Emiliano Zapata, the Indian peasant who led
the great Mexican Revolution early in the twentieth century once told his followers,
“Don’t trust your leaders. Trust only yourselves.” He was a great human being
who rose from illiteracy to become a national figure who was loved by the poor.
A few days ago Hugo Chavez the President of Venezuela lost his battle with cancer
and died aged 58. Elected four times into office he was an uncompromising
believer in equality and justice and spent most of his political life fighting
tirelessly on behalf of the poor of his country. He took away the power and
privileges of the rich, nationalized the oil industry which formed the basis of
their wealth and redistributed it to the hungry and needy. Many millions of
peasants and those of the endless city shacks benefitted from the free
medicines, clean water, decent new accommodation and the fair priced food he
made sure they got.
Surely such a man should have been universally
loved and admired. Not at all! America’s politicians along with all the greedy
and exploitative rich across South America hated him for it. The fact that he
expropriated the wealth of the few and gave the poor and hungry of Venezuela
hope and pride made him an enemy of the Republican Party in a country where at
least a third of the people live in dire poverty and want to keep it that way.
Understand this, nobody in America cares about the poor of America because
America is a society where nobody much cares about anyone else. Not necessarily
because they don’t want to but because they don’t know how to!
Historically America was created as part of
a struggle against a colonial power by men and women who sought to choose their
own individual political destiny. Consequently the society that emerged was
formed on a basis of individualism and personal initiative. Any ideas of
equality and comradeship, of people caring about each other was entirely
anathema to the mindset and values of those who fought for colonial freedom. A mindset dominated by the idea of
individual liberty rather than collective freedom. When American
politicians today talk of liberty and freedom, two key words in their lexicon,
they do not mean them to have any connection to the idea of equality between people. Their idea of liberty and freedom is the liberty and freedom for
people to be individualists. For example that each man and woman can own a gun
if they choose without interference from any outside collective body such as
the State!
According to its Constitution, the personal
rights of each individual in America are paramount. The effect of this is to institutionalize selfishness and
preclude the possibility of anyone caring about anyone else. In Europe, with
our different history, we might until recently have found it difficult to
understand a society where nobody cared about or helped anyone else which is
why trades unions only formed in America under such violent conditions.
Recently however in Britain we see the emergence of a society dominated by
rampant individualism i.e. the conduct of bankers unashamedly awarding
themselves outrageous bonuses and salaries while their banks make stupendous
losses at the expense of the taxpayer or the executives of American
multinational corporations engaging in tax avoidance practices, likewise at the
expense of the British people. This emergence into British life of unrequited
rampant individualism is of course a product of the Thatcher era. A time of
cooing supercilious lying par excellence!
Of course, it then is only natural that the
actions of Hugo Chavez to help the poor of his country by promoting equality
through redistributing wealth should bring the condemnation of British and
American politicians. Natural because in America no individual is responsible
for the welfare of any other. There can be no generalised welfare. No welfare
state. No care or concern about the welfare of anyone else. Only your own!
Anything else is collectivism. Communism! Inequality therefore becomes something
God given which explains the extreme religiosity of its population!
In Venezuela the majority of the poor are
of indigenous Indian descent. The same applies throughout most of the continent
of South America. The native Indian population is right at the bottom of the
pile. Hugo Chavez was one of them. Much is made of his charisma, his singing
and clowning. In Britain we like our political leaders to look like Neville
Chamberlain with stiff white wing collars, grey moustaches and bowler hats. Men
wearing red berets and military fatigues just isn’t British. It’s Latin American!
British political leaders aren’t supposed to sing or play a guitar. They’re
expected to hold up little pieces of paper and grin!
The Venezuelan leader was a four times
elected political populist. Described as ‘controversial’ at home by his enemies
from the business class because he used his power to promoted equality and
justice, the view is perhaps more applicable to his political friendships with
certain other world leaders among whom were Robert Mugabe, Ahmed Ahmadinejad of
Iran, Fidel Castro, Evo Morales of Bolivia, the Presidents of Argentina and
Uruguay and of course George Galloway! Now what on earth one might ask unites
these people as a friend of a friend of the poor? Chavez stated his belief in
socialism many times over but many of the above are anything but. One’s an
Islamist and anti-socialist with strong anti-Semitic tendencies, another a tribal
populist with anti-socialist views while the socialism of Morales and Castro is
more akin to Latin American syndicalism than European Marxism. And while
Galloway himself is certainly no revolutionary Marxist at least he’s indignant!
Here then is Chavez in company with some very
strange bedfellows. There’s nothing at all ideological that connects any of
these people, like Ahmadinejad the Islamist with Kirchner of Argentina. On the
surface there’s only a generalised antipathy towards the United States and in
some cases Israel. America was indeed the dominant power in Central and South
America throughout the twentieth century and ran the whole continent like a
collection of colonies on behalf of mining, agricultural and financial
corporations through corrupt and violent local appointees, usually military
dictators, and the people who suffered most during this time were its native
Indian populations and the endless number of mixed race poor. Cuba on the other
hand was once a fiefdom of the American Mafia. In short, it’s only an anti-American,
anti-colonialist populism that brings them together but that kind of simmering
resentment was never really much of a glue! That’s to be found elsewhere. In
the economics of oil rather than the fervor of ideology.
Venezuela is the world’s fourth largest oil
producer with an annual revenue from it approaching 100 billion dollars. During
his time in office Chavez supplied oil on exceptionally favorable terms to many
of the above political leaders and together with Iran acts to manipulate supply
and price controls in OPEC, the international cartel of energy producers.
Therein lies his connection to the Iranian anti-Semite and enemy of Israel and
explains Venezuela’s break of diplomatic ties with the Jewish State. The
relationship between Chavez and Argentina is something else. In recent years he
paid off the debt owed by Argentina to the rest of the world in the aftermath
of its currency crash and need to borrow widely on the international markets.
Argentina came close to bankruptcy. Economic collapse was narrowly averted and
the country nudged back on its feet by the oil wealth of its Latin American
neighbor helping it avoid having to return cap in hand to the bankers of Wall
Street. Besides, such a link with Argentina would help isolate Brazil, the real
economic power house of the continent and no friend of its southern neighbor.
The same went for Uruguay. Oil for influence! Castro on the other hand got it
for free and sent Venezuela large numbers of doctors. As for Morales, the
minerals of Bolivia were a natural exchange for the liquid gold of its friend
to the north.
The oil wealth of Venezuela then was the
currency of economic exchange cementing good relations between Chavez and his
Latin American neighbours. It gave him a powerful degree of geo-political clout
which enabled him to reduce the influence of the United States in its Latin
American backyard and substitute his own, something his Iranian partner in OPEC
would certainly approve. Oil, as a sound economic basis for good mutual relations
could be mixed with Chavez’ genuine ideological beliefs and local political
aspirations. Venezuela’s oil wealth enabled him to actualize his socialism and
put into practice his passion for equality and justice for its Indian people
and poor. Most of the international political leaders with whom he joined never
had that kind of ‘local’ interest. They were united more by antipathy towards
the United States and Britain as colonial powers than by any ideology or
concern for their poor. In any case Venezuela today still has a comprehensive
capitalist economy and Chavez’ economic model has been described as being more
of a ‘pro-poor capitalism’ than anything socialist or Marxist.
Nonetheless it brought him the friendship
and admiration of various European radicals and socialists among whom was
George Galloway, outspoken himself and never shy about being seen in the
company of like-minded world leaders although, quite frankly, I somehow can’t
see Robert Mugabe appearing on a TV reality show kissing the feet of some babe!
Nor Fidel Castro come to think of it! Chavez perhaps, if the mood took him! He
was leftist and populist. A man who gave the oppressed poor a voice, they gave
him theirs and trusted him with it. Looked at from the general standpoint of
American politicians he was an unreconstructed Marxist demagogue but then these
people would hold such a view against
anyone critical of the vile excesses of American Imperial policy in Latin
America over many decades; imprisonment and death on a grand scale for anyone
who stood up and spoke out. Yes, those who hated him only ever had a concern
for the interests of the rich and the powerful.
Hugo Chavez was certainly no revolutionary
Marxist, or military liberator of the style of Simon Bolivar. But like Bolivar
he did have a singularly Latin American vision. Both were great
anti-colonialist campaigners. One against Spain the other an unrequited critic
of American neo-Imperialism. Bolivar, who died disillusioned and a lonely spent
force later became a universal political hero throughout South America. Chavez,
who died a populist hero in Venezuela, awaits a fate as yet undecided in the
hall of fame of those who championed the poor. So despite serious misgivings about
the character of his political friends on the world stage I nonetheless say,
for your struggle to give the poor of your country equality, justice and a
vision of better things, along with a superb national youth orchestra, VIVA CHAVEZ!
You had the heart to care about ordinary
people in a way that British politicians never could. Millions across the world
mourn your passing.
No comments:
Post a Comment