For 14 years, Hugo Chavez drove Venezuela down the path towards “Bolivarian Revolution” which sought to retract the country from the neoliberal mould that American influence had long pressured Latin America into accepting. Robust additions to welfare programs, price controls, and foreign aid to socialist neighbours were made in order to achieve these ideals.
And, for over a decade, it worked (sort of). The Venezuelan poor, after years of neglect, now had a champion catering to their needs, their desires, their aspirations. And all this was channeled through the incredibly charismatic mouthpiece that was Chavez. It is more than understandable why such a constituency would cast aside cautious incremental progress in favour of Chavez’s outlandish dreams.
But the piper must be paid. Over the course of Chavez’s presidential tenure, Venezuela’s oil exports dropped by nearly half while spending promises for populist goodies skyrocketed.
Unsurprisingly, the economic fallout has been acute. Inflation for 2014 has averaged around 40 per cent, according to a report by Scotiabank Economics, down from 56.2 per cent in 2013, according to Business Insider, all part of a much longer trend.
Necessity is the great destroyer of ideology.
The very Venezuelans that the Bolivarian Revolution sought to protect — the poor — are now suffering from it, and the right-leaning middle-classes even more so. No longer can the government afford to insulate its citizenry from the faltering economy.
Chavez’s successor Nicolás Maduro is facing the bulk of the blame. But let’s not fool ourselves that it is his fault alone. For over a decade the Venezuelan citizenry has accepted sugary populism in lieu of achievable reforms. Voters ultimately deserve the people they elect and support.
And while Chavez chipped away at Venezuela’s democratic integrity through media censorship and tolerance of his supporters’ voter intimidation techniques, the country never completely left the orbit of democracy. Chavez’s political ambitions sprouted from a soil of legitimate popularity. Ultimately, it was ordinary Venezuelans who went along with the Bolivarian Revolution, and they bear responsibility for it alongside their wayward leaders.
Beset by the protests of the vengeful middle-classes, Maduro has lost much of his mandate and will have a hard time governing from now on. While it’s likely his people will retain power for another election or two, they have lost their political mandate to transform the country in their image. Bold moves that characterized the Chavez administration will no longer be palpable with the general population, and Maduro will have to be cautious.
Whether this is good or bad remains to be seen. It is an old mantra that lean times beget good policies, as fat times beget the bad. Crises leave less room for political theatre and necessitate pragmatism. But they also accentuate political differences, which can obstruct governments from feeding their nations the harsh medicine they may need.
Maduro is a committed disciple of the Bolivarian Revolution — he would not have been Chavez’s handpicked successor otherwise. But necessity is the great destroyer of ideology. Economic and political realities will force Maduro’s hand towards economic reform, regardless of how fervent the anti-government protests remain.
