Hugo Chavez, Evo Morales and the Bolivarian Revolution: Democracy, Latin American Style

“Democracy is a very radical thing. Capitalists don’t like it, because it takes power from them and gives it to people who haven’t got money.” Tony Benn, retired British MP.

Indeed, democracy is a radical idea. It is also a fragile entity. Its meaning is often abused and misused. It is now celebrated and practiced in more parts of the world than at any time in recorded history. From the various definitions of democracy at our disposal, a consensus develops that democracy is a form of government in which the power rests with the people, whose business is carried out by leaders who are freely elected on a regular basis. The sixteenth President of the United States, Abraham Lincoln, famously defined democracy as “government of the people, by the people and for the people” in his Gettysburg Address.

With these and other philosophies of how democracy should work and what it should look like, we can see that progress in social justice through democratic means would be highly desirable to nations with a majority of their citizens living in poverty. In December of 2007, I read an article in the British newspaper The Guardian highly critical of Venezuelan President Hugh Chavez. It was the type of criticism on display in the article that was cause for concern and made me want to know more about this charismatic leader who has been elected and re-elected, through the democratic process, by a country with a massive population of poor, indigenous people. The first criticism that was problematic was that Chavez is “ubiquitous” in Venezuela, on murals, in the media, in conversation with strangers. A simple “so what” should suffice in response to that critique. However, the author of the piece also claimed that somehow Chavez had overreached when he called a referendum on constitutional changes. He was rebuffed at the polls, despite his overwhelming popularity, and he accepted the verdict as any good champion of democracy should. These petty criticisms galvanized my interest in the Latin American political scene.

Hugo Chavez coined the phrase “Bolivarian Revolution” to evoke in the minds of his people the memory of “The Liberator”, Simon Bolivar, and to define his aims for a socially just Venezuela. Evo Morales, democratically elected President of Bolivia, a country renamed after the same Liberator Chavez emulates, has demonstrated a similar trajectory in his rise to power. With this blog, I will show how both of these leaders are connected by similar socialist movements, how they were influenced, politicized and radicalized by forces both inside and outside of their region, and how they continue to battle these same forces who wish to control their respective countries' resources and undermine their democracies, all the while demonstrating to the rest of the world that the democratic process can work for social justice.

It would be difficult to understand the motivations and leanings of Chavez and Morales without an appreciation for the two men who most influence them, the Liberator and the Teacher, Simon Bolivar and Simon Rodriguez. In the 1790’s, a young Caracas schoolteacher named Simon Rodriguez wrote a memorandum to the city fathers, expressing his desire to see children of Indians provided with free education in public schools, just like the children of wealthy whites. Thus began a sojourn which would start with Rodriguez’ joining a movement for the independence of Latin America from Spanish colonial rule, and would continue in his travels throughout Europe, from which he came away with the notion that Latin Americans must do things differently in order to overcome colonialism. It is said that Rodriguez was 100 years ahead of his time not only in his belief in indigenous equal rights, but also his unconventional views on education and commerce. In his primary school classroom in Caracas, there sat in rapt attention a pupil named Simon Bolivar.

The leader of rebellions against the Spanish empire in the Andean countries of Latin America, Simon Bolivar and his armies fought for more than 10 years to secure their liberation in the early 1800’s. Before taking the mantle of leadership in his region of the world, Bolivar traveled extensively throughout Europe, where he crossed paths again with his teacher, Rodriguez, who introduced him to European scientists and philosophers and to the writings of the Enlightenment, laying the foundation for the kind of advanced political theory that would put him, like his teacher, well ahead of his time.

Hugo Chavez was inspired as much by the words of Rodriguez and Bolivar as their deeds on the battlefield or in the streets. What Rodriguez meant by Latin America doing things differently can be found in these words: “Spanish America is an original construct. Its institutions and its government must be original as well, and so too must be the methods used to construct them both. Either we shall invent, or we shall wonder around and make mistakes.” These words help us to uncover the mindset behind Chavez’ aims for a socially just Venezuela and an integrated Latin America. Chavez was first elected President in 1998, and re-elected in 2000 and 2006, and was victorious in a recall attempt in 2004. Chavez’ platform is based on economic development through nationalization of Venezuela’s natural resources and redistribution of land rights, among others, and attempts to forge cooperation and integration of this and other policies among his regional allies.

Chavez and Bolivian President Evo Morales are linked in more than just their desire for social and economic justice by democratic means. They are both indigenous people; in fact, Morales is his country’s first fully indigenous head of state since the time of Spanish colonial rule. The other connection is their involvement in a political organization called Movimiento al Socialismo, or Movement Towards Socialism. Among the party’s aims are nationalization of industries and equality in distribution of natural resources. Thanks in large part to his support from the majority indigenous community, Morales was swept into office in 2005 with 53% of the vote. In a 2008 recall referendum, his mandate was solidified when he won 67% of the electorate. The polls were observed by members of the European Parliament.

These leaders are connected not only in their understanding of the historical importance of Latin American independence won by Bolivar and others, but also in their determination to avoid a repeat of more recent threats to indigenous rights and democracy. It is the event referred to as “the other September 11”, the September 11, 1973 overthrow of Salvador Allende’s democratically-elected government and installation of right-wing dictator Augusto Pinochet, that rouses leftist Latin American leaders to unite against external imperialistic interference (there is ample evidence that this coup was backed by the CIA). The 15-year despotism of Pinochet and subsequent right-wing dictatorships in Nicaragua, Brazil, Uruguay, Columbia and others in the 1970’s and 1980’s are today a rallying cry for leftist governments wishing to entrench democratic socialism in the region. This legacy of totalitarianism and economic exploitation dating back to colonial rule is in no small measure responsible for the rise of leftist administrations in Chile, Argentina, Paraguay, Ecuador and Brazil. These governments all came to power on the coattails of Chavez’ ten years of rule in Venezuela.

Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales have endured their share of fierce opposition; Chavez’ primarily external and Morales’ internal. Chavez survived a coup in April 2002, again with at least tacit support from the U.S. government, but with the help of an uprising of his supporters in Caracas shanty towns, staged a counter coup to regain his government. Several states in Bolivia that are rich in resources have mounted an opposition to Morales and are seeking autonomy. The racial overtones in the conflict (states where the majority are indigenous support Morales) have caused violent uprisings in recent months. At first it seemed Morales would take a softer approach in attempting to control the unrest, but more recently has declared martial law in one of the opposition provinces.

The Bolivarian revolution is now ten years old. Amid unrest and clamor, a tremendous amount of social and economic change has taken place in Venezuela and throughout Latin America. Chavez’ education reforms have overseen a rise in literacy rates which puts Venezuela at number one in the region in this category. Morales, despite opposition from the elite, has managed a successful agrarian reform program, parceling out land to poor indigenous farmers. One thing has not changed, however, and that is the level of antagonism and interference from the outside in their democratically-inspired affairs. Recently I read an article in which the U.S. intelligence chief stated that Chavez was “a threat to democracy”, referring specifically to his attempt to gain additional parliamentary powers, which in fact went down to defeat in a recall referendum. I would argue that while Chavez may be a threat to capitalism, or multinational corporations, he is not only not a threat to democracy, but indeed a champion of the democratic ideal.

The Bolivarian revolution and other populist campaigns are not just ideological in nature. There is much that Americans can learn from the Latin American struggle for autonomy, beyond that of mere difference of opinion in policy. If more Americans made the connection between how their government attempts to exploit resources in other countries, whether human or natural, to anti-American sentiment and how their tax dollars are spent to those ends, perhaps their demands for reform and votes would take a different shape. In an increasingly interdependent global community, diplomacy at the point of a gun is simply no way to behave. The history of Latin America is littered with the experience of American and European oppression and interference, and the rise of leftist politics in places like Venezuela, Bolivia and others is a direct reaction to that experience. The people know their history, and when given the opportunity, vote accordingly. Dick Cheney famously said “The American way of life is non-negotiable.” If Americans really understood what that means, that our way of life is propped up on the backs of the poor people of other countries, perhaps as a nation we would approach foreign and domestic policy differently. Does the United States believe in democracy or not? If we do, it seems we would support movements like the Bolivarian revolution, instead of attempting to destroy them.

References
AFP, August 15, 2008. Latin America’s left wing swells with new Paraguay president. Accessed at http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hqFLYrBs7ry_miqB_KSjyiqy2J_Q
Burbach, R. (2006). Original mandate for a social revolution: Bolivia’s Evo Morales. Accessed at http://www.counterpunch.org/burbach01242006.html
Carroll, R. (2007, December 21). Continent just gets a word in edgeways. The Guardian UK, pp. 8.
Chelala, C. (2005). Hugo Chavez: The anti-elite president. Accessed at http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0927-25.htm
German Press Agency (2007, January 30). Chavez a threat to democracy, U.S. intelligence chief says. Accessed at http://rawstory.com/news/2006/Chavez_a_threat_to_democracy_US_int_01302007.html
Gott, R. (2005). Hugo Chavez and the bolivarian revolution. London, Verso
Forero, J (2004, December 3). Documents show CIA knew of coup plot in Venezuela, The New York Times
Kornbluh, P. (1998). Chile and the United States: Declassified documents relating to the military coup, September 11, 1973. Accessed at http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/nsaebb8i.htm
Schmitz, D. (2006). The United States and Right-Wing Dictatorships, 1965-1989. New York, Cambridge University Press