doctors and other professionals with Cuba, are fruitful for all parties involved. The examples of open markets versus protected markets, South East Asia vs Latin America suggest that greater protectionism is needed from free market pressures enforced for funding by the world bank and in the free trade agreements that the US is in the process of negotiating or has just completed with the majority of countries in Latin America. Chavez speaks out against these agreements as history shows for Mexico it was a disaster and other markets that were "opened" after the fall of the Communist block also saw very hard times. In Russia poverty rose from 2% to over 20% coming out of their oppressive communist regime. I agree with this stance.
He quoted Noam Chomsky´s book "Hegemony or Survival" and called Bush the devil. I agree with this in some ways. The world does need to speak out against tyrant leaders of which Bush is surely one and Noam Chomsky is someone that everyone who cares to know about the world should read. These actions however really pushed away those not in support of him even further by being so extreme and outspoken. He does say what he wants and speaks out about many things on a daily basis here in Venezuela. So maybe I do love Chavez?
The next thing is to look at spending. He talks about helping the poor by getting them cheaper food, more access to cheap housing, free education, free health care and employment. It seems from most statistics that I have seen and people I have spoken to that he is making some changes in all these departments. The main criticisms in this area are that by providing for people he is taking away the incentive to work and that he really needs to invest in big business and the rest will follow. I'm definitely with Chavez on this one, people should be provided with these basic rights as a first priority and that is the function of government to strive to provide them to the highest level through economy. The argument of a disincentive to work doesn't come true when you look at the welfare states of Europe who provide much more for free (at least for now) than Chavez can.
Military spending? I don't know the numbers but he is definitely growing his army with a target of 1 million soldiers and using free education plus pay as an incentive to join. He is also acquiring weapons mostly from Russia (most of the world are buying them from Israel and the US - big business). I don't agree with military on the whole but with the coup against him in 2002 and the US history of military interventions against governments that oppose there economic or ideological goals he could make a case that it's necessary. I really don't like this reality.
Advertising and propaganda! Chavez and slogans supporting his government are on every wall in the city. You can see slogans about capitalism and about freeing Palestine paid for by government funds. In someways it's a good thing to get people thinking about things like Palestine but Chavez is really investing a lot of money to get his face and words everywhere he can. In the current war of publicity he faces against the world media telling his people everything he is doing is bad he does need to try to keep people loyal but I think if I lived here it would bother me seeing him so much.
So I guess from all that I have said it looks like I will be putting his poster up on my wall! In fact though what this has all really taught me is that politics shouldn't be about making heroes or demons from politicians. This goes for "the devil - Mr Danger - Bush" and Jugo Chavez they should both by individual policies and the merit of each rather than the ideology they represent. What actions their governments take should each be judged on there merits rather than creating cults of blind support or hate. Another thought I have had to go along with this is that individual policies and changes are really what a government is about.
It seems obvious that each policy is important to what legacy a government will leave but really if that is what government is about how does our democracy function. We don't have any say in policy making! We can say something every 3-7 years depending on which democracy we are a part of but in between there is little that can be done about how your country is running. Many big decisions such as going to war or privatizations are made without public consensus. This is not what the Athenian's intended for the democratic system as far as I know. They had a meeting of all men who would be required to fight a war where they would all be allowed to make statements for or against and about how the war would be carried out. Of course there were some popular voices who swayed opinion but the did require a consensus and allow input. We don't have that! In Switzerland they have referendums on big decisions every few months which requires people to take more of an interest in the decisions that there government although some seem to abuse this privilege by just towing the media line according to my friend from there.
What does this all mean about Chavez and Bush and Howard (Australian Prime Minister). It means that loving or hating your leader really isn't what politics is about. It's about making decisions to make the life better for the people that live in area being governed. I also think that we need to make a move away from governments with immunity to make big decisions about war and economy, which will affect many people both in the country they are made and abroad, to a system where what people want is reflected in policy.
From my travels I see that people want Peace, Environmental reform (people with more education value this more than those without generally) and welfare (food, housing, health, education etc.) The direction of neo-liberal regimes is away from all these goals according to all evidence in privatisation and war! Democracy ?!
So for now I'm with the ideas of Chavez but really I don't love him more than I hate Bush. I think they would both be good to have a beer with if there was no politics involved. Policies not personalities, participation not isolation from decision making.
Posts
